Are talks between NATO and certain Middle East and Gulf states a human rights free zone? Has it stood up for Europe over Trump’s claims they owe the US money? DW asks NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller.
“Why do you refuse to answer the question?” DW’s Tim Sebastian asked Rose Gottemoeller, NATO’s deputy secretary general, as they discussed Donald Trump’s claims that NATO allies have not spent enough on defense and owe the US for the shortfall.
Pressing the deputy NATO chief further, Sebastian asked if it was true that the US was not owed any money and that it was not spending more because allies were spending less, as a former US ambassador to NATO had said.
“It’s true for every country across the alliance that they need to spend what it is in their interest to spend and that is on adequate, sufficient capability and capacity,” Gottemoeller told Sebastian.
The NATO deputy said it was “silly” to suggest falsehoods over the spending row were going uncorrected: “But let me say that in fact the defense investment pledge is acknowledged to be made up of several different components. Cash, yes indeed. But also contributions and capabilities. And those come in many many forms.”
The investment pledge, agreed at a NATO summit in Wales in September 2014, said member states would stop defense budget cuts and “move towards” spending 2% of GDP on defense “within a decade.”
While allies in Europe have increased their overall expenditure to a five-year high, according to NATO’s annual report in 2018, only six countries other than the US met the 2% goal. Germany spent 1.23%.
“We need to do a lot more on military mobility, on our ability to reinforce and they [Germany] are putting in place a new mobility command in Ulm in Germany. A great example of how they are contributing to the alliance,” said Gottemoeller.
Gottemoeller strongly rejected that NATO did not stand up for Europe over those contributions to collective defense: “Of course we stand up for Europe because Europe is us.”
And over Trump’s claims that Europe owes the US money for a shortfall on defense spending?
“We have been clear in telling it like it is,” said Gottemoeller.
Trump has ‘shaken things up’
Donald Trump’s doubt over NATO’s value to the US has raised questions about the reliability of the alliance’s largest partner. Had Trump undermined trust in the alliance?
“Clearly Donald Trump has shaken things up. There’s no question about it,” Gottemoeller told Conflict Zone‘s Tim Sebastian.
“In his inimitable way he got everybody to pay attention to the necessity of putting more money into their defense budgets. That’s a good thing.”
But Trump’s approach to NATO has been lamented by former US officials. Doug Lute, a former US ambassador to NATO, said it was “unprecedented. We’re at the 70th anniversary [of NATO] but the first time where allies have doubted the commitment of the American president.” William Burns, a career diplomat and former adviser to five US presidents, said that Trump’s disregard for alliances, while China was on the rise and Russia resurgent, were “criminal.”
Lawmakers in the US House of Representatives sent a message to Donald Trump in January by passing a bill that says no funds can be used to withdraw from NATO.
“I saw that as a great expression in Washington of bipartisan support for NATO … NATO is well supported across both sides of the aisle. That’s a great thing,” said Gottemoeller.
“Actions speak louder than words. Since the president has come into office the United States is spending $40 billion more on the European reassurance initiative, putting more capability and capacity into Eastern Europe to help in our deterrence and defense tasks against Russia. So I see the reality.”
Turning to NATO’s relations with certain Middle East and Gulf states with poor records on human rights, Sebastian asked the NATO deputy chief if its dialogues with those countries avoided addressing human rights.
“By no means because in fact when we work with all of those countries they have the opportunity of somewhat to pick and choose what we talk about but we always bring our values to the table,” she told Sebastian.
Did this mean criticizing their records on human rights?
“It means working with them effectively,” said Gottemoeller.
After pointing out this wasn’t the same as criticism, Sebastian asked whether difficult questions on human rights were asked at all.
“Everything we do with them in a day-in, day-out basis is meant to build the recognition and the acceptance of those values in a kind of organic way. So of course the discussion can’t take account of everything that is happening day-in, day-out in those countries but it does focus on building integrity.”