FLASH
Shkruar nga Ivo Daalder
NATO may not end with the re-election of Trump as president, but the alliance would be much weaker without a reliable American partner, making Europe's security far more precarious than is necessary or desirable...
As a former US ambassador to NATO, I am often asked if I think the re-election in November for another term of former President Donald Trump would mean the end of NATO. The answer I give is: Yes and no.
Yes, because Trump's election would mean a fundamental change for NATO, regardless of whether or not he decides to withdraw the US. And no, because the alliance would not necessarily fall apart from such a choice by the Americans.
Trump's hostility to NATO, and indeed to all of America's security alliances around the world, is well known. When he first ran for president, he often declared that NATO "is an outdated instrument." While after taking office, he repeatedly threatened to withdraw from it.
"I don't feel for NATO at all," he shouted at his then National Security Advisor John Bolton during a heated debate. Later, Trump told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: "You have to understand that if Europe is attacked, we will not under any circumstances come to your aid and support," according to an EU official. - of those present at that meeting.
Then Trump added: "By the way, NATO is over and we're going to leave, we're going to leave the alliance." And as Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 reminded many of the value and importance of NATO — as well as that of U.S. cooperation on European security — Trump learned another lesson.
Calling Russian President Vladimir Putin "smart", "knowledgeable" and a "genius", he claimed that if given the chance, he could end the war in "one day" by cutting off all aid from the US on Ukraine and telling Kiev to give way to Moscow by meeting most of its demands.
Even today, Trump's antipathy to NATO remains the same, and if he were to return to the Oval Office, there is no doubt that he would continue the same approach. Moreover, no one should rely too much on the recently passed congressional decree, which is intended to prevent the president from withdrawing from the alliance without his consent.
No one, not even Congress, can compel an American president to defend another country with the full force of the American military. Legally, the United States (or any other NATO member for that matter), is obligated to take "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain security of the North Atlantic area".
So each member is left to decide for themselves whether and how to act in the event of an armed attack on an ally. Even this provision, in Article 5, is binding only after all NATO members agree to invoke it.
But what makes a security alliance effective is not any legal dictate, but the confidence that the allies have that they will defend each other, as well as the credibility of this commitment in the eyes of their adversaries. Legally binding commitments can strengthen that trust, but they cannot sustain it by themselves.
Yet if Trump actually pulls out of NATO, as many officials fear — which any treaty ally can do under Article 13 — it wouldn't matter much. His re-election would be seen as a fundamental repudiation of the trust NATO allies have placed in the US to defend themselves in the event of an armed attack.
Even more so, now that the possibility of such an attack seems great in Europe after the brutal war that Russia is waging against Ukraine. Neither allied leaders nor their public would have faith that a Trump-led America would come to their aid.
This reality would not necessarily mean the end of NATO, although it would turn it into a fundamentally very different alliance from the one that has existed for 75 years. NATO would not disband even if Trump formally withdrew the country from it.
It would only have one less member. Of course, the US is not like any other NATO member. She is the true backbone of the alliance. Beginning with General Dwight D. Eisenhower, its commander-in-chief has always been an American.
Likewise, the US military constitutes a good part of NATO's overall capability, and the US armed forces form the core around which most NATO allies have built their militaries.
More than 100,000 US ground, air and naval forces are currently deployed across Europe in direct support of NATO. Furthermore, the US nuclear arsenal, including weapons deployed in Europe for use by allied air forces, "are the supreme guarantee of the alliance's security".
And while France and Britain possess nuclear weapons themselves, their willingness and ability to extend this security umbrella to all their allies is uncertain and unproven.
However, NATO would remain a potentially formidable military alliance even without the US.
Because its members include most of the countries of Europe, plus Canada. And it has processes, procedures and programs for collective protection that are highly developed and potentially very effective. Of course, whether this potential would translate into reality would largely depend on the members remaining.
And a NATO without the USA would not be as effective as it is today with it. It would also be a less credible deterrent for Russia and other adversaries. NATO may not end with the re-election of Trump as president, but the alliance would be much weaker without a reliable American partner, making Europe's security far more precarious than is necessary or desirable. And those who would have to face the costs are not only the Europeans but also the Americans themselves./ Pamphlet adapted from "Politico.eu"
Note : Ivo Daalder, former US ambassador to NATO, is head of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Lini një Përgjigje