The Economist - USA (2019-12-07)

14 Leaders The EconomistDecember 7th 2019

1

S

o muchtalkof“crisis”hassurroundednato’s 70th-birthday

yearthatithasbeeneasytoforgettherearereasonstocele-

brate.Notonlyhastheallianceprovedremarkablydurableby

historicalstandards,butsince 2014 ithasrespondedaptlyto

Russia’saggressioninUkraine,refocusingonitscoremissionof

collectivedefence.Ithasdeployedmultinationalbattlegroups

intothethreeBalticstatesandPolandandcommittedto im-

provedreadiness.GoadedbycriticismfromPresidentDonald

Trump,itsmembers haveraised theirspending ondefence.

Thoughmanycountries,notablyGermany,stillfallshortoftheir

promises,natonowestimatesthatbetween 2016 and 2020 its

EuropeanmembersandCanadawillshelloutanextra$130bn.

Thisnewmoneyhelpsexplainonewelcomedevelopmentat

themeetingofnatoleadersinBritainthisweek.

Mr Trump, previously the disrupter-in-chief,

whousedtocalltheorganisation“obsolete”and

causedconsternationata summitinBrusselsin

2018 bythreateningtowithdrawifEuropeans

failedtotakeona fairershareoftheburden,

has—howeverbriefly—becomeadefender. In

LondonthisweekheblastedPresidentEmman-

uelMacron’scriticismoftheallianceas“nasty”

and“disrespectful”.Hemadenosignofblockingsternwordson

RussiaorthereiterationofArticleFiveofnato’s treaty,thecor-

nerstoneofthealliance.America’scommitmentwillbeondis-

playnextyear,whensome20,000ofitstroopsaretopractisere-

inforcingEuropeinanexercisecalledDefender2020.

Thebadnewsisthatotherdisruptershaveemerged.Thevis-

cerally anti-natoJeremy Corbyn could conceivably become

primeministerofoneofitsleadingmembersafternextweek’s

Britishgeneralelection.Turkey’spresident,RecepTayyipErdo-

gan,hascausedconsternationbybuyinga Russiananti-aircraft

system,obstructingnato’s decisionsoneasternEuropeandin-

vadingnorthernSyriawithoutregardforhisallies’interests.He

respondedwithpersonalinsultstoa suggestionbyMrMacron

that,givenTurkey’sactionsinSyria,it mightnotbeabletocount

onthemutualdefenceenshrinedinArticleFive.

Themostsurprisingtroublemaker,andthereasonrelations

haveturnedugly,isMrMacronhimself.Ina recentinterview

withTheEconomisthesaidthatnatowasexperiencing“brain-

death”.Hechampionsa strongerEuropeandefence,whichEu-

ropeneeds,andonDecember4thinsistedthatthiswould“not

beanalternativetonatobutoneofitspillars”.Butthereislin-

geringsuspicionofhisintentionsamongotherallies.Thatis

partlybecauseofhisenthusiasmfora “strategicdialogue”with

Russia.Hehasemphasisedthethreatofterrorismoverthetask

ofdefendingagainstVladimirPutin’saggression.MrMacronis

takinga longviewandisseekingtostimulatefreshthinking,but

most of his allies understandably hear his

wordsasa threattotheprogressofthepastfive

years(seeEuropesection).Russia’sactions,not

justinUkrainebutalsoonnatoterritory(in-

cluding bysendingassassinstoSalisbury in

Britainand,possibly,Berlin’sTiergarten),call

forastrongresponse.Anydesireforconces-

sionswillbeseeninMoscowasweakness.

InBritainnatopaperedoverthecracks.The

summit’sdeclarationaffirmeditsmembers’commitmenttoAr-

ticleFiveandproclaimedthat“Russia’saggressiveactionscon-

stitutea threattoEuro-Atlanticsecurity”.Thatiswelcome,but

theallianceneedstofinda newstrategiccoherence.EvenifMr

Trumpremainsinfavour,America’sfocusisshiftingineluctably

toitsrivalrywithChinainAsiaandbeyond.Exercisesandin-

creasingreadinesswillcementtheallianceata militarylevel—

andthiswillendurewhilethepoliticianscomeandgo.Workon

newishareassuchas spaceandcyberwarfarewill help,too.

Eventually,a strategicdialoguewithRussiamightmakesense.

Buttothrivenatoalsoneedsa greatercommonpurpose.Once

theimpetuscamefromAmerica.MrMacronwasrighttopoint

outthatinfutureEuropewillhavetoplaya largerpart. 7

The good, the bad and the ugly

New troublemakers emerge in the alliance

NATO’s summit

A

s many arab leaders have fallen in the past year as did dur-

ing the Arab spring. And still the wave of protests over cor-

ruption, unemployment and threadbare public services contin-

ues to sweep across the Middle East and north Africa. Turnover at

the top has not mollified the masses, because rather than pro-

ducing real change it has reshuffled entrenched elites. Particu-

larly in Iraq and Lebanon, many of the protesters now want to

tear down entire political systems. It is a dangerous moment. Yet

the protesters are right to call for change.

Both Iraq and Lebanon divvy up power among their religions

and sects as a way of keeping the peace between them. Lebanon

constructed a sectarian political system long before the civil war

of 1975-90, and buttressed it afterwards. Iraq’s system was set up

in 2003, after America’s invasion. It did not prevent Sunnis from

fighting Shias. But the civil war is over in Iraq, as in Lebanon. It

would seem risky to upset these fragile arrangements.

Leaving them be would be even riskier. Start with Iraq, where

America aimed to satisfy all groups but instead created a system

that encourages patronage and empowers political parties (and

militias) which entrench the country’s ethnic and sectarian divi-

sions. It is difficult to get ahead in Iraqi politics—or indeed in

life—without associating with one of these parties. They treat

System failure

Time for Iraq and Lebanon to ditch state-sponsored sectarianism

Unrest in the Arab world