Philippe Lagassé: The harsh reality of Trump's ‘Mobster Diplomacy’
Philippe Lagassé: The harsh reality of Trump's ‘Mobster Diplomacy’
Donald Trump's shaming and threatening of NATO allies over defence spending is crude and dangerous. Unfortunately, he also has a point.
By: Philippe Lagassé
Donald Trump recently called into question the core principle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As a collective defence alliance, NATO operates on the principle that an attack against one member is an attack against all. This principle is enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO agreement. Although Article 5 allows each ally to respond as they see fit, there’s an understanding that allies have an obligation to defend each other.
On the campaign trail, Trump declared that, if elected, he wouldn’t defend NATO allies if they’ve failed to spend two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence. Not only that, he said he’d encourage Russia to attack these allies. As Trump reiterated last week: “Look, if they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect, okay?” These comments raised serious concerns within NATO. Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, warned that Trump is striking at the underlying logic of the alliance. The Secretary General stressed that “We should not undermine the credibility of NATO’s deterrent.”
What should we make of Trump’s threat? On the one hand, it’s clearly dangerous and evidence that a second Trump presidency could shake the foundations of the alliance. We should rightly be worried and condemn such reckless rhetoric. On the other hand, this is classic Trump. His approach to international politics can best be understood as “mobster diplomacy.” He demands personal loyalty as the head of the “family” of Western liberal democracies. When it comes to trade deals, he echoes Don Corleone in making offers that partners can’t refuse. As for alliances, he sees them as a protection racket. When it comes to NATO allies, his message is simple and direct: “Nice country you have there … pity if something happened to it.”
Hello again! In our last dispatch, we included a special offer. The Line, like all other subscription-funded outlets, always faces some degree of monthly churn — mostly driven, in our case, by expiring credit cards. To help woo some of you back, or convince you to sign up in the first place, we are offering this time-limited special offer. Help us hold The Line against the collapse of the legacy media and the tsunami of stupid flowing over everything. Sign up to support The Line today. EDIT: Woo you back! Not woe! Damn you, autocorrect!
Allied leaders and academics can protest that the two per cent target isn’t a payment to the United States; it’s a measure of the relative amount allies spend on their own militaries, not a fee they owe Washington. While true, it’s a waste of breath to point this out. Trump and his supporters don’t care. They see most allies as freeloaders who’ve been coasting on American military power for too long. And you know what? They’re not wrong. That’s the rub for those who are understandably horrified by Trump’s comments. Far too many NATO allies, including Canada, have been content let the United States carry a heavy defence spending burden, while we focus on other priorities. That’s what Trump is ultimately getting at here, however menacingly.
Now, it’s also true that allies shouldn’t only be judged on whether they’re meeting the NATO two per cent target. After Trump made his remarks, observers noted that NATO allies came to the aid of the United States when Article 5 was invoked after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Looking at Canada, in particular, we also have a strong record of showing up where it counts. Canadians may not spend as much as we should, but we’re one of the “fighting few,” that subset of American allies who are willing to take on risky combat missions. Canada’s deployment to Kandahar, Afghanistan is a clear example. Canada also took part in the Libyan campaign in 2011, the advise-and-assist mission to help Iraq defeat the Islamic State, and we helped train Ukrainian force prior to the Russian invasion. Other allies who spend below two per cent of GDP on defence, such as the Netherlands, can make similar arguments.
In the end, though, most NATO allies can’t dodge the fact that they’ve spent less than promised. Successive American presidents have called us out on it, but to no avail. They’ve have asked, pressured, and tried to shame allies into spending more, yet it hasn’t worked. Indeed, as a recent article in the Journal of Conflict Resolution shows, shaming allies about their defence spending has been counterproductive and hurts allied burden sharing over the long term. Even if Trump were inclined to be less threatening, there’s no reason to think it would be more effective. If there’s a method to his madness, then, it may be that the possibility of abandonment will spur Europeans allies to finally spend more on their own defence.
What about Canada? Unlike Europe, abandonment is less of a concern. A full-scale Russian invasion isn’t a possibility, and even if it were, geography would compel the United States to defend our territory as a means of protecting theirs. We also have a separate continental defence alliance with the United States, which includes the binational North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Trump could threaten to dismantle NORAD if we don’t increase our defence spending to two per cent of GDP, but a joint approach to the defence of North America would likely endure in some form, albeit with Canada being far more subjugated.
As Trump well knows, however, there’s an easier way to make Canada spend more on defence: leverage our dependence on the American economy. Our prosperity and standard of living are so connected with cross-border trade that threats to our commercial relations would more than do the trick. Indeed, as Lawrence Herman recently argued in the Globe and Mail, Ottawa’s longstanding view that lower defence spending is economically advantageous could be upended by a second Trump presidency. The extra $18 billion in annual defence spending that it would take to get us to two per cent of GDP would be a pittance compared with the financial pain a determined Trump administration could impose on us if we don’t meet the NATO target.
In our case, therefore, Trump’s mobster diplomacy could kneecap our economy if we don’t pay the defence dues he thinks we owe.
Philippe Lagassé is an associate professor of international affairs at Carleton University.
The Line is entirely reader funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work and worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
This is an excellent and provocative point of view until the final sentence. Canada made a commitment to spend 2%. Regardless of whether others are missing their commitment, regardless of whether we are in theory a bit more safe than those in the EU, it does not excuse failing to do what we committed. It's not about Trump thinking we owe it. Unless of course we'd like to assert that nothing we commit is actually genuine and we rely on foreign leaders to supervise and establish guard rails for our conduct? I aspire to live in a country which demonstrates maturity, self governance & accountability and integrity. Disappointing wrap.
Don't understand why Canada is so reluctant to increase military spending to 2% of GDP. We've been throwing around equivalent and larger sums on domestic priorities of questionable value, and if NATO falters I would think we'll be in a hurry to shore up our ability to defend ourselves. Canada is a freeloader and we should stop with the 'yeah but's' Er no, let's talk about free dental care for 59 and a half year olds!