Europe must pay its dues to Nato
As he arrived in Brussels for a meeting with European defence chiefs, Gen James Mattis had warm words for Nato, describing it as the “fundamental bedrock” of the US’s relationship with Europe. After months of Nato bashing by Donald Trump, it will reassure America’s allies to know that the president’s defence secretary takes a more positive view, at least in principle.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Gen Mattis will take a no less conciliatory position than his boss when it comes to the question of Nato’s funding. Indeed, the US has indicated that its partners have a year to mend their monetary ways — if they don’t, America may “moderate its commitment”. It is quite an ultimatum.
It is important to remember, though, that American concern that it pays more than its fair share of Nato’s costs is not an invention of the new regime. The Obama administration made it clear on several occasions that it was uneasy at the defence cuts being made by its European partners; and anxiety at the prospect of further retrenchment in Britain was particularly troubling.
As things stand, Nato says that only the US, Britain, Poland, Estonia and Greece are meeting the target of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.
Even this is the subject of dispute. A report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded on Tuesday that Britain’s defence spending had dipped just below the 2% figure.
Unsurprisingly, the Ministry of Defence said the calculation was flawed. Either way, though, the US wants its allies to stump up more. British Prime Minister Theresa May was all smiles when she appeared to win a commitment to Nato’s future from President Trump — now we can be in no doubt that America wants firm and speedy financial assurances in return.
In truth, the Americans are right to press for greater input from their partners. Austerity may still be stunting growth across Europe and the last thing the world needs is a new arms race; but now is not the moment to let Nato wither. Gen Mattis described it as “the most successful military alliance in history” and it is important for European and global security that it remains so.
Just a few days ago, the New York Post reported claims by unnamed intelligence source that Russia has deployed a new cruise missile in breach of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
The reports were conveniently timed for the Nato summit, and were immediately met with a firm denial from the Kremlin. Yet at their heart is the indisputable truth that Russian intentions towards the West are more uncertain today than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nato is the only effective bulwark against the potential strategic threats posed by Moscow.
Baseline budgets, though, are not the be all and end all. Splashing extra cash on hardware or additional troops is a way to increasing available resources, but the most important issue for Nato to determine is what its core objectives are.
The organisation’s difficulties in Afghanistan showed it has limitations as an expeditionary force. By contrast, when the Cold War was at its height, Nato’s focus was based around notions of deterrence and collective defence. With Russia now more militarily active than for many years, Nato’s future role may lie in an echo of the past.
Europeans may wonder whether President Trump is genuinely committed to making Nato work. With Gen Mattis’s ultimatum ringing in their ears, they know they will have to pay up in order to find out.