Where is NATO's 2% target? Is Trump telling the truth?
(B2) US President Trump sermonizes it all the time. And this should be one of the major subjects of the NATO summit on July 11 and 12: we must spend more on defence. Is it justified? Who respects this objective today? What are President Trump's ulterior motives?
Who is currently meeting the 2% target?
The movement is committed we swear to the Alliance. According to the last investigation report published today, four member countries met the 2% target in 2017-2018: the United States (3,50%), Greece (2,27%), Estonia (2,14%) and the United Kingdom (2,10%), and four others should reach it in 2018 or are very close to it: Latvia (2,00%), Poland (1,98%), Lithuania (1,96%) and Romania (1,93%). It's still weak. Trump knows this and supports where it hurts: the member countries of the Alliance do not respect their commitments very much... NB: the percentages indicated are taken from estimates for 2018 carried out by NATO).
And France?
France is not very far from this objective, according to NATO statistics (1,81%). But it would have already reached it if we take into account all the elements according to the Court of Auditors. Read : France has already achieved NATO's 2% target! says the Court of Auditors.
How to explain that the countries increase their expenditure and that the increase is so nil?
One explanation: renewed economic growth. Even if some countries have increased their defense budget, this increase is canceled out by economic growth, as confirmed to B2 by a Western diplomat. " At unchanged policy, the increase in the defense budget due only to a slight increase in the percentage of GDP devoted to defense, due to the increase in economic growth ».
When did the 2% target become topical again?
It was not Donald Trump who was the vector (contrary to what one might think), it was the international context, especially in Eastern Europe. It is in particular the Russian offensive in Ukraine, with the annexation of Crimea in the spring of 2014 and the rebel unrest in the east of the country, which are bringing this issue back to the forefront of the news. In September 2014, during the Wales summit, the NATO countries pledged to stop cutting defense spending and gradually increase it towards the target of 2% of their GDP by 2024. .
Does this objective guarantee an effective defense?
No way. This mathematical objective does not take into account the particular effort of certain countries (GDP per capita for example), nor does it take into account the quality of the investment, such as the political will. Some countries have an investment of less than 2% of GDP and still have operational defense (example: Denmark). Others fulfill this objective (example: Greece) but do not really have the means to be effective. The reality is therefore complex, as demonstrated by our complete analysis (which has just been published): The real fake burden-sharing debate. Between myths and realities.
Why is Trump waving this lens?
It's a chief selling point. This 'made in USA' message is not new in itself. But by finding fault, in a much more incisive way, with his main allies, Donald Trump lends credibility to the idea — which he spreads abundantly in American opinion — that the United States pays for everyone, using of an easily measurable, quasi-mathematical tool. He justifies in passing the measures of economic retaliation (such as the increase in customs duties on steel) towards these 'profiteers' of Europeans. By forcing the Europeans to step up the pace, he finally puts them on notice to equip themselves. And what better than American equipment, available, operational, interoperable, and often cheaper (at least to buy) for that. The 2% is, in fact, mainly a way of saying 'buy US, and quickly'.
When Trump says if Europeans spend more, Americans will spend less, is he telling the truth?
No. It has no relation. The 2% target does not correspond to the common costs budget of the Atlantic Alliance nor to what would be a common defense budget. The American defense budget obeys certain imperatives which are not automatically those of NATO. Conversely, the defense budgets of European countries do not automatically satisfy all American objectives.
NATO countries must pay MORE, the United States must pay LESS. Very Unfair!
- Donald J. Trump (@ realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2018
This maxim of Donald Trump is therefore pure nonsense, both economic and political. If we take it literally, it would mean that the US federal government intends to reduce the defense budget (which is not the current trend). It would also lead to a drop in US jobs (the US defense sector being particularly protected and not conducive to imports). Which is completely against Trump's policy.
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
To know everything:
- on the 2% target, when was it created, why? The objective of 2% of GDP devoted to defense
- who achieves the goal and who does not? In 2017, Allied defense spending increased, but in scattered order
