To: POL 245- American
Foreign Policy
From: Jackie McLaughlin,
Jacky Davis, Shannon Sylvester, Hayden Ball, and Jack Herndon
Date: February 17, 2019
RE: Trump Administration
Threatens to Leave NATO
Executive Summary:
NATO, or the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a formal alliance between multiple territories
in North America and Europe. The primary
purpose of its creation in 1949 was to defend against the possibility of the
communist Soviet Union taking control of member-states’ nations. NATO supports
democratic values and encourages members to cooperate on defense and
security-related issues to prevent conflict. However, during the current
Administration, President Donald Trump has threatened to pull out of NATO, a decision
met with intense scrutiny among both sides of the political spectrum. Those who
oppose President Trump’s decision to possibly pull out of NATO attribute some
of the reasoning to his relationship with Vladimir Putin. It is in Putin’s best
interest to see NATO weaken in power, and the United States’ worldly power has
great ramifications for NATO’s success. Some, however, believe it is in the
best interest of the United States to pull out of NATO because of this “America
First” approach to national security-- some think of NATO as a weak
organization which is only harming America’s foreign relations with other
nations.
Trump’s Reasoning For
Potential Exit:
President Trump has been
vocal about his distrust of international organizations, and the same can be said about NATO. Trump has been on record
referring to NATO as a “drain” on the US. As a man with a background in
business, President Trump has built his foreign policy decision making around
deals and weighing the tradeoffs of working with other countries. In the case
of NATO, Trump sees the organization as weak. Trump wants NATO countries to
increase spending in order to stay. The president is an isolationist as well,
working with allies has made Trump uncomfortable, and that could be the reason here. This America-first approach that
is behind all of Trump’s decision making could potentially be the reason for
Trump’s threat of exit.
Trump’s Reasoning For
Potential Exit Cont.
Referring to NATO as a
“drain” on the US economy and spending is not necessarily incorrect. While it
is a poignant way to refer to an international organization, it is true that
NATO has been a financial burden on the United States, and one that was
supposed to be shared between her and the
28 other countries. The United States has contributed to 22% of the conventional funding in NATO’s budget while the
second largest contributor stands at only 14.8% with Germany. Only five of the
29 countries (United States, Greece, Estonia, Britain, and Latvia) allied
through NATO have met their defense spending contributions in 2018. The other
24 countries fall short of the agreed 2% of GDP promised to go towards funding
NATO. In response to this, President Trump said that not only should allies
have to meet this 2% contribution, but for the United States to remain a
contributing party to NATO this percentage would have to be doubled and all 29
participants must contribute 4%. Whether or not this threat will be supported entirely will be determined within
the year.
Risk of Russia:
The US withdrawal from
NATO could empower Russia as the military alliance that had previously deterred
Russian aggression loses a vital member. Specifically, a US withdrawal from
NATO decreases American influence in Europe that would allow for further
expansion of Russian influence. Specifically, Russia has paved the way to
increase their influence in the region as they annexed the Crimea in 2014.
Although Ukraine is not a NATO member, the action demonstrated Putin’s
willingness to defy state sovereignty and may suggest that if the US leaves
NATO, Russia will not hesitate to attack a NATO member-- likely Estonia,
Latvia, or Lithuania-- with the limited
threat from the consequently weakened military alliance. Thus, if Putin’s
aggressive nationalism and resentment towards the expansion of NATO into
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet bloc continues, a weakened NATO without US
leadership may fail to intervene militarily, and the alliance may consequently
dissolve.
Party and International
Responses:
Although many members of
the GOP have backed the President’s past foreign policy decisions, the
possibility of pulling out of this alliance is incredibly bothersome to both
GOP members and Democrats. On January 22, 2019, the Democratic-led House voted
357-22 “for a bipartisan bill that would tie Mr. Trump’s hands by refusing him
any federal money to pay the costs of leaving the alliance” (The Editorial
Board, The New York Times). After pulling out of both the Paris
Agreement on climate change and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement,
opposition of pulling out of NATO is worrisome, especially among members of
NATO. With international conflict increasing in China, Russia, and the Middle
East, many members of NATO are threatened by Trump’s thoughts to pull out of the
alliance. By weakening a key protection alliance, many nations are growing in
fear that international conflict may increase and not be able to be alleviated.
