IT would appear that Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy consists of lobbing a grenade into conference rooms before entering, and then counting the survivors.
He did this at the recent Nato summit when he rounded on leaders and accused them of being freeloaders who depended on America to defend them, and yet paid Russia billions for gas. He was particularly harsh on Germany’s Angela Merkel for spending only 1.2 per cent of GDP on defence, although Nato member states had agreed to an outlay of 2pc annually.
And from Washington’s viewpoint, he’s not wrong. America contributes some 70pc to the Nato budget annually, and only six member states meet the 2pc target. But Trump went a step further, demanding that they spend 4pc on defence. Germany’s inadequate spending on defence has led to a situation where all six of its submarines are currently unfit to go out to sea, and only four of its 106 Eurofighter jets are operational.
But as Simon Jenkins argued in The Guardian recently, while Trump may be a monster in many ways, he is asking the right questions about Nato:
“… He [Trump] is wrong to rabbit on about spending 2pc or 4pc on weapons. This helps no one but the defence industries — spending should meet plausible threat, not some vague budget target. But no more helpful is Europe’s belligerent posturing towards Moscow, such as Britain’s reaction to the mysterious poisonings in Wiltshire. Entrenching Putin behind a siege economy is not a defence policy.
“Better to go down the route of détente, recognise Russia’s sphere of influence and be just a little nicer to Putin. Whatever Trump’s motive for advocating this, he is surely right. A sensible Nato would have a firefighting force to handle separatist and frontier squabbles such as Kosovo, not a main force conflict with Russia. Britain and France should end their meaningless nuclear deterrents. Their submarines, aircraft carriers and fighters are costly boys’ toys.”
But as we all know only too well, it is hard for boys to give up their toys; in fact they always want brighter and newer ones. And to pay for them, they constantly create new threats that help politicians persuade taxpayers to cough up. Eisenhower, a retired and highly respected general who went on to become president of the US in the ‘50s, warned us of the “industrial-military complex” that has now taken firm root in America.
From the Nato summit, Trump flew to Britain on a controversial state visit. Carefully choreographed to avoid the planned anti-Trump demonstrations, the American president’s official engagements, including tea with the Queen, were all outside London. But while tens of thousands rallied in London to express their loathing for Trump, many gathered near Blenheim Palace, the royal treat close to Oxford. Although they were not permitted close to the palace by the police, they made their presence felt.
Before arriving in the UK, Trump had been interviewed by The Sun, the country’s most popular daily, and a vociferous pro-Brexit campaigner. In the interview, Trump said some outrageously undiplomatic things, including his view that if Theresa May, the British prime minister, stuck to her recently forged Brexit strategy, any possibility of a trade deal between the UK and the US would be “killed”. He went on to accuse her of ignoring his advice on how to approach Brexit, and praised her ex-secretary of state and most vocal critic, Boris Johnson, saying he would make “a great prime minister”.
These crude attacks on May clearly stung the establishment, and outraged editorials appeared the following day. Trump partially backtracked in a joint press conference with May at Chequers, her country residence, when he accused The Sun on not carrying his full interview that included praise for the prime minister. Both leaders spoke of their hopes for a post-Brexit future when they would be able to sign trade agreements. Trump also declared that the “special relationship” between the two countries was robust; in fact, according to Trump, it was “the highest level of special”. But it was clear that the meeting was uneasy, given the American president’s blatant interference in British politics.
Perhaps nothing has angered Brits more than Trump’s repeated charge that immigration is changing European culture, and is fuelling terrorism. He has even tweeted that parts of London are no-go areas to police and ordinary Brits due to the large number of aggressive
immigrants. This prompted the London mayor to respond angrily. Even May has feebly protested that immigrants had contributed hugely to British society.
But the biggest fear among the British establishment is the upcoming summit meeting between Trump and Putin in Helsinki on Monday. What, commentators are asking, will the American president promise his Russian counterpart in their one-on-one meeting? There is an uneasy feeling that Trump plans to reduce American commitment to European security, and possibly drop sanctions on Russia that were imposed after Putin annexed Crimea.
These moves would go a long way in undermining European security underwritten for seven decades by Nato. Given Trump’s belief in his powers as a deal-maker, and his reluctance to listen to his advisers, anything is possible in the summit. For Putin, any cracks in the Western alliance would be welcome. It is clear that there is a notable lack of unity in the Western alliance under Trump that will mean weakness and confusion to Putin.
Trump is widely perceived to prefer dealing with autocrats than he is with democrats. Caught up in various enquiries, and bound by constitutional checks and balances, he must envy the freedom of action leaders like Putin and Kim Jong-un enjoy. These are difficult days for Western democracies, and we can expect more turbulence ahead in the era of Trump.
Published in Dawn, July 16th, 2018
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.