Whether leaving the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would benefit the United States and the world or not is uncertain.
The issue presents many complexities, but the reasons President-elect Donald Trump gave in an interview published on Sunday, Jan. 16, 2017 with the Times of London, when he condemned the alliance, lacked conviction.
In the interview, Trump revisited his thoughts concerning NATO and explained his first issue is that it is “obsolete because it was designed many, many years ago” and explains “it’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror.”
This statement exhibits many errors in reasoning. NATO acted against terrorism in years past and is prepared to do so again in the future.
NATO invoked Article 5 — the collective defense clause stating an attack against one ally is equal to an attack against all allies — only once since the alliance’s founding, and it came as a response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The invocation of Article 5 showed explicit support for the United States during a horrible time, so to say NATO did not assist in taking care of terror is simply untrue.
Since September 11, 2001, NATO has launched operations such as Active Endeavor, which detects and deters terrorist threats in the Mediterranean Sea — the first ever operation of this kind. NATO also developed the Defence Against Terrorism Programme of Work, which mitigates terrorist attacks using developing technology.
These are just two of NATO’s many actions to counter terrorism. In addition to these the alliance announced support to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, which the U.S. initiated and exists as a core strategy in the U.S.‘s efforts to end terrorism.
Saying NATO is not combating terrorism while it directly acts in line with the U.S.‘s own counter-terrorism strategy is puzzling.
Since the inception of DAT POW, the efforts have expanded to include active trials and exercises and research on technology to improve troop preparedness.
Trump also said “countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay.” This remark is a much more salient argument against the organization. However, issues still exist with how he wants to handle the problem.
Paying into NATO more than other countries is indeed a problem, but this problem alone does not warrant exiting NATO.
Negotiations, for example, could solve this issue without drastic measures.
Leaving NATO does not automatically result in money saved. Unfortunately, the complexity of this issue makes Trump’s comment difficult to analyze.
While no easy answer exists to whether the United States should leave NATO, the comments made by Trump are ineffective.
If Trump does indeed want to leave NATO, he must bring better explanations. Without a stronger argument exiting the alliance would be shortsighted and clearly not well thought-out.
sareynol@umail.iu.edu
