FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
To withstand pressure from the US, the alliance must transform quickly
Can NATO be saved? This is a question I've been asked more and more often since US President Donald Trump began to constantly denigrate the alliance and even threaten to withdraw from it.
My answer is: yes. But not the same NATO we have known for the past 77 years. To survive the onslaught of criticism from the US, a very different alliance must be created, and quickly.
Some of the US president's hostility was to be expected. Trump has criticized US security alliances for decades, ever since his famous 1990 Playboy interview, when he asked allies to pay for America's security. As a real estate businessman, he has always seen the burdens of alliances as outweighing the benefits, and that approach has remained the same as president.
In 2017, he entered the White House calling NATO “obsolete.” More recently, he has called it a “paper tiger” and “useless.” With allies refusing to join his attack on Iran, some even denying the US the use of airspace and military bases, the president has gone even further.
For Trump, the war with Iran was a test for NATO, and it failed. “We will remember,” he said, insisting that “we will come to their aid, but they will never come to ours.” Asked if he would consider withdrawing from the alliance, he replied that the issue was “beyond reconsideration.”
However, many commentators assume that Trump cannot carry out this threat without congressional approval. A 2023 law, co-sponsored by then-Senator and current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, bars the president from withdrawing from NATO without a two-thirds vote in the Senate or a bill passed by Congress. Neither seems likely.
However, the constitutionality of this law is questionable. Presidents have pulled out of treaties before, including George W. Bush, who withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and Trump himself from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. And if Congress were to sue the president for a NATO withdrawal, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule against him in exercising executive authority.
Moreover, even without a formal withdrawal, Trump has many ways to weaken NATO from within.
First, his negative statements, including false accusations that allies would never defend America, when in fact they all did so at great cost and sacrifice after 9/11, already call into question his commitment to collective defense.
He could also order the reduction of troops and capabilities in Europe, withdraw the US military from NATO's command structure, including the highest post, which has been held by an American officer since 1950, and refuse to participate in decision-making, blocking any decision that requires consensus.
As for Article 5, which states that an attack on one ally is considered an attack on all, it also emphasizes that each country decides for itself what actions to take. Even sending minimal equipment, such as helmets or night-vision goggles, can fulfill this obligation in a formal sense.
In other words, there are many ways to erode NATO, or at least the American commitment to it. This is the reality that US allies face.
They have tried to convince Trump of the importance of NATO, both to them and to the United States itself, through diplomacy, increased spending, and frequent contacts. But these efforts have not yielded results.
As a result, allies face three choices: wait for another American president, build an independent European defense outside NATO, or reform the alliance itself. The second option, according to the author, is insufficient due to the lack of necessary capabilities.
The solution remains a new NATO. The current alliance is directed and structured around the US, which constitutes the main military, intelligence and diplomatic pillar. Replacing this role is not easy, but it is possible.
Europe and Canada have the resources, military experience, and industrial capacity to take on a greater role. They have increased defense spending, are strengthening military production, and are developing new cooperation, including with Ukraine.
At the same time, complementary initiatives have been created such as the United Kingdom-led Joint Expeditionary Force, the European Union's joint procurement programs, and France's discussions on expanding nuclear deterrence.
However, capacity building takes years, not months. The speed of this transformation will also depend on the level of cooperation with the US.
In conclusion, Daalder argues that a more European NATO is inevitable. Although this change has been driven by a US president critical of the alliance, in the long run it could result in a stronger and more stable NATO. /Adapted from Politico /
Lini një Përgjigje