What way for NATO? Hungary follows Turkey down the authoritarian path | TheHill – The Hill

Critics claim Hungary has turned into an elective dictatorship, with parliament voting to give Prime Minister Viktor Orban power to rule by decree. This follows Turkeys President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who effectively rules by decreeas well as manipulates elections and arrests critics. What is NATO, an alliance focused on supposedly democratic Europe, going to do?

A better question would be, why should the U.S. continue to underwrite the transatlantic alliance?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization began in 1949 with 12 members. A more accurate name would be North America and the Others. Now up to 30 membersthe comedic Duchy of Grand Fenwick became a member in late March, in the guise of North Macedoniathe alliance long has been notable for enabling military free-loading by a continent whose wealth matches and population exceeds that of America.

By a vast margin the biggest spender with the largest military and greatest combat capabilities is the U.S. Only eight other governments meet NATOs official objective of military outlays reaching 2 percent of GDP. Four of them barely hit the line. Only Bulgaria is significantly above that level. Greece makes this elite group because it is arming against fellow alliance member Turkey, not Russia or any other outside threat.

The 2 percent goal is not new: it was set in 2006, when seven members total met that level. Most significant, even now only one of the continents major powers, the United Kingdom, makes it across the line, staggers really, with a bit of fiscal legerdemain (expanding the definition of military outlays). France comes close. Expenditures by Germany, Italy, and Spain fall abysmally short.

Admittedly, the 2 percent standard is arbitrary, merely indicating military effort. Nevertheless, it represents important evidence of a countrys commitment to defend itself and its region. Apparently most Europeans cant be bothered to do so.

Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the states viewed as most at risk seemingly view the floor as a ceiling. Poland spends 2.0 percent, Latvia 2.01 percent, Lithuania 2.03 percent, and Estonia 2.14 percent. All claim to feel frightened by possible Russian aggression, yet is that all they believe their independence and freedom are worth? Even the very nations that proclaim themselves to be most at risk prefer to rely on Washington than devote their own resources to their defense.

Of the other 29 members only two have genuinely capable militaries, France and the United Kingdom. Germany, despite a storied past, when its prodigious battle skills were put to ill ends, has been embarrassed for years by reports of minimal readiness. Small nations such as Denmark and the Netherlands have contributed forces to allied endeavors (losing lives in the process) but would be marginal players in any continental conflagration. And mini-states, such as North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, and Croatia, are merely geopolitical ornaments, increasing allied defense responsibilities but not capabilities.

The basic problem is two-fold. Most European nations, certainly those constituting old Europe, as Donald Rumsfeld referred to it, have little fear of Russia. Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinWhat way for NATO? Hungary follows Turkey down the authoritarian path Belarus's risky coronavirus strategy New START is not NAFTA MORE is a nasty authoritarian, not a foolish megalomaniac. Martians are more likely than Russians to invade the continent. European peoples know that and offer little support for a military build-up to satisfy Washingtons threat conceptions.

Equally important, NATO members assume Washington would deal with any crisis, so ask, why spend more money on the military? Moscows assault on Ukraine has spurred a small but steady spending increase by some members. However, despite constant whining by Washington, expressed more vociferously by President Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpSenators demand more details from Trump on intel watchdog firing Overnight Health Care: Trump steps up attack on WHO | Fauci says deaths could be lower than first projected | House panel warns federal stockpile of medical supplies depleted | Mnuchin, Schumer in talks over relief deal Trump says he'll look into small business loan program restricting casinos MORE, the substantive impact is and will remain small. After all, even as U.S. officials insisted that Europe must do more, they repeated reassurances of Americas commitment to the continent and increased funding for and placement of men and materiel in Europe. Congress even approved more military subsidies as part of The European Reassurance Initiative (since renamed The European Deterrence Initiative).

What incentive does any European government have to do anything more than the minimum necessary to reduce Washingtons complaining?

Now even alliance advocates are appalled by Hungarys authoritarian move. Yet Turkey has gone much further down this path, wrecking a democratic order, crushing dissent, threatening fellow NATO member Greece as well as Cyprus, aiding the Islamic State and other Islamic radicals in Syria, and moving close to Russia, even purchasing weapons from Moscow. Who seriously believes that Turkey would go to war with Russia over a threat to, say, Estonia?

Still, the more fundamental issue is whether the transatlantic alliance serves Americas interests. Orbans power play should trigger a review of Americas, not Hungarys, membership in NATO. The U.S. should turn responsibility for Europes security over to Europe, which could take over NATOs leadership or create an organization tied to the European Union. Washington still should cooperate with the Europeans but need not guarantee the security of nations well able to defend themselves.

The EU has 10 times the economic strength and three times the population of Russia. With America so busy elsewhere in the worldfighting endless wars in the Middle East and confronting a rising China in AsiaEuropean governments should do what all governments normally are supposed to do, defend their peoples. It is time for burden-shedding, not just burden-sharing.

Alliances should be a means to an end, enhancing U.S. security. In Washington, NATO has become an end, even as it undermines U.S. security. Hungarys transformation is forcing an alliance rethink, which is long overdue. In the midst of a viral pandemic and debt explosion, Americans cannot afford to provide military welfare for the rest of the world, especially populous and prosperous Europe. The Europeans should take over that responsibility.

Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: Americas New Global Empire.

Read more:
What way for NATO? Hungary follows Turkey down the authoritarian path | TheHill - The Hill