Potential Course of
Action:
President Trump has more
than enough capability to withdraw from NATO; however, it would be both in his
and the United States interest to not withdraw from NATO given the critical
strategic advantage it gives the US. Although President Trump has said that
NATO costs the US too much per year at 2% of GDP, he should weigh this against
the cost of losing the resources and collective security that NATO provides for
it. Also, to the potential alienation
that the US could face as a result of choosing to leave such a vital organization, especially in Europe given
the membership of NATO. Because of this, it remains in the US’s best
interest to stay in NATO and continue to pay the annual 2% GDP fee in exchange
for the benefits that are provided for
such a nominal fee.
Works Cited:
Na
“1T Things You Need to Know about NATO.” NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 27 Feb. 2018, 12:19, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm.
“1T Things You Need to Know about NATO.” NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 27 Feb. 2018, 12:19, www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm.
Barnes, Julian E., and
Helene Cooper. “Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New
Concerns Over Russia.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Jan.
2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/nato-president-trump.html.
Mandelbaum, Michael.
"Pay Up, Europe: What Trump Gets Right About NATO." Foreign
Affairs, Sept.-Oct. 2017, p. 108+. Academic OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com.ezproxy.stonehill.edu/apps/doc/A509729435/AONE?u=mlin_s_stonecol&sid=AONE&xid=419329f9.
Accessed 17 Feb. 2019.
Board, The Editorial.
"Saving NATO." The New York Times. 26 Jan. 2019. The New York Times.
30 Jan. 2019 <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/opinion/sunday/nato-trump.html>.
Morrow, Adrian. “The US Exiting NATO is No
Longer Impossible to Imagine - Here’s How
it Could Happen.” The Globe and Mail. 12 July 2018. <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-the-us-exiting-nato-is-no-longer-impossible-to-imagine-heres-how/
Overall I thought this was a great memo that discussed a very timely and relevant topic. I appreciated how you were able to connect current events back to our class readings, especially to Ian Bremmer’s work. However, as I was reading I noticed there were two subheadings with the same title; one described President Trump’s rationale for leaving NATO and the other explained the economics behind American and other member’s contributions. I think you could either re-title one of these sections or combine them into a longer subheading that examines Trump’s background in business and how this affects his view that the United States should leave NATO unless the system of financial contribution is renegotiated. By doing this I think your argument would not only be strengthened, but become more cohesive and show clear links as to why this subtopic relates to larger issues regarding the role of collective security and its benefits.
ReplyDeleteThis was a pretty good memo, but I can also agree that the double section on Trump’s reasoning could’ve been made into one section. Relating to the content specifically, it was very useful that some general stats about the NATO contributions were included. Even though Trump’s statement was quite threatening, he was able to draw attention to the large imbalance that does exist between NATO members. If the contribution for every country is 2% of their GDP then that should be followed by all countries – or they cannot be apart of NATO. Trump shouldn’t make the US leave but should instead understand the importance of NATO (even with the relationship he shares with Putin). However, if the US/Trump was more inclined to help Russia rather than impede its power, wouldn’t the US/Trump be more helpful from within NATO to protect Russian interests? So with the idea of Trump pulling out of NATO, how much power would Russia actually gain? We may no longer be ‘legally’ bounded to help countries such as Latvia or Estonia, but they are still our allies.
ReplyDelete-Kelsea
I think your group did a great job with your memo. The group was able to convey both sides of the issue with ample information to back both up. I like the way it was broken up as well. It makes it easier to understand why this is an issue, details of it, and the possible repercussions of both staying in and leaving NATO. I think we should not leave NATO since it would give Russia too much of a cushion to impede in the Eastern region of Europe. North Macedonia now being a part of NATO will make Russia’s feelings towards the organization worse, and possibly the US’s. It is interesting to see the House's blatant distrust in the Trump Administration, and the preventative actions they had to take to help preserve our membership.
