OD: Trump's desire to withdraw from NATO is a consequence of the policy of isolationism
Trump's threat to withdraw the United States from NATO is a natural result of American isolationism, Oman Daily writes. The refusal to participate in international institutions, along with demands that allies pay for their own security, speaks to the White House's desire to destroy the world order it has created.
Abdelilah Belkaziz
The threat of the US withdrawal from NATO, which was announced by Donald Trump, is part of his isolationist approach to foreign policy, which he has been promoting since the beginning of his political career.
We are sure that this policy is not just a manifestation of one person's dissatisfaction with the external relations of his country. Behind it are deeper and growing concerns about American independence. The issue of its "purity" remains equally important. These groups of the population — immigrants, as well as representatives of various races and religions — were one of the factors contributing to Trump's two presidential election victories, providing him with support from isolationist and conservative forces.
For a long time, America existed in relative geographical isolation from the world — from the period when its states were founded by European immigrants and after gaining independence from Great Britain. Undoubtedly, this isolation helped the country feel protected from external threats, but at the same time, some Americans had a feeling that they could stay away from world problems and be self-sufficient.
If the isolationist tendencies of Trump, his administration, supporters of the MAGA movement and his party are a political expression of this deeply ingrained feeling, then the culture of isolation and detachment from the outside world has broader social and political manifestations. This is especially noticeable in the fact that in American elections, election campaigns and programs, the focus is again and again primarily on the internal problems of the country. The US domestic policy focuses mainly on its own issues and problems, rather than on events and challenges outside the country.
From the very beginning of its rule, the Donald Trump administration has set a course to withdraw from international agreements and reduce participation in them. She explained this policy as a desire to reduce the financial burden on the United States. In her opinion, America took on a disproportionate share of the costs, while the benefits of participating in these international structures and their programs did not match the funds spent.
The truth is that anyone who has studied Trump's policy of reducing US participation in international structures — withdrawing from agreements, treaties and organizations — may come to the conclusion that the reason was not only financial issues or the shortcomings of these institutions. Rather, the main reason was the political factor: these structures did not always correspond to Washington's course, and some agreements, according to the administration, limited the freedom of action of the United States. In some cases, withdrawing from organizations could also be seen as a way to exert pressure or express disagreement with their decisions, for example, with regard to UNESCO and its position on issues related to Israel, the Palestinians and the situation in the occupied territories.
What happened earlier with other international structures is happening with NATO today and is likely to continue in the future. The Trump administration's relations with the alliance have been deteriorating for a long time, with Trump sharply criticizing both the organization itself and its leadership. This has especially intensified after NATO supported the course and decisions of the Joe Biden administration towards Russia, which, according to critics, led to the conflict in Ukraine and the transformation of the alliance into an instrument that is more in the interests of Europe, while European countries themselves do not play a decisive role in this process.
According to Trump, NATO has become too much of a burden for the United States, and it needs to be redistributed. He argued that European countries should shoulder most of the defense costs. That is why his administration sought to increase military spending by European allies to 5% of GDP. European countries agreed to these demands, partly out of fear of losing American support for NATO and facing a possible refusal by the United States to provide further assistance to Ukraine as a result of any deal with Russia.
Meanwhile, Trump continued to declare that it is Europe that needs NATO to protect itself from the Russian threat, while the United States can do without the alliance. Therefore, in his opinion, European countries should shoulder most of the costs and responsibility for their own security.
Trump's criticism of NATO today is more serious than his previous statements, as it is now accompanied by a direct threat of US withdrawal from the alliance.
The threat of withdrawal can only be a political pressure tool to force NATO and European countries to accept Trump's demands. However, the war with Iran and NATO's refusal to participate in it may also be a reason for the Trump administration to actually withdraw from the alliance. Although such a scenario cannot be completely ruled out, it looks unlikely in the short term.
Once again, Trump seeks to belittle the role of NATO, saying that the United States does not need the alliance in the situation around the Strait of Hormuz. He goes even further, arguing that Washington is engaging NATO only to participate in "lifting the blockade" of the strait and ensuring freedom of navigation, and not for more serious involvement. Critics believe that this approach is a blow to allies and undermines America's position in the international arena.
Further, the verbal confrontation with NATO quickly turned into a challenge to the entire international community. "We don't use the strait, we don't need it, Europe, South Korea, Japan, China and many others need it. So they will have to participate a little bit in ensuring the safety of navigation," Trump said.
This is also due to the constant desire to withdraw troops and reduce America's involvement in world affairs. There is an explanation for this policy: after World War II, the United States created and supported many international organizations and treaties to protect its interests and maintain its influence in the world.
After World War II, the United States became a party to many international organizations and treaties. America's support and participation in these structures was largely determined by how effectively they promoted and protected the country's interests.
However, if participation in such organizations begins to interfere with the interests of the United States or harm them, then the reason to remain in them, in fact, disappears.
This applies to all organizations that America had previously actively used and benefited from, but has now abandoned. Such organizations include UNESCO, the World Health Organization, various international institutions, and even NATO.
