>> THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, YOU LIKELY KNOW IT
AS NATO, AND YOU ALSO LIKELY KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVES FROM
THE 29-MEMBER COUNTRIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, MET
LAST WEEK IN BRUSSELS.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS NEARLY 70-YEAR-OLD
ALLIANCE?
FOR CONTEXT PAST AND PRESENT I SPOKE WITH PAUL MUSGRAVE,
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY EXPERT.
>> BACK AT THE END OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR THE UNITED STATES AND
THE SOVIET UNION FOUND THEMSELVES AT LOGGERHEADS OVER
WHO WOULD CONTROL THE PILOT OF THE -- THE FATE OF THE
CONTINENT.
THE U.S. LEADERS WORLD WITH WESTERN EUROPEAN LEADERS TO
CREATE THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION, A PERMANENT
MILITARY ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MAJOR POWERS
OF BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND CANADA, ITALY, IN ORDER TO DETER SOVIET
AGGRESSION AND DETER RENEWAL OF A WORLD WAR, AND OVER THE YEARS
NATO GREW TO EXPAND OTHER COUNTRIES, WEST GERMANY,
SPACESHIP, PORTUGAL AND GREECE AND TURKEY.
THEY HAVE EXPANDED EVEN FURTHER IN THE LAST 25 YEARS INTO
EASTERN EUROPE AND WHAT USED TO BE THE FORMER SOVIET UNION BUT
THROUGHOUT THE PURPOSE HAS REMAINED THE SAME.
>> SO 1949 WHEN PRESIDENT FRUITMAN WAS THERE AND NATO WAS
ESTABLISHED, HOW DID THE THEN SOVIET UNION REACT TO THAT?
>> NOT WELL.
THIS WAS FURTHER CONFIRMATION FOR STALIN AND OTHER SOVIET
LEADERS THAT THE UNITED STATES AND ALLIZED WERE COMMITTED TO
MILITARIZING DIPLOMACY.
THIS WAS WHEN BOTH COUNTRIES WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
THE OTHER SIDE WAS ABOUT.
YOU WOULD HAVE A BLOCKADE BY THE SOVIET UNION OF AMERICAN FORCES
IN WEST BERLIN THAT HAD LED TO THE BERLIN AIR LIFT.
THERE HAD BEEN FIGHTS YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS WERE
OVERTHROWN BY THE SOVIETS, THE CIA HAD BEEN INTERVENING IN THE
ELECTIONS IN FRANCE AND ITALY.
AND LOTS OF THINGS WERE GOING ON BUT THIS MEANT THAT THE SOVIET
PRESENCE WOULD BE MILITARIZED AND WOULD CONTINUE TO BE A
PERMANENT MILITARY COMMITMENT, WHICH IN THE 1940s STILL MEANT
A POTENTIAL NUCLEAR COMMITMENT.
AND THIS WAS THE COLD WAR KICKING OFF AND LASTING FOR
DECADES.
>> AND WE SEE AN ACTUAL SOVIET REACTION WHEN THE WARSAW
PRACTICE WAS FORMED, IT WAS THEIR ANSWER TO NATO, DO YOU
THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY?
>> I THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY, AND IT'S THEIR ANSWER TO NATO IN
THE SENSE THAT NATO IS THEORETICALLY A DEMOCRATIC YOU
KNOW, OR MORE DEMOCRATIC ALIGNMENT OR LEAGUE OF
COUNTRIES, YOU KNOW, COMING TOGETHER VOLUNTARILY, UNDER THE
CLEAR LEADERSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND THE WARSAW PACT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME, EXCEPT IT WAS
DICTATED TO MEMBER STATES.
THERE ARE ALWAYS TENSIONS BETWEEN MOSCOW AND SOME MEMBER
STATES BUT ALWAYS A VERY CLEAR SENSE THAT COUNTRIES LIKE
POLAND, COUNTRIES LIKE HUNGARY WOULD BE ANSWERABLE TO MOSCOW
THROUGH THE WARSAW PACT.
>> NOW, AS YOU POINTED OUT NATO IS, ESSENTIALLY, A MILITARY
ALLIANCE THAT THE U.S. ALWAYS HAS BEEN SEEN AS THE CENTER OF.
