Foreign policy unites Obama, Trump

From terrorism to immigration and healthcare, President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump don’t agree on much. Obama hammers Trump on immigration policy, describing his ideas as “dangerous” and “loose talk and sloppiness.” Trump meanwhile calls Obama a “lousy president” who has done a “terrible job.”

Beyond the mutual disdain though, Obama and Trump do agree on one thing: When it comes to foreign policy, the United States supports too many “free rider” NATO allies who benefit from American military support without contributing enough to their own defense. While questioning the importance of NATO to the United States is anathema to much of the Washington foreign policy establishment, there are valid reasons to question the extent to which NATO truly promotes American national interests.

Surrounded by oceans on both sides and with stable neighbors to its north and south, the United States faces no existential threat in its immediate neighborhood. And while a nuclear-armed Russia could certainly destroy the United States many times over, the United States could do the same to Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin possesses many unpleasant qualities – but a desire for national suicide is not one of them.

Washington also comes out on the short end of the stick financially. NATO recommends that each member spend a minimum of two percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, yet according to NATO statistics for 2015 only five countries – the United States, Poland, Estonia, the United Kingdom and Greece – meet this target.

Two cases represent particularly strong examples of European “free riding.” All three Baltic nations fear a Russian invasion and demand the United States prepare to honor its obligations under NATO’s “collective defense” principle. However, while analysts refer to Lithuania’s President Dalia Grybauskait as an “Iron Lady” due to her fierce anti-Putin rhetoric, Lithuania spends only 1.14 percent of GDP on defense, making Grybauskait more like the mouse that roared than a Baltic Maggie Thatcher. And with military spend- ing of only 1.06 percent of GDP, Latvia is even worse.

American leaders also need to have a hard conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Germany possesses by far the largest economy in Europe, with a GDP approaching $4 trillion. Yet in 2015, Berlin spent only 1.18 percent of GDP on defense – representing a shortfall of over $30 billion.

Luckily for the United States, the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw offers the perfect opportunity for American policymakers to rethink NATO’s purpose and structure. For one thing, it’s long past time to put a break on admitting new members to NATO.

Second, American policymakers should tell their NATO allies that it’s time to get serious about increasing their defense spending. If NATO’s 27 other members all upped their contributions to a minimum of two percent of their GDP, that would represent an additional $132 billion in defense spending – enough to genuinely impact NATO’s overall capabilities.

To add teeth to the cajoling, Washington should inform the 23 NATO members not spending two percent of GDP on defense they have five years to reach this target – and that any countries that don’t do so risk forfeiting their American security guarantees. President Obama also needs to have a separate conversation with Baltic leaders, especially from Lithuania and Latvia. If Baltics’ fears truly align with their rhetoric, the three could look for guidance to Israel, another tiny country which views itself as facing existential threats. Israel’s population is only eight million – over 25 percent of whom are exempt from mandatory military service – yet the Israelis spend over five percent of GDP on defense, and possess a standing army of 160,000.

Finally, the United States should strongly support European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker’s call for the EU to form its own army outside NATO. According to Juncker, “With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state…a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.” The United States need not abandon its NATO allies – but it is time for Washington to insist they carry their own weight. The irrepressible Subramanian Swamy appears to be in a combative mood and has given enough indication of taking on the most powerful minister in the Union Cabinet, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. The maverick MP’s actions are as unpredictable as the man himself and of late he has taken the responsibility of lashing out at senior functionaries of the government who in his perception are not serving the “best interests of the nation”.

It is left for everyone to guess whether he has clearance from the top for doing what he is doing. However, the message clearly out in the open is that he is not going to relent in his pursuits that continue to be a cause for embarrassment for the government. Reacting to Jaitley’s defence of Arvind Subramanian, Chief Economic Adviser, and Shaktikanta Das, Economic Affairs Secretary, Swamy on Friday hinted that there could be “a bloodbath”. Jaitley while suggesting restraint by politicians had stated that “to what extent should we attack those, the discipline and constraints of whose offices prevent them from responding? And this has happened more than once.” He evidently had Swamy in mind and his comments were meant to re-assure his colleagues in the Finance Ministry that he was there to prevent them from being badgered by his party MP.

However, not the one to be taking things lying down, Swamy shot back, “people giving me unasked for advice of discipline and restraint should realise that if I disregard discipline there would be a bloodbath”. His reaction was seen as a veiled threat to the Finance Minister who overall has a very dismal view of what Swamy says and does. Jaitley is the closest confidant of the Prime Minister and Swamy seems to have the backing of a faction in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. The perception is that he was inducted in the Rajya Sabha by Narendra Modi himself.

Varied questions were raised over why the government had decided to bring in Swamy as a nominated member of the august House. One interpretation was that his entry was a signal to the Cabinet that Modi was not bound down by any one person’s advice and had therefore brought in Swamy for a specific purpose. The second interpretation was that he had been given the berth to go after the Gandhis to subdue them into submission in Parliament. Sonia Gandhi has since made it publicly known that she feared no one and thus would take on any person who works against the ideology of her party.

Swamy has left no opportunity to hit out at Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and her key advisers and has raised the issue of wrongdoings in the National Herald case, which experts agree have major legal implications and could therefore pose enormous problems for the present Congress high command.

However, the real reasons for his dislike for the Reserve Bank Governor Raghuram Rajan, Arvind Subramanian and Shaktikanta Das are still not clear. The three have been serving the government and if Modi and his ministers have any issues with them, they have no express reasons to keep them in their positions.

Swamy’s sole judgement is not sufficient enough to show them the door unless Modi concurs with his views and acts accordingly. In case he does not, it should be made amply clear so that his colleagues and others know where he stands.

There is little purpose served to have a senior MP sniping at key figures of the government while everyone else just looks on helplessly.

It is evident that Modi and his other close confidant and BJP president Amit Shah have an aversion for the political power play in Lutyens’ Delhi, reference to which has been made several times by them since assuming office. Both are from Gujarat and it is Jaitley who helped them to initially navigate through the dense complexities of New Delhi’s political quagmire. He has been their goal keeper and the screening figure on the assessment of a number of individuals.

There is no dearth of ambitious people who do not like Jaitley because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that he is the reason why they have not received what they believe the Prime Minister would have bestowed on them. Their number has been swelling despite the fact that they do not have the courage to hit out at the Finance Minister. It is this constituency of BJP hopefuls that Swamy has apparently nurtured by his sharp attacks on Jaitley’s close aides in the bureaucracy and elsewhere.

Jaitley, without doubt one of the most highly regarded ministers in the Cabinet is an important member of Team Modi as it tries to find ways and means of going forward. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that Modi should clear the air on this impending and quite inevitable confrontation that is going to spill into the third year of his Prime Ministership unless he goes in for immediate damage control. Between us.