In early June, Martin Wolf, the influential editor and columnist of the Financial Times, warned that the coming to power of a tide of nationalist, authoritarian and xenophobic governments in the nations located in the North Atlantic could undermine the World Order that governs today. both life and the geostrategic vision of the planet (see “Nationalism threatens world order”, dated 4/6/2024).
He also maintained that the irresponsible statements of the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, about the reforms that his country wants to apply in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), can reduce the deterrent and defensive capacity of the most prosperous nations of the West and strengthen , at the same time, the imperial appetites of Vladimir Putin and his allies.
This includes the possible realignment of nations hitherto loyal to Washington, such as Australia and New Zealand, which is by no means good news.
Obviously, the word Western or West today represents a very different culture than the one that used to rely on neoliberal versions of the social market economy, public freedoms and the rule of Law.
Wolf also assured that both the indifference and the sinister and perhaps apparent improvisation of Donald Trump can pierce the fragile and anarchic military defense of Europe, a move that brings to the fore a very sensitive theater of conflicts similar to the one that generated, during the first half of the last century, two bloody world wars.
So far, nothing unknown to foreign policy strategists who know how to do their homework and act accordingly, merits that do not include magical, bloodless or low-cost solutions.
What is new is to see Trump interfere not only in the sabotage that Washington manages to block the reform and modernization of institutions such as the Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the WTO and the ILO, but also in the entities linked to the struggle and disputes of a military and geostrategic nature.
Previously, Putin and his allies used to think a few times before confronting the thirty-two nations that today make up NATO membership.
Misguided people can also imagine that Trump not only wants to save budget funds and a new sacrifice of human lives in war experiments, but also to provide indirect help to his “friend” Putin. During his first four years in the White House, the current presidential candidate said he trusted the Russian intelligence services more than his own country’s intelligence community.
No expert is unaware that Vladimir Putin’s outbursts have different levels of support in mainland China, Iran and North Korea, countries led by people who do not believe excessively in the value of diplomatic solutions without tangible support from the armed forces and have a vast, modern and growing military hardware store.
Experience also tells us that attributing strategic talent to Donald Trump is an act of generosity. On the other hand, ignore his proven destructive capacity, such as the one he exhibited in his first presidency by declaring two trade wars in the field of steel and aluminum with twelve countries and regions, among which he included the European Union, Brazil and Argentina. , it would not be fair.
It is also not advisable to assign lucidity and leadership to the American political class in the current constellation of the capitalist universe. Dad State has had many responsibilities in this economy for a long time.
From this perspective, and while existential doubts are clarified, it is necessary to understand that it is still not clear if Trump wants to manage the suspension of the principle of defensive, reciprocal, joint and solidarity assistance in the face of threats from powers such as those mentioned above (article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty) only to countries that did not reach an appropriate level of defense spending, or actually want to liquidate the entire deterrent system of reciprocal assistance that proved to be very efficient.
At this time such arguments are archival material. Although it is not clear whether 20 or 23 of the 32 countries that make up NATO already meet the requirement of investing 2 percent of GDP in defense, Trump’s pushes are, above all, an inopportune act and a dangerous strategic error.
Nor were the comments that Donald made last February, when he said that he would tell the enemies of the West to do what they want with nations that do not comply, or only half comply, with NATO budget decisions, acceptable.
Curiously, both Poland and Estonia raised the proportion of their defensive expenditures significantly higher than the United States, generating a state of spontaneous overcompliance.
The NATO Treaty is very similar to the Interregional Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR) that was born a year earlier within the framework of the OAS (which happened in 1948, since NATO was only established in 1949). In both cases, Washington exercised notable leadership, even though the rules of both institutions were never intensely tested.
Argentina tried unsuccessfully to resort to the application of the TIAR when the military government of 1982 wanted to forcibly recover our Malvinas Islands and the surrounding territories. But on that occasion the White House decided to support the British government of Margaret Thatcher, a country with which Washington maintains strong historical ties, in addition to sharing equivalent obligations within NATO.
The truth is that, these days, political scientists are still not sure that Trump will manage to return to the White House or that he will not be imprisoned for the multiple mischiefs of proven illegality that he committed as president, as a businessman and as an obscure buyer of silence. with whom he satisfied his addiction to high-end professional sex.
Analysts highlight that, although the group of thirty-two NATO nations is not as important as in the past, it still controls 50% of the world economy and its political class still believes it leads, by far, in technology, industry and the intelligence of military art, a certainty that should be updated frequently. No one knows with complete precision what nations hostile to the now unrecognizable Western world have or hide.
Throughout the 75 years of its existence, Article 5 was only actively invoked in NATO when the United States was subject to the terrorist attack that completely destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and received another parallel attack, of reduced consequences, in the Pentagon facilities.
For those who do not yet know Martin Wolf, it would be useful to know that, apart from his work at the Financial Times, he is a prolific writer and was a senior economist at the World Bank.
In addition to this, Wolf is someone who in recent years acquired the habit of giving his opinion on trade policy without having gone through the crusher of the GATT-WTO System, an unacceptable trait for those of us who are trained in the detailed negotiation of its complex disciplines. In any case, this reservation does not prevent us from carefully following his always valuable reflections.
Currently its vocation does not tend to clash much with what happens in Geneva, since the WTO does not resemble the vibrant Organization that generated the rules on rights and obligations that govern the trade policy of its vast membership.
Even worse. Wolf is an intellectual talent who, after enthusiastically adopting the ideas of Friedrich Hayek (one of the cosmic fathers of the Austrian school), chose to navigate with the approaches of John Maynard Keynes, which is an unforgivable affront to the present academic religion. by Javier Milei.
Finally I must recognize that I am sinning. There are those who will not forgive me for having ventured into the vicissitudes of NATO, given my voluminous record as a trade policy negotiator.
I hasten to tell them that I will not do it again if Rodolfo Terragno, Daniel Sabsay and Sergio Massa stop writing and speaking about economic theory or, as appropriate, usurping the Ministry of Economy.
Only an economist can naturally destabilize the economy and sabotage sustainable development. In the profession it is well regarded to consume econometric models instead of a distinguished steak of chorizo.
Jorge Riaboi is a diplomat and journalist
