Differences Within the U.S.-Led NATO Alliance
Despite a show of support for NATO by the executive
during
the 70th Anniversary summit that took place in Washington, DC
April 3-4, Trump has made clear the possibility of U.S.
withdrawal remains. These conflicts in the United States within
and between the Executive, the Congress and NATO members reflect
the serious conflicts within the U.S. ruling circles over how to
control Europe and dominate Asia, including holding Russia and
China in check.
The conflicts and contradictions within NATO ranks and
within
the United States itself continue to find expression and were a
feature of the 70th Anniversary Summit despite declarations of
unity and strength.
On April 3, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was
invited to address a joint session of Congress by Nancy Pelosi,
Democratic head of the House of Representatives and Mitch McConnell,
Republican head of the Senate. It is an honour usually reserved for
select heads of state. The invitation was part of the efforts by a
majority in the Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, to counter
Trump's repeated threats to withdraw from NATO. The invitation followed
several other actions by Congress, including the passing of a bill in
the House in January, by a vote of 357-22, to support NATO and block
funding for withdrawal (28 Republicans and 26 Democrats did not vote).
That bill is now before the Senate.
Trump Continues Issuing Threats
Once it was known that Congress had invited Stoltenberg
to
speak, Trump invited him to the White House on April 2. While
both used the opportunity to say NATO members have responded to
U.S. demands for member states to put more into war funding, at a
joint press conference held before their meeting, Trump continued
to say that more is needed. "We have seven of the 28 countries
currently current and the rest are trying to catch up, and they
will catch up. And some of them have no problems because they
haven't been paying and they're very rich. But we're looking at
the two per cent of GDP level. And at some point, I think it's
going to have to go higher than that." This provides him the
continued pretext to withdraw from NATO. When a reporter asked
him directly if the U.S. would withdraw, he did not say no but
repeated the same story. "People are paying, and I'm very happy
with the fact that they're paying," Trump said.
Shoring up the idea that the U.S. may withdraw from NATO
is
the fact that some forces within the military and Trump
administration consider that the U.S. would be better able to
secure its aim of world domination without the NATO commitment to
defend Europe. The U.S. extensive bases throughout Europe,
including in Germany where it still has 32,000 troops stationed,
shows it has greater military capabilities than all the other
NATO countries put together in terms of nuclear weapons, bombers,
battleships, drones and Special Forces (which now number 80,000
troops). In other words, the U.S. does not rely on NATO's
military capabilities. Without NATO the U.S. would be free to act
unilaterally since it would not have to take into account
concerns expressed by European members like Germany and France.
U.S. Military bases in Europe.
This includes the constraint of Article 5 of the treaty
to provide defence to any of the members in the event they are
attacked. Trump questioned having to defend smaller countries that are
now part of NATO, like Montenegro, saying it could trigger World War
III. As well, a U.S. withdrawal from NATO permits the Trump
administration to enter into whatever alliances it likes, such as an
alliance with Russia to counter China while still controlling Europe.
He could also enter into stronger bilateral agreements with countries
like Poland and those of Eastern Europe which have integrated their
forces with those of the U.S.
Relations with Russia are also a disputed area. At the
press
conference Trump said, "I think we'll get along with Russia. I do
-- I do believe that." Meanwhile, the Pentagon has said Russia
and China now pose the greatest threats to the U.S. How to
maintain an upper hand while both colluding and contending
remains, as Trump has indicated, a source of conflict.
NATO members which are in their majority European,
commonly
emphasize Russia as a major threat but concerns over energy
supplies also mandate relations with Russia. When speaking to the
Congress, Stoltenberg said: "We do not want a new arms race. We
do not want a new Cold War. But we must not be naive." He said
NATO had "no intention of deploying land-based nuclear weapons in
Europe" but would "always take the necessary steps to provide
credible and effective deterrence." "We need to maintain credible
defence and defence for all NATO countries," he added, which of
course means relying mainly on the U.S. For Russia, however, the
claim of not positioning land-based nuclear weapons rings hollow.
Previously, the U.S. promised that NATO would not expand eastward
to encircle Russia, which it has done. And the U.S. can position
nuclear weapons on its bases whether or not NATO members
agree.
The reality that those favouring withdrawal from NATO
currently have the upper hand within the administration is
evident from the resignation of Secretary of Defense General
James Mattis. A long-time Trump supporter who remains
well-respected within the military, in his resignation letter, he
emphasized: "One core belief I have always held is that our
strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of
our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and
partnerships. While the U.S. remains the indispensable nation in
the free world, we cannot protect our interests and serve that
role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing
respect to those allies."
What the rulers hold in common despite their
differences is
the view that the U.S. is "indispensable" and must dominate. How
to maintain that domination is what the in-fighting is all about.
