Riling Nato without reason

During the US presidential election campaign, Donald Trump claimed that the United States bore a disproportionate share of the defence spending of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) and vowed to make allies in Europe and Canada pay more or face the consequences. 
In principle, each Nato member is supposed to contribute at least two per cent of gross domestic product for defence.
Today, only five countries (United States, United Kingdom, Greece, Poland and Estonia) out of 28 members meet that requirement. 
First of all, under the current baseline, it does not mean that the US would pay more if other Nato countries did not meet their 2 per cent requirement, although during the campaign Trump made it sound like Washington was picking up the bill for all those who were slacking off. 
At a recent meeting in Europe, US Secretary of State Tex Tillerson told Nato they had two months to boost their defence spending or come up with a new plan for the grouping’s defence guideline.
The tone, coupled with the deadline, was somewhat arrogant, not to mention the misleading campaign statement by Trump about how America has to make up for others coming up short. Trump even suggested that he might not come to the defence of allies who do not meet their share of the commitment. 
The statement may have been in line with his bogus “America First” campaign slogan but it was an unnecessary jolt for Nato members on the east and must have pleased Moscow which annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014.  
As damage control, Tillerson did reiterate during his visit to Brussels that the US is still committed to Nato’s “one for all and all for one” principle. But the damage has already been done and one can argue that it all started during Trump’s campaign. 
In general, people don’t take campaign assertions seriously. But we are well into two months of Trump’s presidency and the time for making outrageous claims should be over. 
As German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel pointed out, security is also about crisis prevention, not just combat. And in that respect, Germany pays much more than its fair share. The number of refugees who land in Europe and, Germany in particular, for example, is the consequence of the failed military interventions.
While Trump grumbles that the US is paying too much for the security of other people, let’s not forget the benefits the US receives in return for this expenditure. America has national interests all over the world and it benefits the US a great deal by enabling it to have military and naval bases in these countries and regions – to secure its trading routes and also expand its sphere of influence.
Besides the financial angle, as Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland rightly pointed out, “It’s also really important to look at capabilities and what [Nato] countries are actually doing.”
“We really feel that we’re doing our share,” she said, pointing to Canada’s troop presence in Latvia to deter Russian aggression.
Tillerson also argued that Nato could do more to fight the Islamic State terror group and other extremist organisations. 
Again, such a statement reflects the outdated mindset of the current crop of Trump policymakers. If they were up to date, they would see that Nato – after Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Bosnia-Herzegovina conflicts – has come to the conclusion that from a long-term view, it’s better to train local forces and strengthen local security institutions to handle long-term security challenges.