5

Several other questions are being asked in this same realm, however I've yet to see any question or answer directly ask what is the current (FY2018) obligation for defense spending of NATO countries.

If there is no specific obligation, how can anyone calculate an deficiency or delinquency (viz: "Many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money from many years back, where they're delinquent...")

I think I understand that NATO countries agreed to meet a 2% threshold by 2024, but I'm not aware that there was a schedule to be maintained to arrive at the threshold.

Additional background Information: Two targets

BobE
  • 10,260
  • 2
  • 25
  • 67
  • I suggest entirely removing the second paragraph, because it's a distraction (see o.m's answer). I also suggest giving examples of several questions (and their answers) that strongly imply the existence of such an obligation: – Peter Dec 03 '19 at 23:40
  • https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/8440/how-much-additional-defense-spending-would-nato-have-if-every-member-met-its-obl – Peter Dec 03 '19 at 23:40
  • https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/48346/is-there-a-fund-into-which-nato-countries-are-supposed-to-pay – Peter Dec 03 '19 at 23:40
  • https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/48334/how-true-are-trump-s-claims-about-nato-spending – Peter Dec 03 '19 at 23:41
  • @Peter - the statement cited in the second para implies that there is/was "such an obligation" The Q&A's I was referring to do not discuss a current obligation, which is why I am asking the question. – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 00:19

3 Answers3

7

There is no obligation for 2018. There is an obligation to meet 2% by 2024, and a guideline to meet 2% since 2006. They are not the same. There have been repeated efforts to intentionally misrepresent this by the Trump administration.

The guideline was agreed on in June 2006, and it explicitly stated that it doesn't represent a commitment to spend 2% GDP:

Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. So there was, I think, quite substantial developments in the first two meetings. - Press Briefing by NATO Spokesman, James Appathurai after the meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Defence Ministers, 8 June 2006

The obligation of 2% stems from a declaration in September 2014, and includes an explicit goal to reach 2% "in a decade", but no provisions to punish those who don't:

  1. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets [...]

Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. [...]

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below [2%] will:

  • halt any decline in defence expenditure;

  • aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;

  • aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

Wales Summit Declaration, 5 Sep. 2014

As recently as August 2019 the NATO secretary only referred to the guideline and the obligation mentioned above, and mentioned no other obligations regarding defense spending and GDP:

And it was back in 2014 when we made the decision that we needed fairer burden sharing, that those Allies who are spending less than 2% of GDP on defence have to increase defence spending. The good news is that, after years of reducing defence budgets, all Allies have now started to increase defence spending. More Allies meet the 2% guideline and the majority of NATO Allies have put forward plans to reach the 2% goal within a decade, within 2024, which was what we decided. - Remarks by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Lowy Institute, 07 Aug. 2019

A guideline is not a synonym of an obligation:

guideline [...] information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be - Cambridge Dictionary: Guideline

obligation [...] something that you must do - Cambridge Dictionary: Obligation

Trump has repeatedly used this misrepresentation, despite being made aware of the error, so we must assume that it is an intentional misrepresentation, also known as a lie:

As a candidate and as president, Mr. Trump has said that NATO member countries have failed to pay their debts to the organization. His claim misrepresents how NATO functions and conflates several different measures of the alliance’s military spending. - New York Times, 7 Sept. 2018

Community
  • 1
Peter
  • 13,516
  • 7
  • 38
  • 55
  • 4
    So the short answer (to the title question) is there is no specific defense spending obligation for this year. Consequently member countries cannot be deemed delinquent or be in arrears. Claiming otherwise is what some famous person would call "fake news". – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 22:04
1

Many statements by politicians are based not on the literal meaning of words but on a desire to frame the political discourse. So how can anyone say it? Step in front of a microphone and talk. Remember "I want my money back" by Margaret Thatcher? No real legal basis, either, but it became a political lever.

Who is the target audience of Trump's statement?

