In Soliloquy number five Dr. Jackson notes that states’ autonomy and the ways in which actors present themselves are just as relevant to the business and economic realm as they are to global security.
In light of the recent NATO Summit, this statement
couldn’t be truer.
President Donald Trump discussing financial
commitments of its member countries was at the heart of this year’s summit.
Some news media outlets referring to it as “the tale of two summits,” President
Trump’s reflection on the summit promised the Americans an increased spending
by contributing states to 4%. French President Emmanuel Macron, on the other
hand, revealed that the detailed communiqué released after the summit shows the
measures approved by all the member states, and it reaffirms a commitment to 2%
in 2024.
The U.S. contributes 22% of the NATO budget, followed
by Germany (14%), France (10%) and Britain (9%). Most other member countries’
contributions are significantly less.
NATO expansion has been an important issue for
aspiring countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, seeking protection by the
alliance from Russia. The Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have
been luckier than their former Soviet counterparts, obtaining their membership
in 2004. Like many other countries, these three have not regularly met the 2%
goal (the NATO guideline is to spend a minimum of 2% of the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) on defense), even though they seek protection from Russia more
than most other member states. In 2015, as predicted by the European Leadership
Network (ELN), only one of the 14 nations examined, Estonia, would meet the 2%
target. By way of comparison, Estonia was spending more than the other two
Baltic states, Lithuania and Latvia.
As the contribution dispute has mainly focused on
financial commitment, military contributions, which have not always been met
either, should also be noted. As an example, in 2011 just 15 of NATO’s 28 member
states contributed in some way to the military operation in Libya.
This makes me think of the bi-monthly newsletter I just wrote for my project assistant position at a consulting company (Gamechangers360.com if you're interested in checking it out!). This newsletter was on gender budgeting vis-a-vis peace building and conflict resolution. As we have been discussing economic power, I have been thinking about how the ways in which state's appropriate funds to their peace building and conflict resolution initiatives (ex. implementing gender budgeting) may impact the global sphere. It is especially interesting to consider how a state contributing financially as a member to a multilateral organization, like NATO, may promote or oppose certain economic policies within said organization. I think it is clear that states (particularly powerful states) can influence other states and int'l institutions, and it would be interesting to evaluate how they may be able to influence economic policy globally.
ReplyDeleteEka you are right to point out the relationship between economic and political power and I agree that NATO is an excellent example of this. NATO is a political agreement that aligns around security, but the politics of economy play a huge role in the alliance. Back when I did my internship in Brussels, we talked extensively about states failing to contribute their "fair share" and now today, 5 years later, the problem persists.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why states don't feel inclined to contribute even their agreed-upon 2%? Is it because they feel NATO lacks legitimacy? Is it because they don't value the alliance? Is it because of the precedent that has been set in the past? I think the answer to these questions also offer some insight into how states leverage economic issues to their own political advantage.