Trump's refusal to rule out withdrawal from NATO along with the
resignation by Mattis are indicators that withdrawal from NATO
remains a serious consideration.
U.S. Congressional Actions
Part of the debate about U.S. withdrawal from NATO
includes whether the President can act without Congressional
authorization. The U.S. Constitution requires the Senate to approve
treaties with a 2/3 majority, but it does not speak directly to
withdrawal. Other presidents have withdrawn from treaties, such as
Carter who withdrew the U.S. from the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan
at the time the U.S. recognized the People's Republic of China, and
Bush who withdrew the U.S. from the ABM treaty with Russia. The Carter
case, known as Goldwater v. Carter
went to the Supreme Court which ruled in favour of Carter. Bush
withdrew the U.S. from the ABM treaty with Russia.
The majority in Congress currently supports NATO. The
recent
bill by the House is an effort to block Trump from withdrawing
from NATO. It states in part that NATO "has served as a pillar of
international peace and stability, a critical component of United
States security, and a deterrent against adversaries and external
threats." Calling NATO "one of the most successful alliances in
history," and "the foundation of U.S. foreign policy," the bill
also states: The United States "is solemnly committed to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization's principle of collective
defence as enumerated in Article 5." All of this is directed at
Trump's threats. The bill also says the Goldwater v Carter ruling
is not "controlling legal precedent" and that it is the sense of
Congress that "the President shall not withdraw the United States
from NATO." It concludes, "No funds are authorized to be
appropriated, obligated, or expended to take any action to
withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty." The
bill is currently before the Senate and expected to pass,
possibly with enough support to counter a Trump veto. In 2017,
the then Republican-controlled House and Senate passed
resolutions to reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the
treaty.
The invitation to Stoltenberg to address the Congress
was
another action by Congress to both counter Trump and reassure
European allies that the U.S. will remain in NATO and defend
Europe. Stoltenberg drew applause for noting that NATO was
founded as a counter to Soviet aggression and that it remains a
counter to "an aggressive and unpredictable Russia." He claimed
Russia is responsible for "attempts to interfere in
democracy itself.'' House leader Nancy Pelosi, another big
promoter of the view about Russian interference in U.S.
elections, tweeted after Stoltenberg's speech: "For 70 years,
America's relationships with our NATO allies have formed the
foundation of our efforts to make the world a more secure and
peaceful place. As we mark this historic anniversary, we affirm
America's ironclad commitment to NATO and achieving permanent
peace."
U.S. Navy Admiral James G. Stavridis, a former supreme
allied
commander of NATO, commented: "Given the president's evident and
frequently vocalized skepticism of the alliance, it is clear that
Congress -- on a bipartisan basis -- wants to put the full weight
of the legislative branch behind NATO." "We will never find a
better pool of allies in the world than the Europeans, and this
address underscores the importance of the trans-Atlantic bridge,
which has been creaking a bit lately," he added.
Stavridis is also one of many
retired military, former intelligence, state and defence department
officials who have publicly condemned Trump's "national emergency" at
the border with Mexico, which opens the way for use of the military
inside the U.S. and against Mexico. These actions show that the
conflicts over NATO and how best to secure U.S. control abroad are tied
to the civil war inside the country, which threatens to become openly
violent.
Imperialist war abroad and civil war at home are
integrally
related. The current dysfunction of Congress, budget fights that
end in government shutdowns, elections that resolve none of these
battles, are all contributing to the intensification of conflicts
among the ruling factions who have no solution to problems at
home or abroad. Congress, with its actions on NATO, is in part
attempting to reassert its authority. But it is unlikely to block
the continued usurping of power by the executive. Rule of law
abroad and at home is no longer recognized by the office of the
president, something which occurred before Trump and which he is
now consolidating in a government of police powers. It is the
actions of the President that will be the determining factor for
whether the U.S. does or does not withdraw from NATO, but a
withdrawal could well trigger the very civil war the rulers are
trying too avoid.
NATO as a U.S. Protection Racket
During his presidential campaign and into 2017, Donald
Trump
repeatedly referred to NATO as "obsolete" and criticized lack of
military spending by member countries except the U.S. At the 2018
NATO Leaders Summit held in July in Brussels, he sharply
criticized other NATO countries for not dedicating at least two
per cent of their GDP to military spending, tweeting that the
U.S. is carrying the burden of military spending in NATO, and
that other countries should be spending four per cent of GDP on
defence, like the U.S. does. He also accused Germany of being
held captive by Russia, calling German investment in an $11
billion Baltic Sea pipeline to import Russian gas "unacceptable."
In January of this year, the New York Times reported that
"several times over the course of 2018, Mr. Trump privately said
he wanted to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. [...] In the days around a tumultuous NATO summit
meeting last summer, [current and former officials of his
administration] said Mr. Trump told his top national security
officials that he did not see the point of the military alliance,
which he presented as a drain on the United States."
