The US economy and the function of NATO

Although US President Trump persistently tells his counterparts and the world to "trade with the US" and "invest in the US," he has not yet found what he hoped for. There are several reasons why he has not. 

First, the US is no longer as great a center of attraction as it once was. Second, China, the US's biggest rival, stands out as a more attractive country for production and investment than the US, not only to the rest of the world but also to major US companies themselves. This is because it is impossible for the US to compete with China in terms of production costs. China produces much more and much more cheaply. Moreover, it also produces quality goods. It is rapidly building its brand. For this reason, US President Trump's call for US companies to dismantle their factories in China and move them to the US has not met with the response he expected. 

Trump has also repeatedly called on European entrepreneurs, investors, and bosses to invest in the US. "Set up factories in the US. Let us offer you the most advantageous, lowest tax opportunities in the world. Otherwise, you will continue to pay high customs duties. We might even increase these customs duties further," he said. He practically threatened them. Despite this, he did not see the interest he expected from the Europeans either.

It is impossible for this picture regarding the economy, trade, and customs duties not to be reflected in politics and foreign policy. Therefore, when the US does not receive the response it hoped for from its invitations regarding the economy and its proposals regarding trade, it resorts more frequently to political pressure and threats regarding foreign policy. Regarding NATO, he scolds his European allies. He pressures the Europeans to contribute more to the NATO budget. Sometimes, getting carried away, Trump even threatens the Europeans by saying that the US could withdraw from NATO. The miserable and ignorant leaders of Europe sit next to the US President and swallow his insults. Sometimes they even applaud him. 

WILL THE US WITHDRAW FROM NATO?

The US will not withdraw from NATO. The US, which uses NATO very efficiently, has invested so much in NATO, and has gained great influence in the internal and external politics of its allies—from their economies to their defense and security policies—thanks to NATO, will not give up on NATO. If the US withdraws from NATO, NATO will lose its current meaning, effectiveness, and deterrent power. No member of NATO can fill the void left by the US. In addition to the US's political, economic, military, industrial, and technological weight, it should not be forgotten that the US covers 14.9 percent of NATO's joint budget and that 57 percent of total defense spending in NATO is carried out by the US. 

We know that European NATO members also lack the power, courage, will, and money to stand up to the US for a "more European NATO." There is no consensus among them in this direction either. The issue of a European defense and security identity, which is slightly separated and autonomous from NATO—led occasionally by Germany and France—should not be taken seriously. Berlin and Paris have not been able to convince other European members of NATO on this issue. Groups such as the European Political Community, which were brought to the agenda after the Ukraine-Russia war to involve countries that are not members of the European Union but are members of NATO, such as Turkey and the UK, also have no function, influence, or weight. 

US President Trump asked NATO members a few years ago to increase the share of defense spending in their GDP from 2 percent to 5 percent by 2035. There was no serious objection to this request. This request is just one of the proofs that NATO is important for the US not only politically and militarily, but also economically. The influence of the US, which has the world's largest arms industry, in NATO also brings a smile to the face of the US arms industry. 

Since Trump wants to make the US the largest production center again economically and increase exports and investments in the US, the defense industry is of great importance in this context. Since it is also necessary to reduce energy costs for this, Trump both excludes environmentally friendly energy projects in the country and, as in the case of Venezuela, kidnaps the leader of an energy-rich state and practically seizes its energy resources.

Otherwise, Trump knows that the US will have difficulty competing with China and that it is impossible for the US to produce more and cheaper, and sell more, than China, which is far ahead of the US in the manufacturing sector on a global scale. 

Therefore, as seen once again at the NATO summit held in Turkey, addressing strategic threats and deterrence for NATO, focusing on regional security and energy corridors, and pondering partnerships and global networks are all for the priorities and interests of the US. Whether explained by geopolitical balances, economic interests, regional dynamics, security needs, or diplomatic pressure, or all of these, NATO is an apparatus of US imperialism for attack and occupation.