tv Quadriga - The International Talk Show LINKTV July 18, 2018 2:30pm-3:01pm PDT
>> rarely have divisions among the transatlantic partners than on more open display that this year's nato summit in brussels. it got off to a 10 start with donald trump insisting his nato partners and germany in particular must pay a larger share of the alllliance cost. isis the u.s.. president, who wl go to moscow early next week, prprepared to turnrn his back on nato all embracing russia? could his tough talk and ununpredictable actions undermie the transatlantic partnership
and the postwawar order overall? how united is nato? that is the topic this week on quadriga. it is a pleasure to welcome the senior associate for international security at germany's institute for international and security affairs. she says nato as only as strong as its members make it an open complex undermine its collective commitment. great to have christian, a security expert here who says u.s. president trump could sell out the alliance to vladimir putin. this call great fear among allies shows nato is eroding. and a foreign-policy expert for the african institute in berlin and the former state department official. he says nato focused for too long on threats from the east and south and failed to take seriously the threat from within.
, youe start out by asking wrote before the summit that europe security is at stake. thereby mirroring europeans fear that the long-standing u.s. security guarantee for europe are perhaps fraying. despite the aggressive rhetoric by donald trump he signed the joint statement by the nato members. would you say the worrying in europe was perhaps a little bit unnecessary? better thant went we thought. we have to wait for the meeting with president clinton. -- president clinton -- puting. . -- putin. the problem goes beyond the nato summit. a change in the transatlantic relationship between the u.s. and europeans, something
serious. if we are not united in nato, if there are doubts of being together, based on solidarity, we are weaker, which applies to security. >> you say nato is eroding but despite the attack by donald trump, the alliance still has very strong support in washington. trump came with a resolution, a strong majority saying that the senate supports nato. >> that is right. perhaps they have a donald trump problem in nato. at the history of nato, in the 1990's -- in the 1960's, 1970's, a public debate on where nato should go and how they should develop the strategic outreach. nato tot new for discuss where to go and its future.
what is new, the way, the style the american president throws into nato. combined with his possible collusion with russia, combined with this outlook on the summit with vladimir putin, of course creates doubt. it is not nato being in danger to be dissolved, the u.s. in general is still supporting it that we have a problem with the u.s. president. >> your opening statement implies you think the problem goes beyond u.s. president alone. you refer to the threat from within. what do you mean? >> president trump is just a symptom of something not just happening in the united states but across the nato space. i do rose and of trust in democratic institutions and in democracy. a return to after no nationalism, isolationism -- f
no nationalism, isolationism, american first, this is not circumscribed to one man or one country. this is across the board and those are not the nato values established after the world -- second world war. >> let's take a listen to a soundbite from president trump at a rally this -- last week before leaving for the summit. him describing a batch of letters he sent to the other nato members. especially one letter in particular, namely to angela merkrkel. angela,a,t trurump: cannot guarantee it, but we are protecting y y, and it means a lot momore to y you that protecg us, bebecause i do n not know hw much protection we get by protecting you. ,hey go out a and make a gas del
oil and gas f from russia where they payay billions and billions of dollars to russia, ok? they want to protect a against russia, yet they y paid billions of dollars to russia and we are the smocks paying for the whole thing -- schmuks paying for the whole thing. >> let's deconstruct that statement. he repeatedaspects as the nato summit got underway. assertion that the u.s. bears a disproportionate share of nato cost. 67% of thees cover nato budget with a contribution that amounts to over 3.5% of the u.s. gdp. 1.2% ofmanages a paltry its gdp. the nato allies claim they have gotten the message and germany
says it will go up to 1.5% by 2014 -- 2024. is that good enough? >> the three-point something the u.s. spends does not go entirely to nato. it is an element of the overall u.s. defense budget. in nato because they find it wonderful because it is -- but because it is papat of their national interest. there is an issue of sharing and the question of it is as old as nato, every american president talked about sharing and called europeans to do more for their defense. rightly so as the europeans have not paid enough attention to their own defense forces and systems and they are right to claim more european commitment. germany has stepped up its commitment.
