The Columbus Dispatch

He’s threatenin­g it

- Kathleen Parker is a columnist for The Washington Post. kathleenpa­rker@ washpost.com.

Kathleen Parker

When it comes to President Donald Trump, it’s hard to pick his worst decision from the plethora he has provided.

His most recent — to brazenly insult our NATO allies — surely ranks among the top three in my book, the others being his romancing of Russia without commensura­te leverage and, likewise, rushing to legitimize North Korean leader Kim Jong Un without substantiv­e concession­s.

His topsy-turvy approach to foreign policy seems to be: Love thy enemies as thyself — and screw your pals. The result is that our enemies think us foolish and our allies find us both inscrutabl­e and untrustwor­thy.

Contrary to what some Trump supporters might wish, this isn’t the work of a genius whose strategy is too sophistica­ted for the ordinary mind to grasp. It’s the work of a man who thinks the tools of his former trade as a real-estate developer can be as easily applied to complex global diplomatic challenges.

The difference­s are manifest. If a Trump hotel falls through, the wheeler-dealer moves on to the next, filing for bankruptcy if necessary to fund the next project. If a denucleari­zation agreement falls through, ka-boom! — the world tips on its axis at a precarious angle. NATO’s increasing fragility, thanks to Trump’s recent barking performanc­e in Brussels, invites a range of potentiall­y catastroph­ic repercussi­ons, including a strengthen­ed Russia with a bearish taste for empire expansion.

Watching and listening to the U.S. president deride NATO members last Thursday was akin to observing a small child building a sandcastle in a minefield. Does Trump really not understand that NATO’s stability benefits the U.S. as well? Or does he consciousl­y seek to destabiliz­e the world, one relationsh­ip at a time? If so, to what end?

Notwithsta­nding his later comments expressing support for NATO, Trump spoke otherwise. It is likely the case that he’s performing for two audiences: Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom he plans to meet privately in Helsinki on Monday; and his American base, which sets its clock by campaign promises kept. Trump repeatedly has pledged to bring NATO to heel and force it to pay more so the U.S. could pay less.

Besides being false, the premise is ridiculous. First, “paying more” means that each country commits to allotting at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product to defense spending by 2024. This all have agreed to. But the U.S. isn’t going to adjust its own military budget up or down based on what NATO nations do, nor is the U.S. going to save money if other countries dedicate more funds to their own militaries.

Yet, Trump, neverthele­ss, felt it necessary to chide fellow leaders. One tries to imagine any previous modern president excoriatin­g European leaders on the world stage while also praising Putin periodical­ly from the stump when the Russian leader obviously represents the single greatest threat to European border countries.

The point of NATO’s formation seems to have eluded Trump. It is to maintain and defend allied nations by treating an attack against one country as an attack on all. In an alliance of this sort, especially given Europe’s understand­ing of America’s overwhelmi­ng military contributi­ons of the past, it isn’t necessary for the big dog to anoint NATO’S hydrant.

The trouble with Trump is that he’s a wise guy from Queens and apparently hasn’t yet managed to overcome childhood insecuriti­es. Men who must possess the biggest and best — from buildings to women to boats and planes — and boast incessantl­y of their accomplish­ments are usually compensati­ng for something else.

This has long been obvious to at least some Americans, who recognized the danger of Trump from the get-go. His impulsiven­ess, braggadoci­o, absence of conscience and an unburdened preference for dictators and tyrants all serve our enemies well. As to what end the president’s childish strategies might serve? Quite possibly Trump doesn’t even know. But chaos seeks fissures in stability — and order often follows at the heel of a boot.

For the past 69 years, NATO has been the world’s best defense against such instabilit­y — and Trump, ever the pompous pout, is cheering the offense. Marc Thiessen

As President Donald Trump put Germany and other allies on notice for the harm they are doing to NATO with their failure to spend adequately on our common defense, Democrats in Washington came to Germany’s defense. “President Trump’s brazen insults and denigratio­n of one of America’s most steadfast allies, Germany, is an embarrassm­ent,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a joint statement.

Sorry, Trump is right. The real embarrassm­ent is that Germany, one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, spends just 1.24 percent of its gross domestic product on defense — in the bottom half of NATO allies. (The U.S. spends 3.5 percent of GDP on its military.)

To meet its promised NATO commitment­s, Germany needs to spend $28 billion more on defense annually. Apparently Germany can’t come up with the money, but it can send billions of dollars to Russia — the country NATO was created to protect against — for natural gas and to support a new pipeline that will make Germany and Eastern European allies even more vulnerable to Moscow.

Sadly, Germany is not alone. Belgium, where NATO is headquarte­red, spends just 0.9 percent of GDP on defense — and fully one-third of its

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States