1. Home
2. Highlights
3. The Transatlantic Alliance Will Survive Just Fine

Media and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are hyping the idea that President Trump's attempt to gain sovereign control of Greenland has caused unprecedented and irreparable damage to the over 75 year-old Transatlantic Alliance.  This "analysis" stems from multiple sources.  On both sides of the ocean, there are those who pounce on any deviation from the norm by Trump as evidence the world as we know it is ending. And in Europe, there is the human but unattractive reaction of weak, dependent states against their one powerful ally when it rejects Europe's preferred script. Much of the U.S. media criticism is summarized by the concept that our other NATO allies can never again "trust" the U.S.

Part of the problem here is amnesia. NATO has survived internal differences and rifts from the beginning. An American list of untrustworthy behavior by NATO allies might begin in 1956, only seven years after the alliance's formation.  Without consulting Washington, France and Britain colluded with Israel in an invasion of Egypt to regain the Suez Canal and overthrow Egyptian President Abdul Nasser. This last gasp of imperial delusion led U.S. President Eisenhower to withhold financial support and oil from the errant allies, forcing their withdrawal.  Then there was French President de Gaulle's decision to withdraw France from the military structure of NATO in 1966, pursuing perhaps the longest Gallic pout in history -- France did not reintegrate its military with NATO until 2009. And from the 1960s through the 1980s there were endless debates, storms, and protests over the U.S. military and nuclear presence in Europe -- with much friction as leaders tried to line up means and ends, doctrine and meaningful deployments, and divergent politics on both sides of the Atlantic to deter the USSR.

As the Cold War ended, there was the issue of German reunification after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It seemed like a no brainer to Washington, yet was achieved by American diplomacy, German wisdom, and Moscow's acquiescence over the heads of a recalcitrant British Prime Minister Thatcher and an ambivalent French President Mitterrand.  Let's not forget America's experience with NATO during the second Iraq war, when France led much of "old" Western Europe to oppose the U.S. involvement, while "new" Eastern European members of NATO joined hands with America -- nor Turkey's refusal to grant America even logistical military access to American forces en route to Iraq. Few today would defend the 2003 campaign against Iraq, but at the time the equivocal behavior of U.S. allies certainly created an acute crisis of trust. More recently, French President Macron declared NATO's brain death in 2019 in a plea for lessening European dependence on America for security. No one followed his lead. Judging from the state of French governance today, it is fair to wonder who is suffering brain death today.

The alliance survived these and other crises and breaches of trust. Despite the present hullabaloo, the alliance will do so again so long as leaders remember the bedrock interests that bind us: shared threats, compatible strategic interests, common values, and an economic interdependence that enriches both sides of the Atlantic. As was shown in the Balkans in the 1990s and Ukraine today, Europe is simply not composed to handle its strategic security problems alone. That reality is hard for proud nations with long traditions to accept, but statesmanship requires understanding the limits of one's power.   European rhetoric and behavior hardly serves Europe's interests if it feeds a trend in America that discounts the value of NATO.

It is perfectly reasonable for each generation to reevaluate the worth of inherited foreign policy and defense strategies and commitments. We live in times in which calm, rational debate of policy seems a quaint anachronism. But it is needed more than ever. Europeans may not appreciate the style and methods of Trump, but the medicine he has administered has the potential to strengthen, not weaken, the alliance. Significant increases in defense spending have occurred because of Washington's pressure and the unmasking of the reality of Russian aggression on their doorstep. Trump's focus on Greenland at least has forced NATO finally to recognize that climate change in the Arctic compels new thinking about how to protect shared interests in an emerging arena of East/West competition.

No one appreciates lectures, especially when they are accurate. Yet, if Europe doesn't reexamine growth-killing regulatory, high-tech, and tax policies, not only will the global economy suffer, but Europe will be a less reliable partner in security endeavors it can no longer afford. With the right balance of burden sharing, strategic recalibration, and tolerance for our national and political differences, NATO will be an invaluable asset to all its members for decades to come.