JUL 2017
The NATO meeting occurred in Brussels on May 25 represented an important turning point for at least three reasons:
First of all, it was only 3 days after the Manchester terrorist attack. Secondly, there were together, for the first time, the new elected U.S.A. President, Donald Trump, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, and the known British Prime Minister, Theresa May, with other State’s leaders. Third, during the appointment, they decided to increase and strengthen the NATO’s role in the fight against terrorism.
Without any doubt, the most awaited guest was Donald Trump, in order to know if the U.S’s pledge to European defence will remain valid also after his election, because there were rumours, which circulated in the West that stated the opposite. In addition, in his first NATO Summit, the U.S.A President was under the spotlight also because during his campaign he had always disapproved NATO members, affirming that they did not pay their sums and he defined NATO an obsolete organization.
Without contradicting his nature of businessman and his motto “America first”, he provoked the Allies telling them that they should repay their debts, to reduce “the gaps in modernizing, readiness and the size of forces”. In doing this, he “forgot” to confirm Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, the clause on collective defence, containing the principle according to which committed States protect each other and are linked with a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance.
Nevertheless, his provocation was not so unfounded. We should remember that the issue of defence expenditures became central since two important events: the Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula on March 18, 2014 and the Wales summit on September 4, same year. In fact, the Allies opened their eyes to the necessity to raise NATO’s defence capability and presence in Eastern Europe. But today, only 5 over 28 members (the U.S., Poland, Estonia, Greece and the United Kingdom), spent at least 2% of their GDP on defence, as mutually agreed. And just 16 over 28 Allies have made efforts to increase their expenditures to a share of their GDP in 2016.
All things considered, Trump was quite right indeed. The reason of the disappointment of many can be found in the President’s harshness and abrupt behaviour more than in the content of his remarks.
Leaving these conflicts behind, an agreement could actually been found.
In fact, the leaders had the same opinion on NATO’s membership in the global coalition against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). This represented another step in the fight against terrorism after the creation of the anti-jihadist front, in September 2014 under U.S. leadership.
NATO had always been playing a crucial role in Iraq. For example, according to the Warsaw summit hold in July 2016, it provided national security forces with trainings and operated in the area of intelligence, making available both its AWACS early warning and control systems. Since the last gathering, NATO will foster its commitment with more flying hours, more information sharing and also with air-to-air refuelling. In addition, it will settle a new intelligence cell in Brussels, in order to coordinate the members in intelligence sharing and action.
During his speech, Trump mentioned also the Russian issue. He stated that the NATO should address its attention mainly towards terrorism and immigration, as well as threats on eastern and southern borders, and especially from Russia. These worlds were not appreciated by the Baltic member states, which define Russia as the principal treat. However, even if his strong remarks on the defence expenditures can be considered a way to deter Russia from other aggressions, many experts believe this is not enough, but clearer signs are needed.
What emerged from the meeting, were different point of views among the member states, and an American strong stance.
We can glimpse a troubled future, due to the quick answer of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who announced “the days when Europe could rely on others are over”: it is time for Europe to take its future into its own hands.
Visits: 96