The Trump era has witnessed a shakeup not just in electoral politics, but also in commonly held assumptions concerning foreign policy. One assumption that stands out, in particular, is America’s role within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
NATO’s formation in 1949 was spurred by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. These world powers partnered with other European nations as a means of providing a collective defense against the imminent threat of the Soviet Union.
Kevin Barron, the editor of online news site Defense One notes that there is a crisis of confidence within NATO. The factors are numerous. Some believe that the leaders of certain member countries such as the United States and Turkey are warming up to Russia. However, a bigger concern may be NATO members’ reluctance to support the U.S. in future military endeavors. French President Emmanuel Macron was at the center of headlines last year when he described NATO as “brain dead,” casting further doubt about the organization’s usefulness in the 21st century.
From the looks of it, the organization has outlived its purpose. From the American point of view, it’s clear that the country is shouldering the overwhelming portion of the burden. According to the British research institute the International Institute for Strategic Studies, America’s defense spending in 2018 stood at $602.8 billion, which is the equivalent of 70.1 percent of total spending by all NATO member states.
As far as direct contributions to NATO are concerned, the U.S. pitched in $685 million, constituting 22.1 percent of NATO’s common funding in 2018. President Trump was right to demand that NATO members start pitching in more for defense purposes. This yielded a tangible result after NATO members came to an agreement to increase their defense spending. Now, the U.S. is only contributing 16 percent to the common fund.
In an ideal scenario, the U.S. would leave NATO altogether. The Founding Fathers were quite explicit about avoiding entangling alliances and exercising military restraint abroad. The very nature of these arrangements can get the U.S. involved in nonstop wars that are not beneficial to national interests.
We no longer have the Soviet Union as a major threat, and Russia may not be the “Big Bad” that many foreign policy experts and media commentators make it out to be these days. Although much progress is yet to be made on foreign policy, Trump has at least changed the discussion in Washington.
He did run on an “America First” platform that questioned the wisdom of nation-building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump also challenged America’s role in NATO, believing that the nation paid too much while other countries were not pulling their weight.
At the very least, we’re seeing discussions about foreign policy in terms of national interest rather than vague ideological justifications, such as “human rights” or making the world “safe for democracy.” The question is, will Trump break the mold and get the U.S. out of NATO?
Only time will tell.
Written by Jose Nino
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.