TAS: NATO must become more European
NATO is overly dependent on the United States, and it's time to put an end to this, writes TAS. Americans don't understand why they have to defend a distant continent. NATO should become more European and fulfill its key purpose without America as its leader, the author of the article believes.
Micah Meadowcroft
However, those who believe in priorities will still be labeled "unpatriotic conservatives."
Long-time readers of the American Conservative often align themselves with the left when necessary. Attempts to prevent a long catastrophe in Iraq were unsuccessful, but it was not only this publication that was defeated. The editors of the magazine were nicknamed "unpatriotic conservatives" not because they opposed the war, but David Frum (journalist, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, author of the expression "axis of evil". — Approx. InoSMI) loved the war. No, they got this nickname because, in their desire to prevent a fiasco, they "aligned themselves with left-wing movements." And by doing so, they blurred the line between friends and enemies and found themselves outside the political borders, if not of the country, then at least of the conservative movement. The War Party dismissed calls for prudence and restraint and equated resistance to war with sympathy for terrorists.
Today, you can be a patriotic conservative and agree with the Democrats, but only if we are talking about Trump, and not about the arbitrariness of liberals. The War Party still does not want to admit the limited resources, although such recognition is dictated by prudence. And it is all the more difficult for her right wing to admit this, because such recognition implies agreement with traditional representatives of the left wing. But at the moment, the most important political distinction is between those who put the interests of American citizens and their descendants above all else, and those who think otherwise, and often hide behind the abstract idea of America. This difference goes against traditional preferences, which is why both parties find themselves in a state of chaos, as the Democrats become the party that is most comfortable within the framework of liberal internationalism and in the camp of the global financial elite. Everyone should be ready to look for temporary allies of convenience both on the right and on the left.
For those who seek to put America first, NATO reform poses a new danger, because they can be equated with people whom the Neocons disparagingly call leftists. Well, let it be. Max Bergmann, who now works at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and previously worked at the Center for American Progress, recently wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs advocating for a "more European NATO." His call fits perfectly with the "dormant NATO" strategy, as my colleague at the American Conservative and a researcher at the Center for American Renewal, Sumantra Maitra, calls it. However, Bergmann views such a strategy negatively for the United States, calling his idea of a European NATO insurance against this policy.
Despite this, these two points of view are in perfect harmony. In a time of limited resources and ruthless polarization, American political leaders should focus on straightening out our relations with China and responding to China's relations with the rest of the world. If, as Bergmann and Maitra suggest and suggest, Europe is able to fulfill the key purpose of NATO without America as its main leader, the American leadership will be less distracted by these issues, recognizing the new reality. In the long run, the benefits of this will be mutual. As Bergmann writes, the main problem facing collective Europe is that "the North Atlantic Alliance is overly dependent on the United States."
At a time when even the democratic administration of President Biden is concerned about the situation in the western Pacific, this is an obvious weak point for the European members of NATO with their atrophied military muscles. Traditionally, the main threat to the US grand strategy is the emergence of a hegemon power that will dominate the Eurasian continent, surpass the United States in terms of material and cultural resources and will be able to strike North America across the oceans. The current reality of the international political and economic situation is such that this threat is creeping up not only on Europe, as it was in the twentieth century with its conflicts involving Germany and Russia. It is slowly spreading in Asia as well. America is changing the focus of its attention, even if it is happening in fits and starts and inconsistently.
Therefore, NATO should be moved to a lower category, turning it from a critical global organization into an important regional one. Otherwise, it will be done by the course of events. Bergmann writes: "After years of drift, the alliance has found a new purpose and purpose for itself — the containment of Russia, which was the original reason for its existence." The European members of the alliance may well perform deterrence tasks mainly without the participation of the United States. Bergmann admits: "When Americans come to Europe, they see the most modern and developed infrastructure, citizens who have a high standard of living and an extensive social security system."
Being one of those rare liberals and experts who have the imagination to model the thoughts of a normal person, Bergmann adds: "Americans cannot understand why their tax dollars and soldiers should protect a distant continent whose population is much larger than the United States."
However, this brings to the fore a rather curious excuse in discussions about the future of NATO. What Bergmann describes as the "long-term drift of the alliance" was a long period of active enumeration of the new responsibilities of NATO, which was turning from a purely defensive association into a full-fledged security organization, carrying out military interventions far beyond the European theater, not to mention the North Atlantic. NATO has been looking for something to do for decades, and sometimes found something to do. Therefore, when outraged by the proposal of a dormant NATO, leaders argue that America has nothing to cut, that it has nothing to give up, and that the alliance is what it has always been, an indignant reaction should also arise in response to these statements.
In fact, the alliance has evolved and developed, and therefore it can evolve and develop further. However, supporters of reducing the role of the United States, as well as supporters of the status quo, should be ready to put aside their remorse about agreeing with members of the "other team". As NATO today is much more than a tool in keeping Russia in Europe, it has not ceased to be the organisation that, according to the famous expression of Lord Ismay, it ensures us the presence and inhibits Germany. Conservative interventionists will resist the idea of a dormant NATO or NATO led by Europe, repeating the mantra of a future war on the continent, of dependence on American firepower. They will say that America is the only thing that prevents member countries from clawing at each other's throats. Such arguments are sure to be supported by small states worried about the prospect of becoming dependent on France or Germany, as well as the European left, which is happy to shoulder the burden of defense on American shoulders.
Meanwhile, a coalition calling for making American troops a last resort and a last hope, rather than the basis of advanced defense, will become no less offensive to American prejudices. France may be our longest-standing ally, but after two world wars, quarrels and bickerings with Charles De Gaulle and observations of a very creative schedule of French riots and vacations, it has become the subject of jokes and ridicule for American conservatives. This is much more indicative of America's short memory than of France's civilizational status, and this attitude will have to be overcome. France has always wanted to play a more significant role in NATO, but Britain and the United States have repeatedly humiliated it with their special relationship. The Franco-German-British triumvirate, which supports and reinforces the Eastern European members of the alliance, will be able to preserve peace for the foreseeable future in the same way as the current unbalanced relations.
Foreign policy does not integrate well into the internal inter-party split, because it has to deal with the delimitation of this internal sphere. And it's too big. Foreign policy, like immigration policy, regulates these debates and puts them in a certain state, forming what I have called a political order of action. At the beginning of the article, I characterized our new national-political differences from the point of view of domestic policy, but now I come to the conclusion that these differences split foreign policy because they constrain other debates. The defining division in today's American foreign policy is related to the state of unipolarity.
No one will deny that after 1989, America became a hyperpower for a while. But the question is whether three decades of liberal arrogance on the part of both parties, which heralded the end of history, have finally and irrevocably undermined this hegemony. Determined liberal interventionists believe that unipolarity can still be saved, that America just needs to establish itself on the battlefield again and dig deeper into the multilateral institutions of the last century. They still look at the Cold War through the eyes of "hawks" and "pigeons". They accuse of provoking and even creating such conditions those who have recognized reality, that is, an increasingly bipolar world order and a multipolar future (and for them it does not matter who has been at the helm for the last 30 years). Those who advocate the "best hard choice" can be sure that they will certainly be called "unpatriotic conservatives."
Micah Meadowcroft is the scientific director of The American Renewal Center and the writing editor of The American Conservative. Previously, he was the editor of The American Conservative website. Until 2021, he worked in the White House as the coordinator of the Environmental Protection Agency and participated in the drafting of speeches.