The NATO reached its 75th anniversary this week in a context in which the idea continues to be fed that this transatlantic military defense alliance is a parasitic entity of the United States
Donald Trump has criticized his country's transatlantic allies on more than one occasion for spending too little on defense. But it should be remembered that he is not the first to do so. Other American presidents, from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Barack Obama (including John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon), also pressured the Europeans to shoulder a larger share of the costs. And when Robert S. McNamara (Lyndon B. Johnson's Secretary of Defense) suggested that the United States could reduce its military presence in Europe if Germany did not increase its contribution, an agreement was signed between both countries. 'compensation agreement' for which Germany would compensate the United States by purchasing goods from it.
However, until February of this year, no US president or presidential candidate had directly threatened the security of NATO allies by inviting foreign aggressors to attack 'defaulting' member states. With his offensive comments, Trump confused NATO's defense spending goal (2 percent of GDP) with the direct payments those countries make to NATO.
Faulty reasoning
To some Americans, the 'desire for justice' of Trump may seem valid to them. Why should the United States pay twice as much as the average NATO ally, when it is so far from the world's major conflict zones? The question seems logical.
The point is that an important part of the answer lies in the fact that the immense US military spending is not only a function of its commitments to NATO, but the result of strategic objective of Washington to maintain military and technological supremacy in its main focuses of interest, and even more so today, in the face of the growing rivalry between the great powers of the planet.
Like Greece – whose defense spending ratio is even higher than the US – the United States spends more than the goal of the 2 percent because it is convenient for him to do so.
The cost of maintaining 200 active-duty US bases around the world (90 percent of the total) is equivalent to just 4 percent of total US military spending. In short: NATO is a common good that in turn is a by-product of the search for its own national good: the military superiority of the United States.
Why should the United States pay twice as much as the average NATO ally, when it is so far from the world's major conflict zones?
Although according to Trump “(the United States is) an indebted country, we spend so much on armed forces, but armed forces that are not for us… and many of these countries are immensely rich,” a majority of Americans continue to support NATO. However, Trump's position is extremely attractive to those who see the international responsibilities of the United States in the context of its own economic situation that worsens by the day.
But these concerns about excessive fiscal spending exaggerate the problem, particularly because they fail to take into account the international role of the dollar and the fact that a significant portion of the US public debt is held by domestic creditors. Those who maintain that military spending is a major component of the US debt have little or no evidence to show, and never compare the costs with the benefits derived from that spending. Well the real practical fact is that it maintainsr defense relations Asymmetrical allows the United States to exert influence and sustain its preferred form of global order through strategic advantage, information sharing, and diplomatic influence, as well as foster adaptation through a broad network of dependent allies.
Key tab
NATO is the most valuable piece of the American se
curity umbrella, the instrument that allows it to respond quickly to threats and challenges anywhere in the world. The forward presence of U.S. military forces acts as a deterrent against potential adversaries and reduces the likelihood of conflicts and military threats that put U.S. interests at risk. Additionally, this global network facilitates intelligence sharing among allies and provides the US with critical information on security risks, improving its ability to anticipate threats and counter strategic competitors such as China and Russia. The United States can and does use these tools to influence developments in key regions, to support democracy and human rights, and to combat terrorism.
The creation of alliances is a distinctive feature of the United States' global strategy, which differentiates this country from other great powers. By providing defense and security, the United States can also foster economic cooperation and promote its own values. And in an era in which cyberwar does not respect borders, the exchange of intelligence, joint maneuvers and NATO's collective cyber defense mechanisms reinforce North America's ability to confront new economic and security threats.
Furthermore, its position at the center of regional and global security networks provides the United States with an unmatched ability to facilitate or hinder international cooperation as it sees fit. Almost no important decision or mission can be carried out if it does not serve American interests. No other country has this capacity for international cooperation. NATO's strategic shift to confront China's rise through collaboration with Indo-Pacific partners highlights both the Alliance's adaptive capacity and the unique coordinating power of USA.
Huge scopes
Furthermore, these benefits are not limited only to issues related to great power rivalry. For example, the US Southern Command (Southcom) coordinates counternarcotics cooperation between NATO (specifically, the Netherlands) and other non-alliance countries, such as Colombia and Panama. This not only enhances security, but also reduces financial flows illicit funds that could end up going to terrorist organizations and other malicious actors.
Likewise, the efforts of U.S.-led allies help protect global trade routes – especially vital sea lanes – by ensuring the free flow of trade and energy supplies. A secure global commons provides the United States with economic leverage over its allies and partners, allowing it to shape economic policies, trade agreements, and investment decisions in accordance with its own interests.
Broadly speaking, normative influence and alignment of interests within international networks reduces the protection costs of their members, mitigates the need to resort to military coercion within the network, and amplifies the network's effectiveness when use outwards. From a security point of view, if the United States were less willing to finance a powerful military capacity through NATO, to collaborate with and protect its allies, it would begin to look like China or Russia. He would still be an imposing actor, but less influential and benign.
The efforts of allies led by the United States help protect global trade routes – especially vital sea routes – ensuring the free flow of trade and energy supplies.
In preparation for the worst, Europeans are already carrying out a “strategic autonomy” project. Pointing out the risk of vassalage implicit in the competition between great powers, French President Emmanuel Macron proposes reducing European dependence, particularly on the United States. By adopting a more asse
rtive stance against Russian bellicosity, the defense of the Ukraine's accession to NATO and the geopolitical use of EU enlargement, France has brought its position in line with that of Poland, the Baltic States and the Czech Republic.
Americans have to understand that NATO is not just a mechanism for protecting allies, but an essential part of a global strategy that promotes your own interests and sustains your country's global leadership position. The United States would gain nothing by withdrawing from the transatlantic alliance. On the contrary, if it did so, it would reduce its influence without significantly reducing its military spending.
CARLA NORRLÖF
PROJECT SYNDICATE
TORONTO
#NATO #cost #investment #profitable
