OPINION:
A version of this story appeared in the daily Threat Status newsletter from The Washington Times. Click here to receive Threat Status delivered directly to your inbox each weekday.
After surviving his most recent legal saga with strong polling intact, it is dawning on many foreign policy observers that former President Donald Trump is more than likely to return to the White House. With some notable exceptions, the reactions among the expert class have ranged from panic to pearl-clutching, particularly with regard to a potential Trump administration’s handling of America’s most critical alliances.
As leaders of the 32 member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization gather July 9-11 in Washington for a summit marking the 75th anniversary of the alliance, anxiety is likely to be high behind the scenes.
Many experts have portrayed Mr. Trump’s regard of NATO in extreme terms, warning of impending disaster. Robert Kagan, the respected senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argued that Mr. Trump wants to “end America’s broader commitment to European peace and security.” Mr. Kagan concludes: “America’s commitment to NATO, Trump believes, should be conditional, at best.”
From the left, there is similar panic. David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Henry Kissinger acolyte, writes: “Trump’s feigned concern about NATO contributions has little to do with the most shocking elements of his stance: his contempt for our allies and his support for our enemies.”
If these projections were accurate, it raises this question: Why NATO didn’t collapse during Mr. Trump’s presidency? It should also lead more observers to ask why NATO is stronger today, arguably because of Mr. Trump’s no-nonsense messaging, encouraging members to take on larger roles.
Mr. Trump alarmed the foreign policy establishment with some norm-breaking comments in February earlier this year, saying that he would “encourage” attacks against “free rider” NATO allies.
For the international community, there is no sugarcoating the fact that these kinds of statements weaken trust in the United States as an ally. But it is surprising how little discussion there is of the impact Mr. Trump’s rhetoric — whether you agree with it or not — may have on motivating positive action among member nations.
Mr. Trump views diplomacy from the business world. When you are trying to buy a major property, you negotiate a deal in your interest, and you don’t give away your hand. Look at what happens and what is done. Focus less on what is said.
If we are just looking at outcomes, there is a case to be made that the former president is raising expectations of NATO members to shoulder more significant roles in the alliance.
But he’s not alone in seeing problems in NATO. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO was suffering from an identity crisis. Collective defense was challenged conceptually with U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The drift of scope in the alliance began to provoke tensions, as did the enlargement of Eastern European members, at least according to the Moscow narrative.
European leaders said as much themselves. “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” said French President Emmanuel Macron in 2019, warning European countries that if they didn’t start thinking in terms of geopolitical strategy, they would “no longer be in control of our destiny.”
Long before Mr. Trump, U.S. officials were irked by Europe’s declining defense spending. In a 2011 speech, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, “I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending.”
At the time, just five of 28 allies had met the agreed defense spending threshold of 2% of gross domestic product.
In 2019, then-President Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, sharpened the rhetoric: “The Europeans simply don’t spend enough money on defense. They want to rely on the United States for their defense, and that is simply unacceptable.”
If you are a club member, you must fulfill the requirements and obligations. This is necessary because America cannot do everything by itself; it needs allies and friends to share the burden.
In this case, Europeans cannot be free-riders. European Union member nations need to realize that unexpected events, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, can happen at any time. They need to comply, contribute, and make up for the losses during times of their under-delivery.
Even if EU nations could summon the unified political will, they would still be unable to establish a collective defense pact by themselves. Nor do they have the military capacity to deter Russia on their own.
It was once assumed that economic interdependence was a guarantor of peace between nations. Now, Europe’s energy reliance and other significant commerce and trade relationships with Russia are more of a weakness than a benefit to regional security.
But this is turning around, thanks to Mr. Trump. Many NATO members have responded positively to the challenge — now, at least 11 member countries, including Poland, Lithuania, Romania and Hungary, are meeting the threshold, representing a major increase from 10 years ago.
NATO is critical to U.S. interests. It functions to preserve the world order established after World War II. The alliance helps defend an international rule-based system that has benefited the United States enormously and has also helped many other countries prosper and grow.
A wiser strategy would be to reform NATO according to the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. We need to work together on fair terms to address the threats not only in Eastern Europe but also in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific, which include not only military threats but also hybrid warfare, such as economic disruption and disinformation.
To stay competitive, defense spending should be increased, especially in research and development. All sides must deliver, no matter who wins the presidential election in November. Mr. Trump’s comments on NATO are difficult for many to hear, but the tough negotiator approach does bear fruit.
By not focusing solely on values but also on economic ties and self-sufficiency, the West can be better prepared to stand ready against the tyrants of the world who fear our freedoms.
• Bilal Bilici, a member of the Turkish Parliament, serves on its Foreign Affairs Committee.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.