Subscribe
E-Paper
 |
In an end-of-summit communique, Beijing's "growing influence and international policies", as the world's second largest defense spender, were recognized as both an opportunity and challenge. U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper, for instance asserted that "China is a strategic challenge for us and we need to get ahead of that. We need to be prepared in case things do turn out in a way we prefer they not."
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg added that the alliance's discussion of Beijing is "not about moving NATO into the South China Sea, but it's about taking into account that China is coming closer to us" and what this means for the ownership of strategic weaponry and infrastructure. Take the example of telecom equipment maker Huawei which was a topic of discussion on Tuesday and Wednesday with NATO leaders saying they were committed to ensuring their nations had secure 5G communications.
Amidst the appearance of NATO unity on Russia and China, the organization is actually on the back foot on a wide range of issues after internal squabbles, including Emmanuel Macron's assertion that it is experiencing "brain death." Macron's remarkable outburst, which was heavily criticized by Donald Trump in London, was prompted by what he sees as a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, including the diminished commitment of the United States to NATO.
Macron exemplified his claim about Washington's waning commitment to NATO by the White House's failure to consult western allies before pulling U.S. forces out of Syria. This development is still reverberating inside the organization as it opened the way for a much-criticized move by Turkey ― itself a NATO member ― to push into Syria and create what it calls a "security zone" along its border.
Meanwhile, Kurdish forces, who had been helping Western forces fight the so-called Islamic State, were expelled from the area, and Macron has angered Turkey by subsequently hosting an official from the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces. Last week, Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu hit back, sensationally, at Macron calling him a "sponsor of terrorism", while President Recep Erdogan said it is the French president who is "brain dead."
In this context, Secretary General Stoltenberg's chief goal this week was to "steady the ship." Much of this year, Stoltenberg has played this same role as peace-maker-in-chief.
In April, for instance, he sought to consolidate bipartisan U.S. support in Washington for the alliance ― after stinging criticism last year from Donald Trump ― at its annual summit of foreign ministers. The NATO secretary general was buoyed in his joint address to Congress where legislators gave several standing ovations.
While Trump himself has actually been relatively quiet about NATO in recent months, few have forgotten the extraordinary scenes last year when he put the alliance's 2018 annual summit in disarray by threatening to pull the United States out. His behavior led to cancellations of a series of NATO bilateral meetings and press conferences, and he then went on to have a cordial meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, further undermining confidence in the transatlantic alliance.
At this week's summit, Stoltenberg sought to underline the continuing relevance of the Western alliance of countries with a collective population of around 1 billion. For all its weaknesses, NATO remains one of the world's most successful ever military organizations, and has helped underpin the longest period of sustained peace in the West's modern history.
One of his top messages was that the military alliance is still needed as a bulwark to Russia. Following Moscow's annexation of Crimea, and the wider destabilization of Ukraine, NATO's relationship with Moscow remains at one of its lowest points since the end of the Cold War.
And there remains alarm in certain quarters about the West's capability to respond to what is perceived as a significantly enhanced Russian security threat. Whereas Moscow is estimated to have increased defense spending by some 80 percent between 2008 and 2014, the counterpart figure for NATO countries collectively was a decrease of around 20 percent, although there have been five years of subsequent increases in defense spending since then.
Yet, this burden sharing issue continues to be a sore spot for the United States, which still accounts for around two thirds of total NATO defense spending. At the summit, Trump claimed a political victory on the issue.
Yet, while he claims that alliance members agreed to reach spending of 2 percent of GDP on the military faster than previously planned, the reality is that this would have happened anyway. A combination of Russian military assertiveness, instability in the Middle East and Africa, not just Trump's apparently uncertain commitment to Europe's security, is driving this move toward greater spending.
Taken overall, much as a show of unity was put on in London, there appear to be growing concerns about whether the alliance is fit for purpose as it moves into its eighth decade. This is likely to lead to continuing tensions, including between Macron and Trump, with their competing visions for the West's future as China continues its rise to power.
Andrew Hammond (andrewkorea@outlook.com) is an associate at LSE IDEAS at the London School of Economics.
