Eternal Cutbacks

Future plans are being affected by the financial crisis on the other side of the Atlantic. The Republican Party enthusiasm for military intervention is drying up. From now on, Europe will be increasingly expected to pull its own chestnuts out of the fire.

Portuguese Prime Minister Coelho admitted just how difficult it will be to find a way out of his nation’s financial bind: Citizens must face two terrible years. The sacrifices demanded of the Greeks are probably even greater because the debt crisis will be followed by a governmental crisis; the current mass protests are a manifestation of that crisis.

The fact remains that there’s no way around a policy of iron-fisted economic measures and decisive reforms. And what applies to Greece and Portugal also applies to most European Union countries in greater or lesser measure. The coming years will be all about economizing and budget consolidation. Members of the E..U also face the need to defend the stability of the Euro. Even in this age of “Arabellions,” those will be the priorities for European policy and will demand the energy and attention of both the politicians and the public. However, Europe doesn’t stand alone in this situation because it looks much the same on the other side of the Atlantic.

It has begun to dawn on many Americans that their nation’s indebtedness is nothing to be taken lightly and that their nation is on a course toward a truly serious fiscal crisis. If one also considers the structural distortions of the U.S. economy, such as the persistently high unemployment rate, one need not be a prophet to predict that the main focus of U.S. policy should be away from Afghanistan and toward domestic renewal and the restoration of balance in public budgets.

That should come as no surprise: One of those focal points was (and remains) Obama’s main concern while the Republican Party, especially the right wing tea party movement, has written the other one across the American flag. The right wing portion of the American political spectrum, by the way, has nothing against placing defense budgets under the surgeon’s scalpel. With a total deficit around $12 trillion there can be no more sacred cows.

Thoughts of withdrawal even among Republicans

The push to economize obviously comes in the context of a foreign and national security climate that is far different from that at the beginning of the Bush era and the 9/11 attacks. There wasn’t much evidence of support for military intervention and cost-intensive engagement in global problem zones among the Republican candidates for the presidency in their first debate. Whether this translates into a public desire for military retreat remains to be seen. But many famous political observers favor such a U.S. withdrawal – look at the way the United States handed operations over to NATO in the Libyan campaign.

That is the political zeitgeist background for the inflammatory speech given by departing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in Brussels. The new paradigm “save, save, save” and a feeling of military exhaustion in the United States have had an effect on western security policy. Gates left his European audience without any doubt that the U.S. Congress and the American public in general were increasingly less inclined to expend ever-decreasing resources on European members that seemed unwilling to invest in their own security or to do what was necessary to be considered serious and capable partners. Whoever didn’t get that message was helped by Gates’ addition of an impending shift: If the trend toward decreasing European defense capabilities wasn’t halted and reversed, a future generation of American leaders might come to the conclusion that America’s continued investment in NATO wasn’t worth the expense. The results hardly justify the cost – 75 percent of all defense expenditures by a 28-member NATO alliance are borne by United States taxpayers. During the Cold War, the ratio wasn’t nearly so unbalanced.

Europeans may have to increasingly pull their own chestnuts out of the fire

In answer to Gates’ assertions, it must be said that the subject of fair burden sharing is as old as NATO itself. This complaint is justified – but only in part. It overlooks the fact that the external and internal conditions have fundamentally changed. The talk today is of America’s relative decline and the economic rise of several developing nations; America’s financial emergency isn’t just a figment of a few easily excitable politicians’ imaginations but something that markets consider a real threat. The fact that only four nations besides the United States spend more than 2 percent of their GDP on defense contains a tremendous amount of political dynamite.

So in the future, Europeans can expect to be told to pull their own chestnuts out of the fire more often because America won’t do it for them. What if they are unable to do so? Will the problem just go away by itself? Does it bother no one that they will be seen as hardly relevant because they believe the pretty partnership speeches given on other occasions?

NATO’s future also depends on German armaments

In his latest defense policy guidelines, Defense Minister de Maizière says, “The NATO alliance can only be shaped by those who possess the skills for the joint performance of tasks.” And he adds, “The Bundeswehr (German Army) must be adequately funded to remain ready for action and capable of joint operations with allies.” So what happens if Germany’s participation is found lacking because its army doesn’t have the right equipment? NATO’s future may well depend on the answer to that question.