Shortly after the election of Donald Trump, Europe comes up with the question: Who protects us now, does the new US president want to meet his NATO obligations only against Bares? Is it like the former US ambassador in Germany says: "The American umbrella over Europe has gone away forever"? "No", says Rainer Arnold (SPD), Chairman of the Defense Committee in the Bundestag. In the end everything could be better than before.
Mr Arnold, the former US Ambassador John Kornblum warns that Germany and Europe are on the military after the election of Donald Trumps. Is that so?
We already had the impression that the Americans are serious about saying that Europeans have to take more responsibility in NATO. The US is more oriented in the Atlantic-Pacific region. This is certainly strengthened by Trump.
There is, however, a big difference between "being more self-centered" and "being alone in the future".
One must not underestimate the fact that there are many members of the republic, who are proven Nato-people, among the Republicans. "Being alone" would mean that the alliance would be divided. This is unimaginable for me.
Also not with Trump, with whom one never knows, what still comes to him?
Not with him either. If he were to say that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty (which governs the alliance case, ed. Edit.) No longer applies to him, then the alliance would be broken. This is the core of the common deterrence.
Is that clear to him?
I'm pretty sure you'll make it clear to him. We know nothing about his policy. I have the impression that he does not know it himself. But we know something about his character: He has many negative qualities, I think. But his character also means that it does not itch at all what he said yesterday.
It is said that even under Clinton the Europeans had been asked to pay.
Under Clinton, too, the pressure on the European pillar of NATO would have increased. This has already begun under Obama.
Trump threatens, for example, the small Baltic states that they would have to pay American protection in the future.
The Baltic States have all military spending of two percent of the national budget, as provided by NATO. If Trump were to put the ax in this way, this would mean the following in Europe: Until now, we had always had the problem that the Baltic and the Poles did not rely on Europe but rather on the USA. The European security policy was slowed by their dynamism. If this is reversed and the Eastern Europeans realize the importance of a common defense policy in Europe, that is exactly on our line. This is also the effect with which I reckon: the compulsion to be united again is more visible. This may have a positive effect.
How would we stand against Russia in the future?
Security can not only mean spending more money. This would mean putting more money into an inefficient European structure. We need a much closer interlinking of the armed forces' capacity and division of labor in Europe. We have one and a half million soldiers - that's more than the US have. We spend a total of $ 270 billion on armed forces - more than 40 percent of US spending. For this, however, we get only 15 to 20 percent of the capabilities the US has. At this point, we see that there is no point in spending more and more money without creating truly effective European structures, with military cooperation and with political processes that make it effective. This is now announced.
Do you see even the slightest willingness among the Europeans?
It is currently changing. Regardless of Trump, we have seen a whole new dynamic in Europe for several months. For example, the Franco-German paper, the concept of Federica Mogherini (both concerning the technical and management-compatible compatibility of European armies), the announcements of Italy and Spain, The process. It would also help to look again at the Treaty of Lisbon, which specifies the process of structured military cooperation in which only parts of the EU can participate
