By Conrad Black
The almost unanimous NATO commitment to a sharp increase in the member-countries’ military budgets at the meeting of NATO leaders last week was a complete legitimisation of President Trump‘s stance throughout his time as president that most of the alliance was freeloading on the determination of the American taxpayers to continue to maintain American military capabilities at a level that deterred any attack on any alliance member. In light of the fact that his predecessors often made similar remarks with minimal consequences, it must also be said that this response was a justification of Trump’s comparatively brusque methods.
In the latter stages of the Cold War, it was fashionable, especially for German neutralists masquerading as progressive alliance members, to claim that it was perfectly in order for the United States to take the lead in burden-sharing since geography had condemned Europe to a higher level of risk-sharing because of its proximity to the USSR. This was always a fatuous argument, as it was never the duty of the United States to compensate those countries from the misfortune of having potentially hostile neighbours, especially when a substantial section of political opinion and legislators in Western Europe were constantly implying that they would do better making their own arrangements with the Soviet bloc, and that an unnecessary state of tension was being maintained by the Americans in order to assert a dominating influence upon their European allies.
With the end of the Cold War, the Western Alliance descended into the absurdity of the “alliance of the willing” which effectively meant its members would graciously accept the military guarantee of their security by the United States and would decide on a case-by-case basis if any project submitted for support by the alliance was worthy of their participation. The British and some of those countries that had recently escaped from the Soviet yoke, such as Poland, tended to be more purposeful, but throughout these last 35 years the alliance has been evidently uncertain about its role.
NATO responded well to the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, and performed with some distinction in Afghanistan, particularly in contrast with the shameful departure from that country of the Biden administration. And NATO’s European members have been quite distinguished in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Europe was not intimidated and did not flounder into the arms of the Americans as they did in the conflict that erupted in the former Yugoslavia 30 years ago. At that time, the civilian leader of NATO, Jacques Poos of Luxembourg, memorably stated “This is the hour of Europe.” But a week later, Europe was begging the Americans for assistance. Although it could not have sustained Ukraine alone without the heavy collaboration of the United States, Europe did demonstrate the greatest capacity for self-sufficiency Europe as a whole has shown since the times of de Gaulle and Adenauer.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine galvanised most of the European NATO members: A real threat to all of them. The Germans have fluctuated, but at their best have given cause for hope that that country may finally exercise its responsibilities as the most powerful nation in Europe for the first time since Wilhelm II fired Bismarck in 1890. If the Europeans (and the Canadians, who are perhaps the worst slackers of all), adhere to these new commitments, which were generated both by Putin‘s aggression and by Trump‘s threat to end the long era in which the United States was treated like a large dog that did the work and took the risks while the Europeans held the leash and gave the orders, then there is a chance for a return of European strategic influence in the world.
NATO has been the most successful alliance in world history, and it retains a splendid future. Military spending is very efficient: High-tech acquisitions and research and the best form of adult education and of upgrading individual skills. My own view is that NATO should be broadened to a world-wide alliance of all countries that may reasonably be said to respect human rights, internally and in the world. As an alliance of reasonably democratic countries pledged to the defence of the frontiers and legitimate interests of its members. It would become a much stronger and more diverse alliance with the addition of such important countries as Japan, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Brazil, and Australia.
The co-leader of the Alternative for Germany party, Alice Weidel, has accurately stated that if Germany actually pulled its weight in the alliance, the Americans would not have a docile Germany, but a strong, independent-minded one. She, of all people, should realise that under Angela Merkel, Germany was a weak, but not a docile ally. The Americans would much prefer a responsible, but stronger Germany and one less prone to ask the assistance of the United States. The United States is constantly reviled from the Left as an imperialist country, but the fact is it is an Americo-centric country. It has almost no official interest in other countries, and only wants not to be threatened. It is only interested in Europe and the Far East because Franklin D. Roosevelt made the indisputable point that if there were no American presence in Western Europe or the Far East, those areas would be in danger, every generation, of falling into the hands of anti-democratic forces hostile to America and that the best way to prevent this is to maintain alliances with the principal democratic powers in those areas and pre-position some American forces there. Frau Weidel can be grateful for that. If Europe really developed the full capability to defend itself, few things would give the Americans greater pleasure than to remain in the alliance but reduce the cost of it with substantial withdrawals of its forces from Europe (and Asia).
Western Europe can now easily defend itself from the Russians, who should come to their senses, in the Ukrainian aggression, and eventually rejoin the West where they belong. The United States is moving to deal with China and would be delighted to hand the basic defence of Western Europe back to the Europeans.