This article was written by Angus Harker a student at the University of Warwick. This article is part of his column 'The Other Side'.
In the rhyming cycle of history, in these dark times, it is swift strength that is favoured over mealy-mouthed democracy. With the increase in support of the “strong man” persona in world leaders today, with Trump, Macron, Putin, Orban, and Meloni, it brings with it the idea that the electorate are less interested in the peace of the collective, the persuasive methods of diplomacy and the looming spectre of compromise, and more in the Roman ideal of the strong general. With the possibility of Donald Trump pulling out of NATO, a question must be asked: Who would be the strong man of Europe?
The Murky Mix of Government and Military
The Financial Times recently wrote a column delving into the efficacy of NATO without the USA. Suffice it to say, it wasn’t the most optimistic. Central to the biggest issue isn’t necessarily cost – indeed, the mere fact that more countries have been able to meet their defence spending after a long inability to suggest that money has never been the issue – but it has been with the lack of leadership. As egalitarian as the notion of a conglomeration of states with a unified army sounds, militaries themselves aren’t democracies. They are hegemonic power structures that favour discipline, obedience, and professionalism. Whilst there is sufficient room for improvisation, loyalty to their general is implied to be unwavering – indeed, the UK military swears allegiance to the king and his heirs and successors. This traditional allegiance suggests that the military exists outside of politics; South Korea’s president’s failed attempt to instill martial law to pass a budget through suggests that, in functioning democracies, the military has no place – it is designed to protect Democracy, not participate in it.
This is where the issue with NATO lies. It’s a politicised military structure, and that is deducible from the fact that it is an amalgamation of political states, an agreement of governments. With no clear military structure, then power is dictated by the most economically powerful nations, which almost always is America. Which has led to a dependence on it. It’s understandable that Trump is angry at Europe’s dependence on America as a military nation, and to a certain extent he has a point. The only issue is that throwing the baby out with the bathwater is going to result in a power vacuum in NATO because of such a lack of strength as its consequence, along with a lack of funds to Ukraine. I have written on the appeal of strong, polarised political leaders in recent times, and the allure that their authenticity has. This is probably why NATO has appointed Mark Rutte as the latest secretary general, due to his hawkish criticism of Russia. They realise the necessity to appear strong in a time of economic turmoil.
Slim Pickings
But whilst they are making moves towards a NATO without the USA, it is still a fact that NATO has very little agency with Rutte, and they’d have even less if Trump leaves it. Far from it being a 21st century organisation, NATO holds more in common with the feudalism of the Medieval period; a band of smaller lords uniting under a greater king, all of whom are owners of fiefdoms of various sizes. With the strongest military and economic presence gone, there lies a struggle with the smaller nations trying to take over with the vacuum of power. The strongest nations with the greatest voices are the UK, France, and Germany, which isn’t the most promising. Germany is a nation at its most divided in the 21st century, with a leader that cannot even keep a government together, making passing budgets impossible. Or am I talking about France? Even Rutte’s own nation’s government is not the strongest, leaving a NATO that is built on a house of cards. That leaves the UK, which has faced some criticism regarding its military’s efficacy in the event of war. If there comes a time when that mutual defence treaty is put on the line, who would have the nerve to act on it, and who would get cold feet?
A Rainbow in the Dark?
I’d like to end my shorter last piece this year on a lighter note, so as to not leave us all with sour grapes and moody dispositions over Christmas. There are signs that the US won’t pull out of NATO. This is not the first time Trump has criticized the organization, and he didn’t pull out of it during his first term in office. In addition, his phone call with Putin has been disputed as to whether or not it actually took place, highlighting potential tensions between the two before Trump’s inauguration. The simple fact is, there is no telling what side of the fence he will fall on. And whilst he may lean towards isolationism, that doesn’t necessarily mean he will leave Europe. However, if he does, then NATO would scramble to pick up the pieces, and it’s highly likely that it would not have the nerve to defend itself from Russia. Without the US, NATO runs the risk of being the pawn of the other violent and powerful actors in this world play - a defenceless Desdemona in a room full of Iagos.
The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Warwick Economics Summit.
References:
Financial Times
The British Army- https://www.army.mod.uk/news/british-army-recruits-swear-oath-of-allegiance-to-new-king-for-first-time/
BBC News-
WES Journal-
The Guardian-
コメント