ReplyDelete-Talia
This is a great memo! Your group presented the information in a very clear and concise way. I found it very informative to see both sides of the argument which are persuasive in their own ways. I agree with your group's proposed course of action in that the U.S. should remain a member of NATO. However, I think there is something to be said about other countries putting in their fair share, although I am not sure how the U.S. can best enforce this principal to other member states. Nonetheless, I believe it is in the U.S.' best interests to remain a member since Russia continues to act aggressively in the former Soviet bloc. U.S. influence, leadership, and cooperation in NATO in the least keeps Russia at bay and I believe the current administration should strongly reconsider its threat to leave the alliance. If the U.S. does in fact stay, other members must initiate more responsibility-sharing as the U.S. cannot continue to hold most of the (financial) responsibility and support the alliance sustainably.
ReplyDeleteYour memo did a great job of succinctly summarizing this issue and the potential implications the Trump administration's actions will have on future relations between the US and other NATO countries. It will be interesting to see if congressional Republicans will rebuff the president by taking legislative action to decrease the chance of a pullout from NATO. With Trump's approval rating very high among Republican voters, the GOP members in Congress might allow him to do certain actions they themselves do not support just so they do not have to worry about primary challenges in the next elections. I also agree in your conclusion that it remains the US's best interests to remain in NATO. Even though the costs are unevenly distributed and the US , at times, does get an unfair deal on the international stage, the advantages of a unified North America and Europe under the banner of NATO increases the likelihood of hostile actors abstaining from any attacks on member countries for fear of a unified response.
ReplyDelete-Adam Miller
I thought your group did a good job of covering a very controversial topic that is often covered in the news. I liked that you not only included the president's stance on NATO but that you also focused on what the US pulling out of NATO would mean for Russia. I believe that this dual focus made your memo very well rounded. One issue though is that two of your sections have the same title. I believe the memo would have been better if you had either decided to combine the two sections or given the second one a different title. Through giving the two sections the same name, they both appear repetitive and that there was a lack of revision. Also, while the Russia section is important, placing it in the middle of two America related sections makes the memo a bit choppy. It would be better next time to relate the topics more evenly.
ReplyDeleteI thought that this was a very good memo on the subject. I thought that this explained the problem very well and was easy to understand. I did like the broad amount of information covered and how this would impact the different parties involved. The broad view gave a better understanding of how this impacts the world rather than just the United States. I think this is a very important topic and am interested in how this will play out and impact NATO in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a vital topic to understand especially in our increasingly globalized world. A realist perspective would look at an exiting of the NATO agreement as dangerous because if countries are not working together in close relations then there is the major possibility that they could be working against each other. It is relevant to understand that a smaller country may feel insecure if the US were to leave NATO and could encourage the build up of military power in many countries so that they can protect themselves. This could be seen to opposition as a threat and could create instability in the international system. Were the US to leave NATO it would lead to many potential international issues. Knowing this, it seems more reasonable to understand that Trump's threats to leave NATO are a method of decreasing the strain on the US to keep the organization relevant.
ReplyDeleteI think your group did a great job of explaining and discussing the issues facing NATO. Choosing to include how Russia could react to the U.S. leaving NATO and what Congress has done to stop President Trump's actions was a great decision. One of the only issues I had with the memo was that two sections had the same title. I think the two paragraphs could have just been under one section. I do agree, however, with your groups course of action, as I believe that it is essential that the U.S. remain in NATO. It is crucial though that the other countries meet their 2% contribution. This issue is where I believe the U.S. should focus its attention on, instead of contemplating leaving the organization.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well organized and informative memo. I think by explaining just how much of the GDP is spent on NATO you established the scale of the decision the Trump administration is making. "Is it worth the fallout to save 2%?" is a important question to ask. If you were to add one idea I would look into possible political motivations for the Trump administration to withdraw if it is not to save money. What do they stand to gain from this decision?
