AMERICA FIRST
Does ‘America First’ mean EU defence at last? by Ian Bond and Sophia Besch
Foreign policy has not been a priority for the president-elect during his election campaign. Some of his statements on international affairs have been contradictory, and since the election he has denied saying some of the things he said before it. So it is hard to guess exactly what Donald Trump will do. But one consistent theme, which predates the presidential campaign, is that he believes America’s partners and allies around the world are taking advantage of the United States. Trump is likely to re-evaluate America’s commitments to international alliances, based on his assessment of the costs and benefits to the US. Previous US presidents have also wanted other countries and international organisations to take on more responsibility for global problems. The US currently accounts for 70 per cent of defence spending by NATO member-states. President Barack Obama called on European allies to step up their contributions to NATO, and European leaders were expecting Hillary Clinton to re-emphasise the need for Europe to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. But since the Second World War, no US president has questioned the basic idea that European security, and thus NATO membership, was firmly in America’s national interest. Trump, by contrast, sees relationships with foreign countries as zero-sum, a view he holds in common with Putin and other authoritarian leaders. On the campaign trail he implied that he would decide whether NATO allies were contributing enough to their own defence before
coming to their defence. That would call into question the American security guarantee that has allowed Europeans to integrate peacefully for over half a century. The Alliance’s collective defence clause (Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty) commits the United States (and all other allies) to come to the defence of any memberstate that is attacked. The essence of the alliance is that the threats members face are shared and need a joint response. NATO deterrence can only work on the basis of a belief that all allies are ready to intervene when one ally is attacked. Whatever he does in power, Trump’s campaign statements have undermined NATO. They betray a view of the alliance as a purely transactional ‘business’ relationship. From his perspective, an unconditional security guarantee to its allies puts America in a weak bargaining position. Certainty about US commitment is particularly vital to Central European and Baltic member-states