[This post was first published on HNN: http://historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153934#sthash.nbZ5tfZy.dpuf]
Donald Trump went to a NATO meeting last week and never
explicitly stated his commitment to Article 5, which states that an attack on
one member is an attack on all.
Why is this such a big deal? Because he’s undermining U.S.
national interests.
I often have the chance to teach about the creation of NATO,
in four different courses I teach (Western Civilization since 1815, U.S.
History since 1865, American Diplomatic History, and U.S. since 1945). Whenever
I do, I make a point of stressing what an incredible and important departure it
was in American foreign policy.
When I tell students that the U.S. created and joined the
North Atlantic alliance in 1949, I always ask them when the U.S. last had
entered a formal alliance. They often guess World War II, and then World War I.
Students understandably assume that since the U.S. fought along side other
nations in both the First and Second World Wars, and we casually refer to
America’s “allies” in those wars, that there were treaties of alliance. But there
were none—in each case, the U.S. quite deliberately maintained its formal
separation from those it called its “allies.”
NATO was the first formal alliance for the U.S. in nearly
150 years. In 1800, the Adams administration negotiated an end to the French
alliance of 1778 that had helped the Americans win the Revolutionary War, and
the U.S. had not agreed to a single treaty of alliance since. When
revolutionary France went to war with Britain (America’s largest trading
partner) in the 1790s, the alliance seriously complicated not only American
foreign policy, but American domestic politics as well, and soured Americans on
the idea of any binding foreign commitments.
After its war with Britain ended in 1815, the U.S.
assiduously avoided involvement in European political affairs. Its response to
conflicts in Europe was essentially “none of our business.” When both World
Wars broke out, the American response was to declare its neutrality. In 1949,
that changed.
American membership in NATO represented a fundamental shift
in American foreign policy. For nearly a century and a half, Americans insisted
on complete freedom of action in foreign policy. No binding commitments would
threaten to drag the U.S. into a foreign war. That determination was the single
largest factor in the Senate’s rejection of Woodrow Wilson’s vision for the
League of Nations after World War I. With NATO, the U.S. reversed course and
said that it would immediately go to war if one if its allies were attacked.
Why such a dramatic change?
The lesson of the two World Wars, in the minds of American
foreign policy makers, was that the U.S. could not avoid involvement in a major
European war. The only way to stay out of such a war, they decided, was to make
sure that one never broke out again. The only way to do that was deterrence
through a binding collective security agreement. Send the message to a
potential aggressor (the Soviet Union at the time) that American neutrality was
unequivocally a thing of the past: if World War III broke out, the (nuclear
armed) U.S. would be in it on Day One. That certainty would deter any potential
aggression and prevent another war.
That certainty is what Donald Trump recklessly undermined
last week. NATO’s effectiveness depends on certainty, and he created uncertainty.
During the campaign, Trump suggested that America's commitment to honoring
Article 5 would become conditional. When asked if the U.S. under a Trump
administration would defend the Baltic states if attacked by Russia, he said
“If they fill their obligations to us.” That one small word, “if,” has the
potential to undermine the entire alliance. The whole point of NATO was to take
the “if” out of the calculation.
Last week, Trump had an opportunity as president to repair
the damage he had done as a candidate, and he passed on it. Administration
officials assured reporters beforehand that Trump would “publicly endorse
NATO’s mutual defense commitment.” But he did no such thing. He briefly
mentioned it in the context of NATO coming to America’s aid after 9/11, but
never stated his commitment to reciprocate. Instead, he harped once again on
the need for NATO nations to pay “their fair share.”
There’s nothing inherently wrong with reminding members that
they have agreed to spend 2% of GDP on defense. Trump, by refusing to state his
commitment to Article 5 while making that demand, however, is turning NATO into
just another “deal.” He has said in the past that he thinks the U.S. is being
“taken advantage of” in NATO. In his transactional framing of the alliance,
European members are paying for American protection, and to get them to pay up,
he is implicitly threatening to refuse to honor America’s commitment. This is
his simple-minded idea of what constitutes “tough” leadership.
As with so many other aspects of his disastrous presidency,
Trump here is misapplying his business approach to realms where it is not only
not applicable but downright destructive. NATO is not a “deal.” It is not a
protection racket. The American creation of NATO was meant to serve American
interests. It has done so for nearly 70 years. Undermining the alliance with
his childish and churlish attitude is self-defeating. It undeniably damages
American interests. The only open question is whether Trump is doing so out of
ignorance and foolishness, or for far more disturbing and sinister reasons.
