NATO Needs Replacing

NATO was already creaking. Everyone could see it, from congressmen in the US tearing their hair out at Trump’s tweets to autocrats licking their lips. But no one wanted to say anything, because the emperor’s clothes are lovely until a child points out that he is naked. Macron is the allegorical child. He has excitedly pointed out what everyone could already see but chose not to mention and is now looking around for approval while the adults run for cover.

NATO was always something of a pipe dream. Created as a way of deterring Soviet aggression, it only worked if everyone was entirely committed to the project. In the case of an invasion of Western Europe, Soviet tanks would be rolling down the Mall before American troops were halfway across the Atlantic. However, the knowledge that the consequences of this would be an enthusiastic US response was always enough of a deterrent. Everyone gained as a result of this model. The US could shore up the vulnerable states of Western Europe while European nations were able to outsource their defence to America, in the knowledge that there was nothing they could do when titans like the US and the USSR clashed. Like a pampered child, Europe lost its calluses, placing its faith in the soft power of market forces to drive global liberalisation and turning its nose up at the crass flag waving of the US.

This is best seen in the structure of the EU, a common market, tied together through economic integration rather than a political bloc with common interests and policies. The EU developed in what it thought were enlightened ways, congratulating themselves on the long years of peace and social progressiveness, forgetting the foundations upon which that peace was built on. The withdrawal of the US from Europe threatens to show up the European project as an ivory tower or a fat grub whose log has been rolled away.

Criticising NATO is nothing new for French presidents who regularly try to establish French hegemony in Europe by positioning themselves as the rightful leader of Europe rather than the US. However, Macron’s comments might just have fired the starting gun on the collapse of this delicately balanced scenario. Macron doesn’t necessarily see this or else he wouldn’t have provided such a public criticism of NATO. The alternative to this, too horrific to imagine, is that he is trying to hasten its collapse. Whatever the case may be, the damage is done. Why should anyone trust an institution after it is shown to have such major internal divisions that one of its top members publicly criticises it?

Europe must face up to the reality of a situation where its integrity is not guaranteed by America. While his comments may have been misjudged, Macron is not badly positioned as a potential leader of Europe. Unlike all the leaders of other major nations of Europe, he is strong domestically, having consolidated support after the gilets jaunes protests, and has proved himself to be willing and able to act on the world stage. His recent state visit to China was notable for how strongly he tried to push European interests, taking with him not only a French business delegation but also a German minister of state and a European Commissioner.

However, this is a far cry from the joint Franco-Germanic visit that was proposed earlier this year. The problem is that while Macron’s proposals sound good, they are often still in the interests of France. For example, his argument that rapprochement with Russia is necessary terrifies the small Baltic nations that are on the front line of Russian aggression. While Macron is keen on a return to realpolitik and the sacrificing of these countries to the Russian sphere of influence in exchange for cooperation, this would not affect France but is not acceptable in any form.

Secondly, Macron’s call for Europe to resist China’s economic influence is easier for a Frenchman to say than it is for many of the other nations of Europe. The 1989 EU arms embargo on China, imposed after the Tiananmen square massacre, limited the involvement of major French defence tech companies, and the difficult trading conditions have led to a number of French industrial groups ceasing or scaling back involvement with China. This makes French companies much less reliant on Chinese exports than Germany, whose more consumer-goods-based industry has pivoted strongly towards China.

The core of his message though is one that European countries, tied up at the moment with internal matters, need to hear: “The fat years are over”. However, even Macron’s proposed military coordination mechanisms do not go far enough to fill the gaps in missile defence, air-to-air refuelling and logistical support created by a complete American military withdrawal. It will take strong leadership to bring the recalcitrant nations of Europe to heel and to formulate a united defence strategy in all fields from AI to space. While Macron might not be the best person for the job, he is possibly the only one in the position and with the vision to persuade Europe to get its hands dirty again and do what is necessary to protect our way of life.