Monthly Archives: June 2017

Arthur I. Cyr, Guest Columnist 6:00 a.m. CT June 3, 2017

In the Middle East, the enemies of our enemy are enemies.(Photo: Scott Olson, Getty Images)

The NATO summit in Brussels on May 25 has received relatively little attention, thanks to the crowded schedule of President Donald Trumps visit to the Middle East and Europe.

The diplomatic whirlwind commenced with the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. Leaders from 55 nations addressed the threat of terrorism. The NATO summit was followed almost immediately by a meeting of the G7, comprised of the worlds principal industrial nations, in Taormina Italy. Main agenda item was the continuing debt problems of Greece.

The brief Brussels meeting nevertheless contained heavy symbolism. Remnants of the Berlin Wall, and World Trade Center destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, were dedicated.

The NATO meeting probably will prove the most significant, simply by confirming the solid durability of the alliance. NATO demonstrates unity, and these summits are positive for international stability, especially long-term. The media should focus on these realities.

Warsaw Poland was the site for the May 2016 NATO summit, which linked the present with the past. Invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939 sparked World War II in Europe.

The Warsaw delegates agreed to commit troops to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Montenegro was formally invited to join NATO.

NATO also underscored commitment to Afghanistan, confirming involvement there until 2020. The senior civilian NATO representative in the country at that time was Turkeys diplomat Ismail Aramaz. This is a particularly important point, given Turkeys crucial front-line position against the Islamic State, and Ankaras vexed relationship with the rest of Europe and the U.S.

British voters narrow but clear decision to leave the EU has generated alarm, notably among business executives as well as politicians and civil servants. They fear economic instability and even recession may result. So far, these fears have not by realized, except for the decline in value of the British pound.

One important neglected point is that Britains long-term role as military leader in Europe and the wider Atlantic area will probably be reinforced. Starting with World War I, Britain has encouraged United States engagement with Europe, in military and also economic terms. Creation of NATO followed a series of more limited steps, preliminary building-blocks on which the final structure was created.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter explicitly supports collective self-defense. In March 1947, representatives of Britain and France signed the Treaty of Dunkirk. The main perceived potential threat at that time was Germany. The text of the treaty stated the signatory nations would protect one another from any threat arising from the adoption by Germany of aggression ....

By then, severe strains were growing between the Western allies and the Soviet Union. In March 1948, the Dunkirk alliance was widened into the Brussels Pact. The resulting Western Union included Belgium, Britain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and was a positive precursor to the European Economic Community established in the following decade.

Britain steadily fostered cross-Atlantic military cooperation as the Cold War developed. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin kept the far left of his Labour Party at bay. He was effective in dealing with European leaders in forging the European Coal and Steel Community and forming NATO. Institutional collaboration was reinforced by interpersonal dynamics, starting with Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II.

NATO continues to provide transatlantic cooperation. The current Britain-U.S. rift over publication of Manchester bombing photos by The New York Times is especially unfortunate.

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

Read or Share this story: http://memne.ws/2sAkeDa

More:
NATO Summit underscores Durable Alliance - The Commercial Appeal

So what if, in his speech last week to NATO, Donald Trump didnt explicitly reaffirm the provision that an attack on one is an attack on all?

Whats the big deal? Didnt he affirm a general commitment to NATO during his visit? Hadnt he earlier sent his vice president and secretaries of state and defense to pledge allegiance to Article 5?

And anyway, who believes that the United States would really go to war with Russia and risk nuclear annihilation over Estonia?

Ah, but thats precisely the point. It is because deterrence is so delicate, so problematic, so literally unbelievable that it is not to be trifled with. And why for an American president to gratuitously undermine what little credibility deterrence already has, by ostentatiously refusing to recommit to Article 5, is so shocking.

Deterrence is inherently a barely believable bluff. Even at the height of the Cold War, when highly resolute presidents, such as Eisenhower and Kennedy, threatened Russia with massive retaliation (i.e., all-out nuclear war), would we really have sacrificed New York for Berlin?

No one knew for sure. Not Eisenhower, not Kennedy, not the Soviets, not anyone. Yet that very uncertainty was enough to stay the hand of any aggressor and keep the peace of the world for 70 years.

Deterrence does not depend on 100 percent certainty that the other guy will go to war if you cross a red line. Given the stakes, merely a chance of that happening can be enough. For 70 years, it was enough.

Leaders therefore do everything they can to bolster it. Install tripwires, for example. During the Cold War, we stationed troops in Germany to face the massive tank armies of Soviet Russia. Today we have 28,000 troops in South Korea, 12,000 near the demilitarized zone.

Why? Not to repel invasion. They couldnt. Theyre not strong enough. To put it very coldly, theyre there to die. Theyre a deliberate message to the enemy that if you invade our ally, you will have to kill a lot of Americans first. Which will galvanize us into full-scale war against you.

Tripwires are risky, dangerous and cynical. Yet we resort to them because parchment promises are problematic and tripwires imply automaticity. We do what we can to strengthen deterrence.

Rhetorically as well. Which is why presidents from Truman on have regularly and powerfully reaffirmed our deterrent pledge to NATO. Until Trump.

His omission was all the more damaging because of his personal history. This is a man chronically disdainful of NATO. He campaigned on its obsolescence. His inaugural address denounced American allies as cunning parasites living off American wealth and generosity. One of Trumps top outside advisers, Newt Gingrich, says that Estonia is in the suburbs of St. Petersburg, as if Russian designs on the Baltic states are not at all unreasonable.

Moreover, Trump devoted much of that very same speech, the highlight of his first presidential trip to NATO, to berating the allies for not paying their fair share. Nothing particularly wrong with that, or new half a century ago Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield was so offended by NATO free riding that he called for major reductions of U.S. troops in Europe.

Thats an American perennial. But if youre going to berate, at least reassure as well. Especially given rising Russian threats and aggression. Especially given that Trumps speech was teed up precisely for such reassurance. An administration official had spread the word that he would use the speech to endorse Article 5. And it was delivered at a ceremony honoring the first and only invocation of Article 5 ironically enough, by the allies in support of America after 9/11.

And yet Trump deliberately, defiantly refused to simply say it: America will always honor its commitment under Article 5.

Its not that, had Trump said the magic words, everyone would have 100 percent confidence we would strike back if Russia were to infiltrate little green men into Estonia, as it did in Crimea. But Trumps refusal to utter those words does lower whatever probability Vladimir Putin might attach to America responding with any seriousness to Russian aggression against a NATO ally.

Angela Merkel said Sunday (without mentioning his name) that after Trumps visit it is clear that Europe can no longer rely on others. Its not that yesterday Europe could fully rely and today it cannot rely at all. Its simply that the American deterrent has been weakened. And deterrence weakened is an invitation to instability, miscalculation, provocation and worse.

Link:
Trump Has Weakened America, NATO - Lynchburg News and Advance