.png)
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), established in 1949, initially conceptualised to deter Soviet expansionism and encourage Europe's political integration, is now at a crossroads. The recent election of Donald J. Trump as the 47th president of the United States of America has induced uncertainty and re-evaluation of the alliance's cohesion and strategic direction.
Illustration by The Geostrata
His 'America First' questions the military organisation's greater cooperation and collective defence. During his term from 2017-2021, he vocalised his criticism for the lack of contribution of fellow members for not complying with Article 3 of the organisation.
The re-election of Trump this year, once again, places NATO at a critical juncture and raises concerns about the possible policy implications in NATO.
This article aims to critically assess the impacts of Trump's election on NATO's future orientation, extrapolating potential shifts in its policies, transatlantic relations, and strategic priorities.
MODERNISATION OF MILITARY CAPABILITIES
The U.S. defence budget accounts for about two-thirds of NATO's total defence budget. U.S. pays 22 per cent of NATO's direct expenditures and shared exercises, which total $2.8 billion. In 2023, it accounted for 67% of the combined defence expenditure.
During Trump's first term, he criticised other member states for not following Article 3 of the organisation by not contributing and meeting the target of spending 2 per cent of its GDP on defence, calling NATO an "obsolete" organisation.
In this term, members must reassure the U.S. of their commitment to collective defence and meet the 2 per cent goal while focusing on capacity development in cybersecurity, intelligence, and rapid deployment forces. This can also be justified by the statement of the U.S. Defence Secretary, Jim Mattis, iterating that America may consider its commitment to the alliance if the member countries do not support the common defence.
By 2023, Germany's defence budget increased to €67.6 billion ($72.3 billion), a considerable rise from earlier years. Germany set up a special €100 billion ($106 billion) fund to modernise its military capabilities, including procuring new equipment and bolstering its armed forces when the Russia-Ukraine threat rose.
DEFENCE FUND AGAINST UKRAINE
Trump's previous term oscillated between isolationism and selective interventionism. This swing continues to dominate the current political landscape of NATO. With a 17% increase in arms and defence equipment between 2014-18 and 2019-23, the United States remains a significant exporter. From 2015 through 2023, the United States authorised the permanent export of over U.S. $ 1.6 billion in defence articles and services to Ukraine via Direct Commercial Sales (DCS). In the year 2023,
High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) worth U.S. $10 billion was approved to Poland, U.S. $2.9 billion worth of AIM- 120C-8 Advanced Medium-Range Air-To-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) to Germany, and National Advanced Surface to Air Missile Systems (NASAMS) to Ukraine were approved.
The robust defence support continues despite Trump's vocal criticism of NATO. This indicates counterbalancing Russian aggression, but coupling it with his isolationist undertone, he repeatedly pressures allies to increase their defence spending.
At this stage, America's pendulum between isolationism and interventionism is felt acutely in a country that is in full-scale invasion and needs help from the West just to be able to sustain it—speculations remain on the U.S. to force Ukraine into unfavourable peace resolutions.
Europe can make up for the shortfall, but it would take much more effort than it currently makes. This uncertainty must be utilised to create a dedicated defence fund for Ukraine to reduce its reliance on America and bolster multilateral defence cooperation with other non-NATO EU nations.
EXPANSION OF NATO RESPONSE FORCE
In the past few years, cohesion waned as the multiplication of crises- including international terrorism, mass migration, and Russian foreign policy deepened strategic rifts and east-south divisions among NATO allies.
While Eastern European allies focus on Russian deterrence, southern allies prioritise threats from North Africa and the Middle East. Recently, Turkey's standoff with the U.S. over the delivery of the Russian S-400 missile defence system may prove a historic mistake with paradigm-shifting consequences along with Hungary's scepticism of the EU's defence policies, which deters the cohesion and unity of the organisation.
NATO should strengthen its internal mechanisms, such as expanding the role of the NATO Response Force, its multinational force that can be quickly deployed to respond to security challenges, and increasing joint military exercises to build trust and operational cohesion among the member states. Additionally, it should engage beyond its members and set up multilateral defence initiatives to reinforce the alliance's external strategic deterrence.
Multilateralism should remain the key for the organisation. Establishing a strategic dialogue forum that addresses internal disagreements by focusing on shared security concerns and strengthening the NATO Strategic Communications Centre can also counter divisive narratives.
STRENGTHENING NATO’S MARITIME INFLUENCE IN ASIA
Trump's re-election can negatively affect American expenditure in the maritime domain in strategic areas for the transatlantic organisation, pushing other member-states to seek security partnerships and collaborations with non-traditional state actors.
The Recent NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, focused on building close ties with countries in the Indo-Pacific, reflecting its strategic adaptation and intention to engage with countries in the region. To counter hybrid threats from Russia and China and protect critical sea lanes and undersea cables, NATO should constitute a Maritime Cybersecurity taskforce and bolster the Alliance Maritime Strategy of 2012.
Image Credits: Rightful Owner
It should also expand its partnerships with non-member countries involved in Arctic and maritime security, such as India, Japan and Australia in the Indo-Pacific region and Canada.
In fact, "NATO moving to Asia" should be strengthened to provide a platform to discuss the security implications of China's foreign and economic policies on allies.
RESILIENCE AGAINST HYBRID THREATS
Trump's previous presidency was marked by high-stakes rhetoric. His present term can lead to America facing economic turbulence in terms of inflationary pressures and straining consumer markets worldwide. He is set to focus on strategic decoupling to protect American industries and reduce deficits. Relationship Managers of NATO can ensure that this does not hinder their global supply chains by reordering them.
In this era of re-globalisation, NATO can facilitate the mobility of talents and skills and create an integration of the global workplace.
In addition, building resilience against hybrid threats like economic coercion and cyber-warfare is imperative. Deepening intelligence sharing with countries in the Indo-Pacific, including joint investments in critical technologies like artificial intelligence, can also boost the alliance's ability to counteract China's technological edge.
CONCLUSION
The election of Donald J. Trump brings uncertainty to the trans-Atlantic organisation's future by impacting its policy stance in global politics. While Trump's policies might bring unwanted pressure on the member-states, they could also be optimised to catalyse the alliance’s modernisation and evolution.
NATO can strengthen its internal unity, engage with non-traditional allies to broaden its scope and prioritise interlocking strategic defence partnerships in Asia and Oceania.
However, it is in the interest of America, Europe and Canada to stick together and focus on collective security to remain a resilient force in the multipolar world order.
BY SHAINA ARORA
CENTRE FOR DIPLOMACY AND INNOVATION
TEAM GEOSTRATA
Comments