Nato nations have to pay the price for security

Many alliance members at the summit in Wales are benefiting from vital insurance without paying the premium

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen gives a press briefing
Nato secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance has kept the United States engaged in the defence of Europe – a necessity, not a luxury Credit: Photo: Alamy

Nato, 65 years old this year, represents one of the most successful military alliances in history. It is a triumph of sovereignty pooled on a voluntary basis – without the need for rigid supranational structures.

It is the alliance that kept at bay the Soviet Union until it collapsed under the weight of its own failings and contradictions. The result was that millions of people who had lived under oppression in Eastern Europe were able to join the free and democratic world. Nato has also acted to protect those at risk in the Balkans and in Libya, and has led an international coalition of nations in Afghanistan. Most importantly, it has kept the United States engaged in the defence of Europe – a necessity, not a luxury.

Nato contains 28 member states, representing a population of more than 900 million (compared with the EU’s 500 million). As well as the United States and the United Kingdom, it includes Canada and Norway, both hugely important players in the developing Arctic, and Turkey, which lies at one of the world’s most important strategic crossroads.

Nato’s aims were clearly spelt out when its founding treaty was signed in April 1949. This was to be not only a military alliance, but a political one that would uphold the freedoms that had been fought for during the Second World War. This political role needs to be reinforced at the Wales summit, which begins today, in light of the numerous challenges facing the collective security and values of its member states.

But all is not as well as it should be in the Nato backyard. In 2013, just four of the member states – the US, the UK, Estonia and Greece – met the commitment to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. France fell below that mark in 2011, Germany spends only around 1.3 per cent, and too many of the countries who joined the Alliance after the fall of the Berlin Wall chose to pocket the Article 5 security guarantee – which states that an attack on one member state will be treated as attack on all – while cutting their defence spending.

Nato might well be one of the most successful insurance policies that we have seen, but it is quite unacceptable that everyone should benefit from the policy while only a few are paying the premiums. Britain should lead by example at the current summit and David Cameron should commit a future Conservative government to spending above 2 per cent of GDP. It would both challenge those who are failing to meet their obligations and soothe nerves at home.

There is no doubt that Nato needs to reassert its political identity, as well as concentrate on its military hardware, if it is to maintain its relevance and vitality. While Article 5 provides the security guarantee, the preamble to the treaty makes clear that countries are “determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law”. This has particular importance when dealing with the current resurgent and bullying Russian regime.

There are two very clear differences of principle between Nato and Russia. The first is that Russia clings to the outdated and wrong notion that it has a right to a “sphere of influence” – in other words, that it has a veto over the behaviour of the former satellite states of the Soviet Union. The view in the West is diametrically opposed, believing that sovereign nations have an absolute right to self-determination.

The second difference, made very clear in the Ukraine, is that President Putin believes that the protection of ethnic Russians lies not in the laws or the constitutions of the states in which they live, but with an external power, Russia itself. This doctrine drives a coach and horses through our concepts of international law and acceptable behaviour. Until the Russian government changes its positions on these two principles, it is difficult to see how there can be a normalisation of relations between Russia and Nato.

It is always worth recalling that the Cold War did not simply end – the Cold War was won. It was won because not only did the West have the military advantage, it had the economic power that came from the application of the free market, and the political will to defend the values which it believed were better than, and not just different from, those of the Communist bloc.

It is hard to count the number of times that Nato’s obituary has been written in recent years. The integrationists in the EU, for example, have long seen the Alliance as an obstruction on the road to ever closer union, and have tried to create a separate defence outfit in Brussels. It is one of the most dangerous and objectionable elements of the European project, threatening as it does to drive a wedge between continental Europe and the United States.

Despite all its difficulties, however, the Alliance seems more necessary than it has for many years. As the threats to our collective security mount, Nato provides us with both continuity and security, a tried and tested guarantee of our safety, which we should embrace, foster and enhance. It will require some plain speaking at the summit, and perhaps some bruised national egos, but it will be worth the effort.

Dr Liam Fox is a former defence secretary