Answering questions during his press briefing today, President Trump was asked about NATO’s Article 5 mutual-defense provision and offered his first public, direct confirmation that he is committed to military mutual defense of all other NATO member nations.
This had been a question for some time, with Trump’s previous comments on the alliance suggesting he was limiting his willingness to provide military support only to certain NATO member nations whom he felt were sufficiently committed to supporting the US.
The lack of a direct confirmation of this position would not normally be a big deal, except that other nations have been speculating on Trump’s position based on him calling NATO “obsolete” during the presidential campaign, and while other US officials insisted nothing had changed, Trump himself seemed to be going out of his way to dance around the issue.
It was particularly surprising, given his past evasiveness on the matter, that he was so quick with a pledge to “absolutely” be committed to Article 5 when asked directly about it today during his visit with the Romanian president. Whether that ends questions about Trump’s commitment from other NATO members, however, remains to be seen.
9 thoughts on “Trump Affirms Commitment to NATO’s Mutual-Defense Provision”
That’s a shame. He makes himself look foolish when he agrees to conventional positions after learning more.
He’d said when running that NATO is outdated, should focus more on terrorism. That is an intelligent statement.
By agreeing to mutual defence, Trump is reverting to the original purpose of NATO, which is stupid.
Increasingly Trump has shifted to standard GOP positions, which are not electorally successful. Perhaps he’ll stick with America First trade at least.
Theresa May / Tories lost big in the UK, and I expect the GOP will also lose significantly in 2018 if it can’t focus itself more on voters and less on donors. Perhaps people in Washington will have to make do with a few less mistresses to remain in power.
The mutual defense clause isn’t as iron clad as you might think. NATO nations may respond to a call for mutual defense as they see appropriate.
Ultimately, its not Trump who decides, but the MIC. Its not like he’s promising anything anyway; who’s going to attack Romania? Or any NATO country?
Mostly the new NATO members want assurances they’ll get their cut of American military spending.
Ty, for the reply. I suppose we’re to fear an attack on Romania by Russia.
I wish we’d pull out of NATO. He could have made different comments, that NATO has a new threat and purpose today: Terrorism. And he could have suggested NATO reduce its expenses, in favour of the US spending domestically.
EU integration is partly driven by NATO, as you well know. I’m against that. I want the EU broken up to preserve those traditions and differences. The free trade might be beneficial to Europe though.
Yeah, admitting NATO’s purpose is terrorism will go down real well.. oh, wait you meant that the other way…
Free trade within Europe is needed to some degree, but free trade is dangerous to cultural diversity if everything is held hostage to who can produce the most the cheapest.
I don’t have the link to the article, but some people in Sweden I think it was, were at a folk dancing festival, and were lamenting that this was what their culture was becoming reduced to; a tourist attraction. Sweden also has a high rate of emigration.
For all Europe’s diversity, their elites tend to uniformly agree on what’s good for themselves. The main weakness to the EU is not a lack of free trade, but the concentration of legislative powers in the EU Commission and EU Council at the expense of the actual legislative body, the EU Parliament.
The Commission describes itself as a the executive arm, but that’s a serious misnomer insofar as an executive body should not have sole legislative powers; only it can propose new legislation. The Council is another executive arm, the actual executives of the member states. The most democratically important arm, the EU Parliament, can’t propose legislation or set pan-European direction.
I’m not sure Trump is even aware of his flip flopping.
He was so pleased that people loved him during the campaign. Does he not realise what he ran on, what distinguished him?
And I don’t need someone preaching on what Trump supposedly ran on. I know what he ran on. His critics usually do not know.
I want Candidate Trump back.
This isn’t the first time the public got ‘rick rolled in a democracy.
There were plenty of signs.
He’s different from Obama though! Obama was still better than Dubya in some ways on foreign policy.
The new President of the Philippines tries to hide the fact that he is just a puppet of the military. Problem is, he just allowed the U.S. Special Forces to join the shootout now being fought with terrorists on the island that contains most of the countries natural resources.
New President of South Korea was elected mainly because he promised to oppose the Western aggression and war-mongering against North Korea. Comes now President Moon to give full approval of all the new Western sanctions imposed upon North Korea.
President of Venezuela won election primarily on his promise to stop the rich from continuing their economical slavery over all of society. Problem is, nothing has been done to take 90% of the wealth away from the rich, to take 90% ownership of media away from the rich or to stop the rich from funding a militia opposition that has both government and the public absolutely terrorized.
Time to realize that democracy is nothing more then terrorizing slavery at the hands of the 51% most wealthy and greedy. Time to let the upper-half do all of their own manual labor.
If only Trump could make up his mind who his enemies are.
Comments are closed.