United States, a relationship marked by more than one crisis

Published on: 02/17/2024 – 3:47 pmModified: 02/17/2024 – 4:09 pm

7 minutes

Former US President Donald Trump has once again shaken up international relations by questioning the principle of unity that governs NATO. On February 11, during a campaign rally in South Carolina, the man seeking a second term as “Commander in Chief” once again criticized member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for not adequately funding the organization and suggested that he might not. Protect an ally in the event of a Russian attack.

The shocking comments sparked concern in Europe. Since its creation in 1949, NATO has not been in its first crisis since World War II, and its relationship with the United States has often been turbulent. As Jenny Rufflick, professor of contemporary history at the University of Nantes, points out, the idea of ​​an alliance was not born on the other side of the Atlantic. “It was the desire of the French and British first of all because they feared that the United States would withdraw from Europe. The Americans brought their troops home, while the Russians did not demobilize. There was a real danger of seeing an attack on Russia,” this International Relations Describes the expert. “At that time, the Americans did not want to set foot in Europe again for a long time. In the current context, it’s interesting to see that they were already asking Europeans to really commit to their own defense.”

Finally, despite these reluctance, the September 1949 detonation of the first Soviet atomic bomb and the outbreak of the Korean War spurred the establishment of NATO’s integrated military structure. In the context of the beginning of the Cold War, NATO’s role then included – in the words of its first Secretary General, Lord Ismay – “keeping the Russians out, the Americans under guardianship and the Germans.

“Backbone of NATO”

The United States is gradually occupying a leading role in this alliance. “They have become the backbone of NATO because Europe in particular lacks financial, physical and industrial resources. Post-war Europe has been the first mover in its reconstruction and modernization. Many European countries have also been caught up in the process of decolonization very quickly. , such as France, The Netherlands or Great Britain,” explains Jenny Rufflick.

Very quickly, the Alliance experienced moments of tension. In the midst of the Indochina War, France asked its allies to finance their military efforts through NATO. “The Americans provide arms, but they want the right to control their use. So the French resent American interference in their military affairs,” says the historian. “These are the misunderstandings we constantly find between Americans and Europeans. Americans pay and expect decisive influence in the development of military strategy.”

After the Cold War

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO lost its natural rival, but its existence was not called into question. “The idea of ​​seeing the Alliance disappear did not last long. Keeping the Americans on the European continent was seen as something reassuring. The Soviet threat disappeared, but the Russian threat remained strong in the minds of many countries”, analyzes Jenny Rufflick. “There is still a gradual disengagement of Americans with the closing of military bases on European soil. Europe is no longer really at the center of American geopolitical concerns, as it might have been at the beginning of the Cold War.”

Paradoxically, it was after the end of the conflict between the Western and Eastern blocs that NATO undertook its first military operations. In 1999, it bombed Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War. “We had to wait until the end of the Cold War for NATO to act. This was the first test to determine its military capability and ability to work together with allies,” underlines Jenny Rufflick.

Two years later, the world entered a new era with the September 11 attacks on American soil. For the first time in its history, NATO has invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty which provides that all members of the alliance must come to the aid of a member under attack. NATO then undertook its first counter-terrorism operations, particularly in the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans, but the United States’ large-scale military operations nevertheless took place outside the organization’s framework, as Jenny Rufflick recalls: “The alliance was ultimately used only on the margins.” . . The Americans prefer the method of an international coalition under their leadership and under the mandate of the UN so that there is a little more room for maneuver.”

An “obsolete” institution

Since the early 2010s, the organization has faced renewed tensions. Threats differ and priorities are not necessarily the same among allies, according to the historian: “NATO was divided between those obsessed with the Russians and those obsessed with terrorism. Each defended its interests and lived in its own geopolitical reality. This made the alliance weakened.

In 2017, just before his election for the presidency of the United States, Donald Trump attacked the organization, believing that it “doesn’t deal with terrorism”, while already scolding its member countries for not paying their normal share. . Defense Two years later, French President Emmanuel Macron drove the point home by deciding that NATO was in a state of “brain death”.

But since the start of Russia’s large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the alliance appears to have revived. The original enemy, returning, offered him renewed interest. “There is nothing stronger for an alliance than looking in the same direction and towards the same threat. This gaze once again returns to the essence of NATO by focusing on the East”, summarizes Jenny Rufflick. But this strengthening has been undermined by Donald Trump’s recent bombastic announcements. As in 2017, the Republican candidate caused trouble by insisting that few countries are paying what they should. “The danger to the alliance is that it exposes its weaknesses to the light of day. It damages its credibility. It’s a boon to the Russians who see the West tearing each other down.”

However, historians play down the significance of these words. She recalls that seven years ago, Donald Trump retracted her comments. Once elected, he asserted that NATO was no longer obsolete and that it was “the path to international peace”. For Jenny Rufflick, even if the businessman returns to the Oval Office, the existence of the alliance will not be called into question: “There is security, especially in the American Congress. The United States is a democracy. What Donald Trump will not do. He wants. Moreover, NATO has spent a few years First inaugurated a brand new headquarters that cost millions of dollars. This is not going to close the door tomorrow. It may evolve, but it won’t disappear.”