Why I will not vote for the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO
The United States should not put its soldiers in Europe at risk, while allowing the uncontrolled growth of China's power, said US Senator Josh Hawley. He opposed the admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO.
Soon, the US Senate will vote on the issue of Sweden and Finland's admission to NATO. According to the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty, this means that the United States will be obliged to defend both countries in the event of a military attack. I intend to vote against it.
Finland and Sweden want to join the North Atlantic Alliance to prevent a further Russian offensive in Europe. This is quite understandable, given their location and the need to ensure their own safety. But America's main external adversary does not loom over Europe. It looms in Asia. I'm talking, of course, about the People's Republic of China. And when it comes to Chinese imperialism, the American people should know the truth: the United States is not ready to resist it. The expansion of American security commitments in Europe now will only exacerbate this problem and make America less secure.
China has adopted a policy of dominating its neighbors and forcing free countries to carry out their orders. The Chinese Communist Party seeks strong control over Asia and the Pacific region. And it seeks superiority over the United States in order to dictate our terms of trade to us, take away American jobs, weaken our economy and make us dependent on Beijing. If China is not stopped, it will gain such power. It will absorb Taiwan, expand the use of slave labor, intensify its global campaigns of censorship and repression, and force the United States to beg for access to the global economy. Even the Biden administration recognizes that China is the biggest threat to us right now.
Confronting this threat forces us to make difficult choices. As recognized in the US National Defense Strategies for 2018 and 2022, the United States cannot defeat China and Russia in two major wars at the same time. And in Asia we are not where we should be. Currently, the United States is not ready to repel Chinese military aggression in the Pacific Ocean. Our forces are not positioned as they should be positioned. And we do not have the necessary weapons and military equipment there, not least because we have been distracted for too long by activities to create "new states" in the Middle East and by the commitments we inherited from the past in Europe. In the face of this harsh reality, we must make a choice. We need to do less in Europe (and elsewhere) to give priority to China and Asia.
To be understood correctly, I am for the fact that America should not abandon NATO. But it's time for our European allies to do more. In particular, they should take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe with conventional weapons, investing more in their own armed forces. Back in 2006, NATO member states pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on national defense. But these costs should be higher. The United States spends much more on defense. However, many NATO members have not yet fulfilled even this minimum commitment.
And this concerns not only the interests of the United States. It's also a matter of self-preservation for our allies. If NATO member states are not ready to defend themselves, they risk being in serious danger when US forces are withdrawn from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region in the event of a crisis situation there. Now every European country must incur the necessary costs to prepare for the new threat environment or risk the worst.
As for Sweden and Finland, both of them are countries with developed economies and combat-ready armed forces. But they have not yet made political commitments corresponding to their geostrategic position. Sweden does not spend 2% of its GDP on defense and will not spend more in the coming years. And Finland, although it announced a one-time increase in military spending, did not make it clear whether they would remain at this level in the future. But in the event of a possible conflict in Europe, the US armed forces will almost certainly be involved to protect both of these countries.
And even in the absence of an armed conflict, NATO expansion would almost certainly mean an increase in the number of American troops in Europe for a long time, the deployment of more military equipment there and an increase in the flow of our dollars — to the detriment of our security needs in Asia, not to mention our needs at home in America.
The resources of the United States are far from limitless. We already spend almost a trillion dollars a year on defense. And our troops are already scattered all over the world. While we still have time, the United States should prioritize defense resources directed at China. Until our European allies assume the necessary obligations to ensure their own national defense, we should not put the lives of Americans in Europe at risk by allowing the uncontrolled growth of China's power.
For decades, NATO has been a bulwark against the militant Soviet Union, protecting the Western world and blocking the expansion of communism to the West. But more than three decades after the collapse of the USSR, the geopolitical landscape in the world has changed dramatically. Russia is still a threat, but the Chinese Communist Party is a much more serious threat. And the truly strategic foreign policy of the United States is one that focuses on the strategic interests of our country now, and not on the world that existed many years ago. And this policy should accept the current realities and ensure our readiness for them.
Author: Josh Hawley — U.S. Senator from Missouri.