ReplyDeleteYour memo did a tremendous job at highlighting the current issue in place. With the US threatening to leave, NATO there will become a very real issue. As the US has established themselves as such a dominant figure in the globe there will be questions to what may happen to NATO in total. With president Trump's background in business there is a lot of decisions that come into play from his side given his background. I appreciate how you illustrated the GDP contribution and explained how it aids in understanding the various countries contributions towards NATO. If this threat is carried out there will lay a heavier burden on fellow countries to pick up the slack. With this need could we see another country emerge onto the world stage? Moving forward it will be interesting to see what is carried out and what repercussions may follow if we see a drop out. Overall, great article, very informative and allowed for me to understand the situation at hand!
ReplyDelete- Owen
I found this memo to be very helpful in explaining to us about the current situation between the United States and NATO. The memo did an amazing job at summarizing both Trump's reasoning for a potential exit from NATO and the response from both Democrats and Republicans on the situation. Like you had stated in your course of action, I believe it is in the United States' best interests to not withdraw from NATO. The effect from a United States withdrawal can be extremely detrimental to international relations and must not be overlooked. Despite this and given his background in business, I understand Trump's statement that the alliance has been a financial burden to the United States. Like Owen mentioned, I too would be very interested to see if another country emerges onto the world stage if the US decides to withdraw. I am very intrigued to see how the situation plays out. Great article and Memo!
ReplyDelete-Marc Brunelle
I thought that this was a great memo. It was really informative and had great details about the NATO situation. The only change I would look to make would be in the subheadings. I think the second heading "Trump's Reasoning for Potential Exit Cont" could be renamed to something along the lines of why he the US shouldn't leave. It seems more to dispel reasonings as opposed to support it. Other than that, awesome memo!
ReplyDeleteThis memo is very well written and extremely relevant to today's issues. The topic of NATO and the United States was very concise and easy to follow. I really enjoyed how you presented both sides of this issue, and not just one side. I also liked the section discussing Russia and how it is essential to address how the United States pulling out of NATO could possible provoke Russia. The part in the memo about the House was also interesting, as I did not know that most of them were against pulling out of NATO. It is interesting to see the overwhelming amount of members of the House that are against Trump's idea of leaving NATO. I do agree with your potential course of action, as pulling out of NATO would lead to some negative backlash towards the United States from other states. The benefits of NATO outweigh the costs, and the 2% GDP is much worth it. I do also agree that the other states in NATO should be held accountable to pay the 2% fee.
ReplyDelete-Hillary
I really enjoyed reading your memo, it was easy to understand both sides of the argument. I completely agree with how the consequences outweighs the positives in withdrawing from NATO. I find it interesting that the United States believe that the continuation of being involved with NATO causes a drain to the United States economy. However, the United States continues to spend money on prisons, which has been proven that it does not prevent crime.
ReplyDelete- Glendy Alvarez
I really enjoyed reading this memo. Prior to reading this I thought I had a pretty good grip on what NATO is but this really challenged my prior knowledge and really showed me the different aspects of NATO. I did not know the The United States has contributed to 22% of the conventional funding in NATO’s budget while the second largest contributor stands at only 14.8% with Germany. Only five of the 29 countries (United States, Greece, Estonia, Britain, and Latvia) allied through NATO have met their defense spending contributions in 2018. The other 24 countries fall short of the agreed 2% of GDP promised to go towards funding NATO. Which really shocked me and helped me understand why the United States considers leaving. I thought this memo was very well organized and easy to follow.
ReplyDelete- joslyn janeczek
"Although President Trump has said that NATO costs the US too much per year at 2% of GDP, he should weigh this against the cost of losing the resources and collective security that NATO provides for it... Because of this, it remains in the US’s best interest to stay in NATO and continue to pay the annual 2% GDP fee in exchange for the benefits that are provided for such a nominal fee."
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, there is no 2% GDP fee, rather there is an expectation that all members of NATO (except Iceland) are supposed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, including contributions to sustain the NATO command structure. In the wake of Russia's annexation of Crimea, this expectation became an alliance-wide commitment. And to be sure, this is far from "nominal" as 2% of any country's GDP is still rather significant. But moreover, the issue which President Trump has complained about is not that the U.S. spends to much on defense spending - indeed his budgets have thus far increased the Pentagon's budget, and let us not forget the Space Force - but that other countries do not spend enough.
Other than that, good review. - Ian M