It was apt that President Trump departed for a NATO summit under deep rain. The alliance’s meeting in London, after all, comes during a time of escalating tensions between America and its European allies. But although the 29-member alliance faces real problems, it continues to offer instrumental service to American interests.
NATO is the cornerstone of the American-led international order. Yes, it’s absolutely true that an unfair burden of American blood and treasure have underpinned that order since 1945, making the world freer, safer, and wealthier. But beyond the moral import of ensuring people can choose their leaders and set their destinies — the advancement of freedom being the uniquely historic exhibit of American hegemonic power — this condition of peace has directly benefited Americans.
Take trade. In 2018, even with protectionism remaining a facet of the U.S.-EU relationship, American companies exported $318 billion in goods to the European Union. That’s $318 billion worth of jobs and wealth flowing into our communities. This trade is increasing in 2019. But none of this shared prosperity would be possible were the EU either subjugated to Russia or blackmailed by Moscow in sufficient degree. And Vladimir Putin’s military investments and energy policy prove that to be his continuing intent. Put simply, if Americans want to be poorer, then they should favor getting rid of NATO.
NATO also supports American security and foreign policy interests. Although their commitments vary, NATO allies continue to support our mission in Afghanistan and the ongoing fight against ISIS. It is thus wholly untrue to say that NATO subordinates American interests to a global cabal. On the contrary, NATO supplements American national interests in mutual benefit to the national interests of others.
None of this is to say that NATO is perfect. Far too many member states give only lip service to mutual burden sharing. Trump is right to address this concern in improving NATO’s war-fighting capability. But NATO’s credibility requires more than increased defense spending alone. It also matters where that money is spent. While French defense spending remains too low, for example, its procurement strategy stands in starkly positive contrast to other member states such as Belgium and Germany. Some allies, notably Turkey, also take the benefits of this mutual defense treaty while actively undercutting fellow allies.
It’s equally true that European appeasement (Canada is far better here) of China is incompatible with NATO’s historic mission. China poses an existential threat to the democratic international order. It should be addressed as such.
Still, judged by its sustaining of a long and prosperous peace, and by its defense of sacred values, NATO remains of instrumental value to the United States. The alliance’s problems can and must be fixed. But NATO must remain.