since 2014, the defense budget is growing. we had some 32 billion and 2014 and now at 38 something billion. it will grow. the problem is that the long-term development so far is not really in the plan. a strong commitment by the chancellor and the minister of defense. financial planning of the journal -- german budget, it is not yet there. i want to underline, the debate about defense in germany and in europe has changed. it has changed before trump. it has changed since 2014 since russia annexed crimea and women to war in ukraine, a great -- a game changer. it forced europeans to learn defense. remember europeans to
and relearn collective defense. and everything it applies, logistics, capabilities, supplies. not yet enough but clearly movement. >> many people watching from abroad would say that the debate may have changed in germany but not fast enough. germany's role in two world wars and the holocaust is often cited as the reason for a widespread public reluctance to see germany take a stronger role militarily. that history is receiving ever further into the past. isn't it time germany does in fact do more? >> germany started to do more. this 2%like to say that target of the gdp for defense is much older than donald trump's term in office. endorsed 10 or 11
years ago for the first time. ever since, not much happened in europe. not only germany lagging behind, but many other countries, large countries, are not there already. back to germany, you are right, german history and the experience german society has made with the second world war, makes it difficult to talk about spending a a lot for defense. the military in general. the military is not high esteem in german society anymore. , afterg-term perspective the fall of the berlin war and the collapse of communism, it was germany who were eager to consume the peace. that is what we did. turning around it is a difficult process. leadershipe enough
run german politicians on this? >> two or three years ago my answer would have been no but it is starting now, yes. >> you were working in the obama era white house. .orry, state department you were in the state department at the time in 2014 the nato members site up to this 2% commitment. president trump is talking about doubling that. my question to you as a former diplomat, how binding are these targets? and to what degree do they reflect the nato members actual contributions? germany has spent large number secondes to afghanistan, largest provider of troops in afghanistan, let -- does this measurement really
reflect the respective members contributions? >> target to focus the mind. 2%, that is something you can say to the public. trump is saying 4%. not something he came up with on a whim. ,hat is not meant for germany that is meant for his base back home. with his base, this is what is worrying, he is trying to create a part of the population in the united states that is a style -- hostile to nato, they say it is decadent, a security blanket without paying in. that is something, he is creating a new resentment for. nato has 62% approval in the --ted states, germany sec 7% 81% of liberals, democrat
leaning voters support nato and only 49% of republicans, that is down. he is creating a new skepticism of nato within his base and that is worrying. >> a little comment on this 2% target. nato has been trying to find a better rest -- measurement for germany, cash is a bit easy. cash,r measurement, budget, 2%, capability, from tanks to aircraft -- >> germany not looking good on that moment. >> better than other states. and contributions, what the country gives in afghanistan and in the baltic countries. contributions, germany is pretty good. is not soon the 2% much about 2%, it is about nato
as a multinational alliance. that is what he does not like. the bigger problem is the american president who openly dislikes the transatlantic architecture we had before. very strong ties in policy areas from trade to foreign policy to defense. in all areas he is questioning the very special transatlantic link. that should worry us because that is for the future. worrying we may be growing apart between the u.s. and europe. >> how does europe need to respond to that? within eu -- the european and nato members, or outside of it? europe has made moves, 23 members of t the eu, to strengtn their defense and secured cooperation in an initiative -- is that a
competitive threat to nato or necessary. move by europee to get to its own feet? >> i cannot interpret or read this as a threat to nato. it is adding something special. adding a special value to nato and their efforts. plan for thengency day, unlikely day, hopefully we will never see it, when the u.s. says we are not there anymore. europe has to prepare, has to strengthen its own structures and industry basis to produce new modern weapons. in order to meet scenarios like this. we are not there yet. europe needs to shape its own defense future. >> the idea of the u.s. saying
we are no longer there for you. the soundbite we heard from donald trump at the rally. it was intended for his base but he says that he implies that the u.s. does not get very much for the money that it puts into nato. the old transactional idea of his. would you agree with that? everything flows to europe? >> he is wrong. we have benefited for 70 years from the presence of nato and they are a product of a failure to stay engaged in europe after the first world war. that stability has created the the prosperity to develop in europe. we benefit not just in the bilateral trade and investment relationship but in the services. our economy has become rich off of the investment of europeans. not just cars that use of digital platforms, the five
biggest companies of united states are all tech companies and have complete dominance in the european market. that is indirectly a product of nato. the europeans are prosperous and using these products. they all have iphones, an indirect benefit from nato. we benefit big from nato and we need to keep that stability in the continent. >> in terms of the u.s. turning its back, donald trump has made noises about pulling u.s. troops out of europe and or germany. supposedly asking the pentagon to excess cost and impact of that. do you think he may make good on that threat? >> it would not make much sense to do so. you have to understand that the roughly 38,000 u.s. soldiers in germany are not there to protect europe but forward base for u.s. troops for many other crisis. we had the u.s.-african in
germany. germany serves as a perfect logistical hub to all crisis regions, easier to go from germany to the middle east than from the u.s. the u.s. benefits from the very stable european partner they have. on rational terms, that makes sense. that is the unpredictable wildcard he brings to security. >> the soundbite we heard earlier, in terms of a pattern that we have seen in other diplomatic settings. whether it is native or the g7, is at arump's bravado wider audience, voters at home, but also negotiating partners abroad.