In recent months, the Trump administration has taken
things
a step further. It plans to impose increased financial demands on
those countries that host U.S. troops and bases, such as Japan,
south Korea, Germany and others on the basis of what is referred
to as "Cost Plus 50" -- that the host countries should cover the
cost of hosting those U.S. troops and bases plus an additional 50
per cent.
"Wealthy, wealthy countries that we're protecting are
all
under notice. We cannot be the fools for others," Trump said in a
speech at the Pentagon on January 17.[1]
There are differences of opinion within the
U.S. ruling circles on this plan, as some consider that it will
be unacceptable to U.S. partners, especially those whose
populations have long resisted the U.S. presence. "In some cases,
nations hosting American forces could be asked to pay five to six
times as much as they do now under the 'Cost Plus 50' formula," Time
Magazine reported on March 8. "The president's
team
sees the move as one way to prod NATO partners into accelerating
increases in defence spending -- an issue Trump has hammered
allies about since taking office," Time adds. This demand is said
to have nearly derailed recent negotiations about the status of
the 28,000 U.S. troops in south Korea. Reports indicate that the
U.S. might "offer a discount" to countries that agree to align
their policies closely with those of the U.S.[2]
Meanwhile, the U.S. has in place many bilateral
military
agreements, including Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) that
permit its troops to operate with impunity in other countries and
also provide a means to apply pressure for increased military
spending to suit U.S. aims. A January 16, 2015 report by the U.S.
government's International Security Advisory Board on Status of
Forces Agreements gives an overview of SOFAs at that time. The
Executive Summary of the report states that "The United States
has some form of SOFA agreement with more than 100 nations, about
half under the NATO or the Partnership for Peace SOFAs, which
apply, respectively to all NATO allies and most Partnership for
Peace partners.[3] In
addition, there are comprehensive agreements with other nations.
There are, however, still countries with which the United States
has significant military relationships but no SOFA. It should be
a U.S. government-wide priority to fill those gaps."
U.S. Demand for Standardization of Weaponry
One of the matters of contention and competition
amongst the U.S. imperialists and other big powers at this time is the
connection between NATO's development and the growth of the war economy
both in the U.S. and worldwide, especially with regard to the world
trade in arms. In addition to a certain level of spending on the
military, NATO membership also requires standardization of weapons.
This requires, in practice, the consolidation of weapons' development
in the U.S. Only certain approved weapons would be allowed as part of
the standardization and these were invariably made in the U.S. The
Canadian Avro Arrow was one of the casualties of this demand in the
late 1950s.
In Europe, the big powers resisted on the front of
fighter
aircraft and this led to intense competition with the U.S. which
eventually spilled over into commercial aircraft with the growth
of Airbus (formerly known as the European Aeronautic Defence and
Space Company (EADS)). Now Boeing, having destroyed the
Bombardier C-Series commuter jet, is itself in trouble and Airbus
is thriving.
With monopoly comes stagnation and the law of the
uneven development of the productive forces takes over. Now many
countries have surpassed the U.S. in missile technology and fighter
aircraft.
The latest generation of Russian fighter jet is said to
be
superior to the U.S. F-35 stealth fighter. India announced
recently that it destroyed one of its own space satellites using
a ground-based missile. Japan has also leaped past the U.S. in
missile technology while China is also gaining fast in the field
of missile technology and the use of Artificial Intelligence
amongst others things.
Notes
1. "Trump Seeks Huge
Premium From Allies Hosting U.S. Troops," Nick Wadhams and
Jennifer Jacobs, Bloomberg, March 8, 2019.
2. TheHill.com informs that "Countries that host
permanent
U.S. military installations traditionally pay a portion of the
costs to house and equip the troops. The payment varies country
to country and in how it is given. While some allies, such as
Japan and south Korea, make cash contributions, others including
Germany -- where the United States has more than 30,000 troops --
pay by footing the bill for land, infrastructure and construction
of the military facilities, as well as waiving taxes and customs
duties."
3. NATO says its Partnership for Peace "is a programme
of
practical bilateral cooperation between individual Euro-Atlantic
partner countries and NATO. It allows partners to build up an
individual relationship with NATO, choosing their own priorities
for cooperation. [...] Activities on offer under the PfP
programme touch on virtually every field of NATO activity. [...]
Currently, there are 21 countries in the Partnership for Peace
programme."
NATO also has individual arrangements with a number of
countries that are not part of its regional frameworks which it
calls "global partners." These presently include Afghanistan,
Australia, Colombia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan.
This article was published in
Volume 49 Number 12 - April 6, 2019
Article Link:
Differences Within the U.S.-Led NATO Alliance
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|