As a former United States ambassador to NATO, I am often asked whether I think former President Donald Trump’s reelection in November would mean the end of NATO.
The answer I give is: Yes and no. […]
Moreover, no one should put much faith in the recently enacted Congressional edict meant to prevent a president from withdrawing from the alliance without Congress’ consent either. No one can force an American president to defend another country with the full force of the U.S. military — not even Congress.
Legally, the U.S. (or any other NATO member, for that matter) is merely obliged to take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” In other words, each member is left to decide for itself whether and how to act in case of an armed attack on an ally. And even that provision, in Article 5, is only binding after all NATO members agree to invoke the commitment.
What makes a security alliance effective isn’t some legal diktat, however — it’s the trust that allies have in each other, that they will come to each other’s defense, and the credibility of that commitment in the eyes of their adversaries. Legally binding commitments can solidify that trust, but they can’t sustain it on their own — let alone build it. Läs artikel