The linked text only says “the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”
Nothing about how much they have to spend.
Umm, exactly.
Sorry, responded in the wrong place.
Erm. Erm. Like, erm, in which timeframe? And, by the way, if you want Germany to meet the 2% goal, the only practical solution would be the nuclear option.
Think about this for a moment.
Germany.
Atomic bombs.
What does that remind you of?
Oh… This is where you are coming from.
Ok then.
What do you mean?
Remember when it was the right wing that wanted to bring back the Red Scare?
I expect to see statues of Joe McCarthy in Fremont any day now.
I’m sure this will have exactly zero effect on how much the member states pay, but sounds nice and tough and leader-like to Trump fans.
Here are the highlights:
In 2006, NATO member countries agreed to commit a minimum of two per cent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence. This guideline principally served as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts. Additionally, the defence capacity of each member country has an important impact on the overall perception of the Alliance’s credibility as a politico-military organisation.
At the Wales Summit in 2014, NATO leaders agreed to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:
Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure as GDP grows; and will move toward the 2% guideline within a decade.
ETA: In a speech in 2006, James Appathurai made the point that others here are making. Namely, that this is a commitment rather than a requirement. His words,
Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance. So there was, I think, quite substantial developments in the first two meetings.
That’s also from the NATO site: http://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm
Well done Trumpy - Putin could not have said it better.
The irony here is he may get his wish in that NATO is funded by a percentage of each country’s GDP. If Trump and the Republican congress, along with their billionaire puppetmasters run the economy into the ground, we’ll come closer to the spending of whatever other countries are paying.
And if enough countries bail, the whole thing dissolves, so technically, everyone pays their fair share.
… Are you using an agreement from 2006 and a 2014 summit meeting to explain how a treaty signed in 1949 set the 2% of GDP spending requirements that aren’t even actually requirements?
Yeah, and he also said, “I think Islam hates us.”
But he just worked out a deal to sell $110 billion worth of advanced weaponry to the Saudis, who fund tens of thousands of Wahabbi madrassas worldwide.
Which coincided with the Saudis giving $100 million to Ivanka’s still-unestablished “foundation.”
I’m sure this whole NATO kerfuffle can be worked out with a few nice gifts to Ivanka as well.
So not the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949. What a surprise. When you made that up, did you really think I wouldn’t check?
It is a non-binding guideline and its current incarnation even provides a time frame. You may argue that such a spending level would be a good idea, but nobody owes anyone anything.
…Are you arguing that NATO members did not commit and subsequently recommit to spending 2% of their GDP on NATO? What is your point here?
Meh he’s just trying to score some points at home… These leaders aren’t going to do a goddamn thing this dickbag says and he knows it. It doesn’t really cost him anything and he gets to look tough for Fox.
It’s like when your manager that leaves early every Friday tells the office they shouldn’t be taking long lunches… Even if it’s true it’s just not going to work when it comes from such an asshole.
I didn’t make anything up. NATO members committed to this amount. They subsequently recommitted to it. I pulled that information directly from the NATO website. The 1949 treaty lays the groundwork for NATO to govern itself, and this is part of that governance.
I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. Do you feel that NATO provides value for its members?
Dude, you need to relax; you said one thing that was not completely true (that the funding commitment was a part of the 1949 treaty), and you have been corrected. It’s a non-binding commitment, and it didn’t happen in 1949.
If you weren’t completely correct about something, saying so is always better than retreating to a tangential point– people here will usually give you the benefit of the doubt as long as you don’t keep digging a hole for yourself.
Here is a rare occasion I agree. I’ve said this for years.
NATO members are supposed to use 2% of there GDP for defense spending. 4 NATO members meet that goal, and 22 who do not.
The US by far out spends the others, with 3.6% of its GDP, 2nd place is Greece at 2.4.
Europe and those who are in NATO enjoy the security that NATO provides, and of all the member nations, the US is by far the largest. They don’t have to spend money, they know the US has their backs if something went down. This is just like your moocher friend who puts in only $1 towards the $4 share for pizza because he knows you will pay for him.
The US SHOULD reduce it’s spending. A 10 year plan to lower it to ~2% should probably be the goal.
Europe and NATO might want/need to pick up the slack if they want to have the same level of preparedness. If they don’t maybe they should actually pay the US to keep their increased presence.
