During President Trump’s campaign, he spoke out on several occasions stating that NATO is an “obsolete” alliance and a financial drain. Trump’s perceived obsolescence of the Alliance is mainly due to its lack of efforts against terror attacks. Another one of his main talking points was that European nations were not paying their fair share of alliance dues. This is not an unfounded accusation, but seeing that the US has always been the de facto spearhead of NATO, it’s not anything new. Despite all of Trump’s trash talk on NATO in the past, British PM Theresa May gladly proclaimed that he is “100% behind NATO” after their meeting in the White House on Friday.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis speaking at his swearing in ceremony. Photograhy: Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images
Trump’s sudden support for NATO could be due to influence from his choice for Secretary of Defense, James Mattis. While Mattis has been vocal about his support for the Alliance, Trump has insisted that Alliance responses to terrorist attacks have been lacking. This is true in the sense that NATO is not responsible for investigating terrorist attacks. However, NATO has put forth much effort in the fight against Daesh/ISIS since the Warsaw Summit of summer 2016. Perhaps not the best of examples, NATO member Turkey has stepped up their campaign against Daesh, though admittedly after much coaxing from coalition and Alliance members.
Much like its counterterrorism tactics in the months following the attacks on 9/11, NATO has offered to contribute its Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) to the coalition as well as training for Iraqi officers in Iraq and Jordan. Training efforts in Jordan prioritize “cyber defense and countering roadside bombs.” (See Milestones in NATO’s work on counterterrorism section of NATO website’s Countering Terrorism page.)
Recently upgraded NATO Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) craft taking a test-flight over Seattle.
What Trump fails to recognize is that NATO’s structure and overall goal has been to defend member states from adversaries usually in the form of another sovereign nation, not amorphous terror groups who strike at random. NATO responding to terror attacks throughout the West would be comparable to the UN attempting to get involved with an isolated murder trial instead of human rights violations. In the case of NATO counterterrorism efforts, it would be difficult to imagine an alternative strategy that doesn’t involve contributing to established coalition objectives against Daesh which, although comparably limited to Trump’s wishes, are in effect.
It is still uncertain how the current administration will prioritize NATO objectives, especially with such ill-informed ideas as to how the Alliance should be utilized. Trump’s uncertain support of NATO paired with a less critical view of Putin has caused great alarm amongst member states. In a recent interview with The Times, Trump said “Russia’s hurting very badly right now because of sanctions, but I think something can happen that a lot of people are going to benefit.” These sanctions were put into effect after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Defeating Daesh is a worthy priority for the international community, but it is not a priority for NATO, an institution created both to ensure cooperation of member states as well as keeping Russia’s imperial ambitions in check.
