As President-Elect Trump begins to form
his governing team and to review the involvement of America in the world, it
makes sense in the revolutionary change in American politics to look anew at
almost everything. Trump has taken some hits for suggesting that our
contribution to NATO has been disproportionately large. I will suggest
what many of us may think but Trump may be too coy to openly state: America
does not need NATO.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was
created at the instigation of an American superpower trying to find a means of
containing global communism, led by the Soviet Union, by bringing together
those nations in Europe who needed to be reassured that a Warsaw Pact invasion
of West Germany would be resisted using conventional forces by those nations
whose collective unity could cause the Soviets not to attempt a lunge through
the Fulda Gap or other weak spots. This collection of allies included nations
outside Europe – America, Turkey, and Canada – and although the language of the
alliance did not specify the Soviet Union, that was the sole threat the
alliance envisioned.
The alliance succeeded in preventing war
in Europe, and once America began trying to win the Cold War, the whole
structure of the Soviet Empire dissolved, first with the unification of
Germany, then the liberation of all the other Warsaw Pact allies, then the
independence of the non-Russian nations within the Soviet Union, and finally with
the overthrowing of the communist overlords of Russia.
NATO was part of a grand system of
alliances that America created to contain communism. CENTO, the Central
Treaty Organization, included Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Britain, and
America. SEATO, the South East Asia Treaty Organization, was a similar
organization of regional partners and America, France, and Britain.
While NATO, which was created for a
specific threat, worked as intended, CENTO and SEATO proved colossal
failures. When the Shah was overthrown, Iran pulled out of CENTO, and
Iran and Iraq were soon involved in a horrific and long war. Afghanistan
was invaded, Pakistan fought several wars with India, and the whole region
intended to be protected has since descended into a simmering cauldron of
bloody wars, civil unrest, and terrorism.
SEATO was the umbrella under which America
fought the Vietnam War. France and Britain not only did not help in that
war, but actually behaved more like neutrals than allies. The SEATO
alliance system was worse than useless during the Vietnam War. The
British and French did not see their national interests at risk, so while
American forces in Europe guarded France against communist aggression, the
French did nothing to help America protect its recent colony of Indochina from
communist aggression.
Except for America, all the other nations
of the planet form understandings, alliances, and security agreements when it
serves the interests of the nation involved. Often the best course is to
avoid organizations entirely. Israel defends itself. Switzerland
and Sweden, both completely unaligned, defend themselves. Taiwan
understands that it must largely defend itself. India, a large nation
with external and internal threats, defends itself.
NATO, in fact, may never have been
needed. America always retained the ability to stop any invasion of
Western Europe by using tactical nuclear weapons against military and
logistical targets in Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and Hungary, and
during the last decades of the Cold War, the democracies of Europe could have
built military power equal to the Soviet bloc.
The defeat of the Soviet Union makes
quibbling over NATO during the Cold War seem unimportant: we won a global war
without firing a shot. What is the function of NATO today? Russia
is not a totalitarian power bent on global domination. We know this,
which is why the prospect of a tiny Iranian nuclear force is much scarier than
a Russian arsenal many times greater.
If NATO serves little purpose for America
today, the prospect of NATO allies (aside from Turkey) becoming Islamic
nations, as France may do in a few years, suggests that NATO may become a
positive danger to American interests.
Fifty years ago, President de Gaulle
pulled French forces out of NATO, with no harm to French national interests at
all. We have just elected our own President Trump, whose loyalty to
America is as fierce as de Gaulle's loyalty was to France. Does NATO
serve our national interests? If it does not, then President Trump ought
to do what President de Gaulle did in 1966 and put the interests of the nation
he governs first.
