Trump, NATO and the dangers of isolation: why ‘making America great again’ could leave the US with few friends
Joyce P. Kaufman
On 10 June 2017 Donald Trump affirmed his support for NATO, and especially the Article 5 commitment to collective defence, at a press conference with Romanian Prime Minister Klaus Iohannis. This came a day after former FBI Director James Comey accused President Trump of being a liar, and two weeks after he refused to voice his support at a NATO summit. The latter event was seen as a direct affront to the NATO allies, as Trump chose to lecture his fellow NATO leaders about their lack of commitment indicated by the failure to meet the financial commitment of 2 percent of GDP.
At virtually the same time that Trump was befuddling, if not totally alienating US allies around the world, former President Barack Obama was making the rounds for meetings with a variety of international leaders, thereby making the contrast between the two presidents even more striking. While Trump is seen as mercurial, unpredictable and often dangerous for his lack of policy planning, Obama is increasingly viewed, albeit retrospectively, as the quintessential diplomat and political player who could be counted on by the allies. While they might not have always agreed with Obama’s policies, he could always articulate the reasons for them and explain how they served the national interest of the United States. None of this can be said for current President Trump. Similarly, the perception of the United States more broadly has changed from that of an ally that could be counted on to one whose support is uncertain, leading European leaders to rethink their own positions both individually and collectively.
The result of this change has been a strong perceptual shift regarding the United States — from global leader to lone actor. And just as there is a perception that the United States can no longer be counted on, so the US can no longer presume that its allies will be there to come to its aid as needed, as they did after 9/11.
As I argue in a recent article in International Affairs, NATO depends on strong US leadership, which was fraying even before Trump’s election with a precipitous decline traceable to the presidential campaign. It has since been made clear that the relationship between the US and its NATO allies has been directly affected by Trump’s capriciousness. The president’s speech at NATO headquarters on 25 May coincided with the Alliance unveiling a memorial in honour of the 9/11 attacks and the unified NATO response under Article 5 — still the only time in NATO’s history that the Article was ever invoked. In a direct rejection of this solemn occasion Trump refused to acknowledge the central role that Article 5 continues to play. At a time of increasing uncertainty about the intentions of Russia, particularly over their attitude to Ukraine and the Baltic states, the NATO members once again looked to the United States for a strong assertion of support and commitment. Yet none was forthcoming at that time. Instead, the statement, when it did come, was two weeks later at a ceremony with the leader of Romania, a NATO member but not one of the major players in the Alliance. What was later revealed and is especially telling was that it was Trump who personally removed the statement in support of Article 5 from his NATO speech despite the strong objections of his National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
What now for NATO’s European members?
What does this mean for the future of the Alliance and the relationships among the NATO members? The recent election of Emmanuel Macron in France has been interpreted as a statement in support of moderation, and against the nationalist sentiments propagated by the likes of Trump and Macron’s presidential opponent Marine Le Pen. At a time when German Chancellor Angela Merkel is also facing an election, Trump has provided plenty of reasons for her to distance herself from the United States while also asserting a strong role for Germany going forward. Her statement that Europe ‘must take our fate into our own hands’ is certainly a repudiation of US leadership as well as a comment on European independence. More importantly Merkel, the undisputed European leader, now has a strong ally in the newly-elected French President. This would not be the first time that a Franco-German union stood in opposition to the United States or its policies. One has only to look to the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq to see a recent example of European willingness to buck a US policy decision, and it took years to repair that particular rift. Given a lack of stable leadership from the US, Germany and France seem willing to go it alone, something that is appearing to be more and more likely and, no doubt, other NATO allies will follow their lead.
Alongside the implications for US — Europe relations within NATO, the long-heralded Anglo-American partnership is also fraying. The US has consistently looked to the UK to be its representative in Europe as well as its staunchest ally. Yet then-candidate Trump’s willingness to weigh into the Brexit referendum as well as his support for pro-Brexit politicians called into question his and the United States’ intentions regarding the EU in general and the UK in particular. The election of Prime Minister May following the Brexit vote, another conservative with many like-minded positions, completed her alignment with the President who seems to have a visceral reaction against multi-lateral agreements. But Trump’s reaction to the London terror attack in June, including his unfounded accusations against the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, has only served to further alienate him, and the United States, from Britain. On top of that, the uncertainty following the recent UK parliamentary elections, which have greatly undermined Prime Minister Theresa May’s ability to lead that country, will further distance the United States and its traditionally strongest European ally.
Trump is an undisciplined thinker who makes policy based on his gut reaction, rather than a rational process. This might have worked in business, but it has caused consternation for the US foreign policy establishment. The approach also sends a message to the country’s allies abroad who have realised that they must make policy based on what they perceive to be in their own best interest, rather than relying on the United States. The impact of this could be the break-up of the West as a united foreign policy actor, creating further instability as countries vie to achieve their own national goals. Trump may have promised to ‘Make America Great Again’, but his methods seem more likely to achieve the exact opposite.
Joyce P. Kaufman is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Engagement with Communities at Whittier College.
Her recent International Affairs article appeared in issue 93: 2 (March 2017), and is titled ‘US perspectives on NATO under Trump: lessons of the past and prospects for the future’.
Read the article for free via our publisher Oxford University Press here.