  • Domestic voters, who are supposed to perceive him as a strong leader safeguarding US interest.
  • Foreign leaders, who are supposed to fund larger armed forces which can then be used in conjunction with the US forces.
o.m.
  • 108,520
  • 19
  • 265
  • 393
  • I'm looking for a dollar figure. I did not ask about the target audience of Trump statements. Either the obligation is real - therefore measurable - of it's fictitious. – BobE Dec 03 '19 at 22:21
  • @BobE, your second paragraph asked exactly that. If you did not mean it, you should edit. What you might find is a self-imposed percentage of GDP. GDP for 2019 isn't calculated yet, let alone GDP for 2024. – o.m. Dec 03 '19 at 22:25
  • point taken, and I've edited the second para to more explicitly express reason for the question. Actually FY 2019 ended Sept 30 2019, but to clarify I rolled the title question back by a year. GDP's and defense spending will certainly have been established for 2018 by now. – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 00:11
  • 2
    @BobE, that FY comment is a very American statement. Other nations have other accounting periods. – o.m. Dec 04 '19 at 05:56
  • @BobE the idea that there is some deficit that some NATO countries have to pay back is fictitious then. But as this answer says, the point of Trump's statement (and public statements in general by politicians) is to shape the public discourse and signal intent, not be factually accurate. – PhillS Dec 04 '19 at 11:44
  • @o.m. The end of FY 2018 for all countries has certainly past, regardless of the specific date. So the defense spending and GDP are known for that period for all NATO countries. What my question is addressing is exactly what was the obligation for countries during that time period. If the was no specific obligation, there can't be a delinquency. – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 14:16
  • @BobE, I would say that one can miss non-specific goals. If a country promises to go from 1.2% in 2014 to 2% in 2024, and goes from 1.2% to 1.2% in the first four years, that's a bad start. – o.m. Dec 04 '19 at 15:46
  • Agreed, it's a bad start. But is it a delinquency? Does that "bad start" constitute a basis for demanding payment? – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 16:01
  • 1
    @BobE, there is no basis for demanding payment in either case. There could be a basis for demanding more investment, which is an entirely different thing. – o.m. Dec 04 '19 at 16:38
  • @o.m. if so, how can one square the statement "countries owe us a tremendous amount of money"? – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 17:45
  • 2
    @BobE, that statement is a political bargaining ploy, not a reasonable legal position. – o.m. Dec 04 '19 at 18:59
  • Is it honest? Or is it a lie? Or is it that the speaker just fails to understand what countries were actually obligated to do – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 19:11
  • @BobE, at that point you would ask us to speculate about the mental state of a single individual, which is off-topic here. There are those who say that President Trump is much too effective to be as blundering as he sometimes appears, and that it is a negotiating strategy. And then there are those who believe it couldn't possibly be deliberate. – o.m. Dec 04 '19 at 19:17
  • Oh, I'm not asking you to speculate. I'm asking if the statement is honest and truthful. As far as a negotiation ploy, what is being negotiated? – BobE Dec 04 '19 at 20:21
  • @BobE, you asked if Trump fails to understand something. I decline to guess since it might just as well be deliberate bluster. – o.m. Dec 05 '19 at 05:46
  • By this time is little doubt that someone in the administration or NATO has explained to Trump that there is/was no required spending for the member countries this year or last year or the year before that etc. By saying that other countries are deficient or delinquent in past spending he is either creating a false narrative (aka lying) OR he has not yet been able to process (or believe) what he has been told. Bluster is not synonymous with lie or falsehood. – BobE Dec 05 '19 at 16:02
  • @BobE, you asked the question, and now you are arguing with my answer. Why don't you write your own answer and see how many upvotes it gets? – o.m. Dec 05 '19 at 17:46
  • I've already selected a "Best Answer", your answer doesn't answer the question. As I said before: "I'm looking for a dollar figure. I did not ask about the target audience of Trump statements. Either the obligation is real - therefore measurable - or it's fictitious. – BobE Dec 05 '19 at 20:55
1

Note that even the 2024 target of 2% is not a binding contract in any way. I think the 2% of GDP has been a target for NATO for quite some time. The only difference in 2024 is that some politicians have stated that they will try to achieve that goal.

If in 2024 the military spending of say Germany is at the same 1.5% or so as it is now the consequences will be the same as now. The US president will criticize Germany and the German government will promise improvement in the future which may or may not actually happen. That's it.

quarague
  • 8,496
  • 2
  • 17
  • 43