many people asking whether the president's latest tirades are intended to imimpress the strong man he will be meeting next we.. ♪ >> t trump and puting, deep understanding. both love grand appearances and both h have narcissiststic qualities.s. no wonder trump cannot stop raving about puting. . >> i am meeting with president putin next week and getting along with russia, and getting along with china, and getting along with other countries, that is a good thing. >> the russian president was happy to charm donald trump in return. like h here at t the 2017 g20 st in hambuburg. >> i am delighted to meet with him. >> trump hardly seems to mind
his administration is pushing ahead with an investigation on russian influence in t t election that he went into office because of the. well ty use thei meeting to do secret t deals and undermine nato? meeting, june g7 donald trump rejected the final joint communique after already having signed it, saying in a show of strength it was designed to impress kim jong-un who he was traveling on to meet. are the tirades from president trump here largely directed at impressing vladimir putin, and will they do so? >> that is part of it but he has putin -- he-- up has an affinity for prudent and russia. -- putin and russia. this administration has put
sanctions on russia and delivered systems to ukraine. on the substance, a more hawkish position than before but the rhetoric has not reflected that. openingaid in your statement that donald trump could sell out the alliance to vladimir putin. if we look at the communique he signed at the nato summit, it is harshly critical of russia. how far could he go at this meeting? >> vladimir putin and donald trump will not meet with no takers or political advisers. -- note takers or political advisers. this is where political deals are made. if you look at the map of europe and what is at stake, possible putin'sys vladimir statement that crimea belonged result inwhich would
the immediate lift of u.s. sanctions against russia. just one example. i am a freight a secret deal like that may emerge from the meeting. >> would the u.s. congress go along with that? >> congress left the sanctions so it would require congressional approval to remove them. >> the nato general secretary said that he sees the meeting between donald trump and vladimir putin as a good opportunity, essie -- is it possible something good could happen? >> just putting a good face on it but there is a positive element if the leaders of the powers talk to each other. there is a chance to solve something. so many crisis from ukraine to syria, nuclear weapons, it is good to talk. the problem is that putin is an experienced head of state.
he fear i have is that donald that may make concessions concern european security issues. couldould be symbolic, he say maybe u.s. troops do not participate in the next nato exercise. disunitythe political of the political doubt, whether the u.s. is in nato is a major problem. states promised to stand up for each other in case of a crisis. the tiniest doubt they stick together has implicated defense. back to the title of the program, friendly fire, how united is nato?
outset,on said at the when he talked about the threat from within, the undermining of democracy by the alliances own members. you could argue that is in the interest of russia. how can the alliance defeat that former friendly fire? >> inside attacks. nato has to take its own decisions serious and has to stick to the c commitments and t has to strengthen the european pillar of nato. >> you need to have an informed public, we need to invest more in our people, happening in the united states with the anti-gun movement and more grassroots engagement in politics. we need to make the case for nato to our people. >> what are the three most important things the alliance needs to do to underpin that crucial political foundation? >> keep the americans in.
making europe strong. strengthen european defense, that means in terms s of cacapability and finances. you mentioned, we need to talk about defense, we have to explain why it is worth defending the european project and the trans atlantic relationship. >> by doing what? >> financing, but also increasing the understanding of why defense matters. defense is about defending our way of life. our way of doing things. that can be done in a political way but we must have the means ready. we need to explain why the system is worth defending. >> thank you all for being with us and thank you for tuning in. see you soon.
phil: this is "dw news," live from berlin. the thai boys rescued from an underground cave system faced the world press. looking happy and healthy, the wild boars football team talked about their 18 day ordeal. no food, and the only water they drink came down the wall. we will bring you the latest from thailand. also, in an exclusive report, dw