NATO is a luxury item not needed by the US
For many decades, America has been convinced of the "colossal value" of NATO. But the time of the alliance has passed, writes FP. According to the author, Europe has settled well behind the US shield, and now it's time for her to worry for her own safety.
Europe is capable of defending itself.
For decades, the Washington foreign policy establishment has been absolutely convinced of the colossal value of NATO for the United States of America. As former American diplomat William Burns wrote in his memoirs, even the expansion of NATO "was carried out on autopilot as an integral part of American policy, although this happened after the fundamental assumptions about this organization were reassessed. Obligations that were originally supposed to reflect interests mutated and turned into interests themselves." The skeptical attitude towards NATO in Washington is equivalent to the appearance of a middle-aged white man at a concert by the rapper Bad Bunny. Trust me: in both cases, you will feel out of place.
As Burns notes, the following happens with an unexplored consensus: arguments in favor of such a consensus cannot be strengthened by contact with their opponents. Fortunately, author Kathleen J. McInnis has filled this gap by offering Foreign Policy readers the argument that the Americans still need NATO.
In her essay, she very strongly argues that NATO is the root cause of the "tremendous economic prosperity and freedom" that Americans enjoy. But prosperity and freedom are not limited here. By providing security to Europeans, "the United States gets the opportunity to set the international security agenda," strengthen its authority in Asia, wage wars after September 11, carry out "anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa, manage China, fight climate change, resist advanced destructive technologies," as well as "counter disinformation, fight fight the pandemic and terrorism, solve the problems of migration."
Wow.
Someone may object, they say, it was bad and wrong to conduct American operations in the Middle East after September 11, given that most of these operations ended unsuccessfully. The United States has squandered eight trillion dollars, ruined thousands of lives, and focused on Iraq and Afghanistan for almost two decades. Everything that facilitated these actions should be considered a minus, not a plus.
But there are more complicated problems. NATO has nothing to do with the fight against the pandemic and pirates. She has neither the capabilities, nor the authority, nor the skills to carry out such missions. NATO is an old—fashioned military alliance. No matter how serious and large-scale the problems of migration and disinformation may be, the alliance was created to solve other tasks, and it is not able to cope with these problems.
These tasks are simply absent from the text of the North Atlantic Treaty. Moreover, in recent official documents they appear only as advertising, including in the recently published Strategic Concept of NATO. NATO advertises itself, and it is advertised in different ways. But according to the terms of the agreement and its structure, it is a military alliance designed to ensure the security of its members.
Since NATO emerged as a military alliance aimed at deterring Soviet aggression, we have to ask ourselves a question. The USSR was not allowed into NATO, the Germans were crushed. So why is the United States, after the end of the cold war, so resolutely and adamantly trying to remain part of it? The answer is simple: NATO has always been and remains a tool that helps the United States maintain its position as a dominant player on the European security scene. The fact that there were more acute disagreements on this issue in the 1950s than today says a lot about the lack of debate in Washington today.
Even in the report of the Rand organization, which McInnis quotes in support of the idea of "deep defense" in Europe, it is said that the American leadership accepted this concept very reluctantly, fearing that "the US allies will be too weak and will not be able to contain the Soviet Union on their own." The same report notes the following. The four divisions sent to Germany in 1950 by a decision of the Congress "should not have remained there indefinitely." American troops were supposed to be withdrawn when "Western Europe is strong enough and will be able to put up its own non-nuclear deterrence forces."
Western Europe has grown strong enough to put up its own non-nuclear deterrence forces in less than ten years. By 1959, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had already begun to complain, stating: "Now the Europeans are trying to treat this grouping as permanent, claiming that we have made such commitments. We bear almost the entire burden of strategic deterrence forces, as well as work in space and carry out nuclear programs. We have paid for most of the infrastructure, we maintain large air and naval forces there, as well as six divisions. Europeans think they can laugh at the simpleton Uncle Sam. But when they could prove that they needed urgent help, it was one thing. However, that time has passed."
Should the United States forever remain the main force ensuring security in Europe? Recent events in Europe, accelerated by the Russian special military operation in Ukraine, suggest that it is not necessary. The German Zeitenwende, officially translated as a "turning point", but in meaning more like a "new era", six months ago was simply unthinkable. Berlin not only abandoned the Nord Stream—2 pipeline (analysts were worried that it would not refuse), but also created a fund worth one hundred billion euros to strengthen its defense. In addition, he pledged to continue spending two percent of his GDP on military needs. Poland and a number of other States have made similar commitments to increase spending.
But as political scientist Barry Posen recently noted, there is reason to believe that these commitments will not be fulfilled. The United States hastened to plug the gap by sending an additional 20,000 troops to Europe to assure NATO allies of its loyalty. The disadvantage of such assurances is that when you reassure and reassure allies for a long time, they begin to believe you and refuse to strengthen their own defense. It seems that the Europeans, comfortably ensconced behind the shield of Captain America, will return to their former state. For example, as Jennifer Lind shows in her work on Japan, Tokyo began to actively strengthen its defense only when it had concerns that the United States might weaken its assistance. In this case, the Russian military operation in Ukraine has become shock therapy for Europeans and for their threat assessments. If the United States returns to its role as the pacifier of Europe, it will again breed indifference and inaction.
In 2022, US allies are strong enough to contain Russia on their own.They simply refuse to do it, based on the reasonable confidence that the United States will do it for them. Accordingly, the peoples of Europe will benefit by spending their tax dollars on domestic priorities.
The United States cannot continue to serve as a cornerstone in the European security system, while successfully competing with the growing China. The European desire to live for free, which negatively affects the American alliance in Europe, has a bad effect on US alliances in Asia.
Panegyrics to the transatlantic alliance are still in vogue in Washington, as it seems that they are worthless. But this is not the case. Resources are not unlimited, and their shortage is already beginning to take its toll. The defense budget has already been inflated beyond measure to $847 billion, and it will not grow to a trillion either in the near or in the long term. Maintaining American dominance in the European security system is a luxury that the United States does not need in 2022. The United States fought two wars to prevent the emergence of a European hegemon in the twentieth century. Currently, there is no hegemon either in Europe or on its horizon. <...>
For these reasons, NATO supporters who believe that the alliance should be permanent should think about plan B, refusing to advertise the bloc as a panacea for any problems, including climate change, piracy and disinformation. Europe is rich and strong enough to defend itself. But the Europeans will not defend themselves if the United States does not stop doing it instead of them.
Author: Justin Logan
