As the 2024 NATO Summit concluded on Thursday in Washington, D.C., the focus centered on uncertainties surrounding President Joe Biden’s cognitive fitness and world leadership abilities as well as the alliance’s ongoing support for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russia. But an increasing number of Republican lawmakers are questioning the organization’s effectiveness and ability to maintain peace on the global stage.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was founded in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II over fears of the spread of communism, with the goal of maintaining peace through the signing of a treaty stipulating that participating nations will defend each other if a member state is attacked by a third party. The 32 member nations that comprise NATO include the U.S., Canada, and most of Europe.
But since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, NATO has come under increased scrutiny over its apparent ineffectiveness at containing aggressors such as Russia. In the years leading up to the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin made his views about NATO being a threat to his country widely known and has demanded that Ukraine must be prevented from joining the military alliance. In a clear rebuke Wednesday, NATO formally declared that Ukraine is now on an “irreversible” path to membership after its war with Russia ends.
Still, Republican lawmakers like Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) are wondering whether NATO can be a capable force for peace in light of President Biden’s apparent physical weakness and highly controversial foreign policy decisions.
“[NATO members] have had this very stark awakening that the commander-in-chief in the United States of America looks unprepared to defend them as commander-in-chief,” Perry observed during Wednesday’s “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins.” “And, of course, we all know that not only do they see that, not only do we see that, but our enemies and their enemies see that. And so reevaluating this untenable situation is even more urgent now that Ukraine’s path to membership in NATO is now ‘irreversible.’”
Additional concerns over NATO center around how little member states are spending on defense, a criticism that has been voiced repeatedly by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as well as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.). Article 5 of the NATO treaty specifies that member nations must spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP) on their own militaries. But in March, it was reported that only 35% of NATO countries are meeting this requirement. Meanwhile, the U.S. has provided the vast majority of NATO’s military spending with an estimated $860 billion in 2023, equaling about 68% of the combined total of all NATO members.
“[A]s it has been for decades, European nations are bankrolling their own domestic non-defense spending, with the assurance of the American military might funded by U.S. taxpayers to defend them,” Perry pointed out. “So they’re not living up to their obligations, but counting on us. … [T]hey have been willing for decades now to allow us to take the lead, pay for all the defense while they get to spend on social programs and let their defenses atrophy. And certainly the United States is not in a position — I don’t think that we want to be — in a hot war with Russia over European countries that refuse to plan to defend themselves over decades.”
Perry went on to emphasize that this is also a problem due to the U.S.’s continued budgetary shortfalls. “[W]e can’t afford it here,” he remarked. “[E]very single dollar that we vote on is borrowed. And so not only are we borrowing ourselves into debt here, but we’re borrowing to defend them when they won’t … pay to defend themselves.”
The Pennsylvania congressman further contended that many European nations are continuing to move toward systems of government that increasingly resemble communism. “[T]he French election … calls into question the wisdom of the treaty in and of itself, unfortunately, because it was created to stop the spread of communism in Europe, and we literally now have a communist part of a governing coalition who are running a Western European government included in NATO. So what does that mean? … I think it’s time for a re-evaluation, if nothing else.”
In addition, Perry highlighted how the Biden administration’s foreign policy decisions and social experimentation in the military have decreased the effectiveness of NATO to deter hostile actors.
“[N]ot only has the world seen the weakness projected by President Biden and this administration on full display in the departure of Afghanistan, the incursions into Ukraine, the incursions on Taiwan, North Korea [and] China’s … direct involvement with Russia in Ukraine. All that’s projected as Biden weakness,” he underscored. “[Our] adversaries are watching how we treat our military, and they know that we’re focused on DEI. We’re focused on climate change. We’re focused on everything except for war fighting functions. … [Our adversaries] know that a military is the hot part of diplomacy when diplomacy, through negotiations, fails. [T]hey’re preparing themselves for that to happen while we are living on our past successes and thinking that it will always be that way. [T]here’s a reason that freedom requires constant vigilance.”
In response to Family Research Council President Tony Perkins’s question of whether NATO has “outlived its usefulness,” the GOP lawmaker pressed for a reevaluation of the U.S. prioritizing the organization.
“I don’t know that it’s outlived its usefulness,” Perry argued. “And I hate to say this, I’m not sure it had a lot of usefulness. You know, when I think back over the course of my life, I’m not sure I can highlight all the times that NATO has been terrifically effective or even marginally effective. That having been said, I think there is room to have a discussion about who has more at stake here, who should be paying more. And whose responsibility is this?”
Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.