WOULD YOU SAY THAT ARTICLE 5 IS REALLY KIND OF THE KEY COMPONENT
OF NATO, AND IF SO, DEFINE ARTICLE 5.
>> SO ARTICLE 5 OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY IS THE, PART OF
THAT TREATY THAT SAYS THAT MEMBER STATES WILL COME TO THE
AID IF REQUESTED OF ANY MEMBER STATE THAT IS ATTACKED.
AND THIS WAS MEANT TO BE A CONTINUING LEGAL DEVICE FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO MAKE A COMMITMENT, WHICH THE UNITED
STATES HAD NEVER MADE IN ITS HISTORY BEFORE, A PERMANENT
COMMITMENT TO THE SECURITY OF OTHER COUNTRIES.
AND SO ARTICLE 5 IS AT THE CORE OF NATO.
IT'S AN EXPRESSION OF A BELIEF THAT THERE WILL BE A COLLECTIVE
RESPONSE TO ANY PARTICULAR ACT OF AGGRESSION, WHICH AT THE TIME
PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT MOSCOW MIGHT DO SOMETHING IN TURKEY OR
IN GREECE.
THEY MIGHT MAKE A GESTURE COURT IN GERMANY BUT IF THEY DID THAT,
THEY WOULD KNOW THAT THE SOVIETS WOULD KNOW THAT ALL OF NATO,
INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES, WOULD RESPOND.
AND THAT BELIEF WAS AT THE CORE OF HOW NATO FIT INTO THE COLD
WAR.
PROJECTING THIS BELIEF TO DETER SOVIET AGGRESSION.
>> THIS IDEA OF THE ATTACK ON ONE IS AN ATTACK ON ALL HAS BEEN
AT THE HEART OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT LATELY.
WHEN ARTICLE 5 WAS ESTABLISHED IN, YOU KNOW, THE LATE 1940s,
THE IDEA OF A CYBER ATTACK WASN'T EVEN A NOTION, BUT WE
HAVE SEEN RUSSIA RESPOND IN RECENT YEARS ARE IN THE PAST
DECADE WITH THESE ATTACKS, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
AND IN 2017, YOU IS A NATO MEMBER, ESTONIA CAME UNDER CYBER
ATTACK FROM ENTITIES CONNECTED WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, BUT
NOT TO BE PART OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT, WHICH SHUT DOWN BIG
PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THE ECONOMY FOR A MONTH.
ESTONIA IS A HUGELY ADVANCED COUNTRY TECHNOLOGICALLY, USED
ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES, CONQUERED BY THE RED ARMY IN
1940 AND 1941, AND IT HAD JOINED NATO IN ORDER TO PREVENT ITSELF
FROM EVER COMING UNDER RUSSIAN DOMINATION AGAIN.
AND THIS CYBER ATTACK WAS REALLY A TEST.
WOULD THIS THING THAT IS NOT AN EXPLOSIVE ATTACK, NOT A KINETIC
ATTACK BUT SOMETHING THAT WE RECOGNIZE AS AN ATTACK, TRIGGER
ARTICLE 5.
AND IN THE EVENT THAT IT DIDN'T, DIFFERENT COUNTRIES BUILT UP
THEIR CAPACITY TO MONITOR AND TO RESPOND TO CYBER ATTACKS, BUT
THEY DIDN'T TRIGGER ARTICLE 5, AND THE ONLY TIME IT HAS BEEN
TRIGGERED WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2001 ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES, IN ORDER TO ALLOW NATO TO FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN.
IT'S ONLY WAR HAS REALLY BEEN IN AFGHANISTAN.
>> SO INTERESTING THEN THAT OBVIOUSLY THESE ALLY COUNTRIES
CAME TOGETHER TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES, BUT MORE RECENTLY
WE ARE HEARING PRESIDENT TRUMP WAIVER AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE
WOULD COME TO THE DEFENSE OF A SMALLER COUNTRY, WHERE ARTICLE 5
TRIGGERED.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IN SOME SENSE BELIEVES THAT NATO IS
A BAD DEAL.
HE COMPLAINS ALL THE TIME THAT OTHER NATO MEMBERS DON'T
NECESSARILY MEET THE TARGETS OF SPENDING 2% OF THEIR GDP ON
MILITARY EXPENDITURES AS PART OF THE BROADER EFFORT TO PROVIDE
COLLECTIVE SECURITY.
OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS DIFFERENT COUNTRIES HAVE BEGUN
TO INCREASE THEIR SPENDING IN RESPONSE TO RUSSIAN AGGRESSION
ESPECIALLY IN THE UKRAINE SO THERE HAS BEEN AN UPTICK, WHICH
PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TAKEN CREDIT FOR.
>> IT IS A VALID CRITICISM, IS IT NOT, PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
RAISED IT AND PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT THE FIRST TO RAISE THIS 2%
ISSUE.
>> HE'S NOT THE FIRST TO RAISE IT.
>> SO WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT NATO
AND HAS SORT OF PREVENTED THE ISSUE?
>> THAT'S THE CRUX OF ALL OF THIS.
OTHER PRESIDENTS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT THIS GOING ALL THE WAY
BACK BUT WHAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS THAT FOR
YEARS HE HAS REFUSED OR ONLY GRUDGINGLY ADMITTED THAT NATO
WAS IMPORTANT, AND THE WAY THAT HE TALKS ABOUT U.S. RELATIONS
WITH RUSSIA, IN PARTICULAR, ARE DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE
SPIRIT AND THE HISTORY AND THE PURPOSE OF NATO AND TO THE
REASONS WHY NATO CONTINUES TO BE REGARDED BY EUROPEANS AS A
PILLAR OF THEIR DOMESTIC SECURITY STRATEGY, AND SO WHEN
PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKS ABOUT NATO, IT'S DISPARAGING.
IT'S TO BLAME OTHER EUROPEANS.
IT'S IN THE CONTEXT OF A TRADE WAR IN WHICH HE'S CALLED THE
EUROPEAN UNION, TO WHICH MOST NATO MEMBERS ARE MEMBERS, A FOE
OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THERE IS NOT A LOT OF CONFIDENCE
BUILDING GOING ON HERE, AND DURING THE COLD WAR, AMERICAN
PRESIDENTS WERE CAREFUL TO BALANCE ECONOMIC AND SECURITY,
TO BALANCE CRITICISM AND PRAISE, AND IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT THEY
WERE GOOD ALLIES WORKING FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S FOREIGN POLICY.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE, THOUGH, THAT WE ARE HEARING PRESIDENT TRUMP,
OBVIOUSLY, BEING CRITICAL, UPSET, FRUSTRATED, AND WITH
WHAT'S GOING ON, AND WE'RE HEARING THAT PUBLICLY.
IS IT POSSIBLE THE SECRETARY MATTIS MIGHT BE HAVING DIFFERENT
CONVERSATIONS AMONG THE NATO MEMBERS?
>> CERTAINLY THAT SEEMS TO BE HOW THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S
POLICY TOWARDS NATO HAS WORKED.
AND I USE THAT TERM ADVISEDLY.
THERE IS TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT POLICIES FLOATING AROUND IN
DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TOWARDS NATO.
CONGRESS HAS ONE SET.
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT
HAVE THEIR OWN, AND PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS YET ANOTHER ONE.
AND YOU CERTAINLY SEE H.R.
McMASTER, SECRETARY JIM MATTIS AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TRYING
TO REASSURE ALLIES THAT THE UNITED STATES REMAINS COMMITTED
TO NATO, BUT THEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WILL DO SOMETHING TO BLOW
UP THOSE ASSURANCES SOMETIMES THE NEXT DAY.
HE'S DEPARTED FROM PREPARED TEXTS THAT WERE FULL OF THESE
SORTS OF REASSURANCES AND MEANT TO KEEP NATO TOGETHER, AND IN
ORDER TO CRITICIZE NATO INSTEAD OF SUPPORTING IT, AND THAT'S, IF
YOU ARE SITTING IN BERLIN AND IN LONDON AND IN PARIS AND TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT NATO IS TO THE UNITED STATES, YOU
HAVE TO WONDER IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T
SEEM TO BELIEVE IN NATO, HOW MUCH SHOULD YOU TRUST SOMEBODY
WHO WORKS FOR THAT PRESIDENT AND TELLING YOU THAT THE U.S.
REMAINS.