Karen Pierce, the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United Nations, with Jurgen Schulz, German Deputy Ambassador to the UN, deliver a statement after a UN Security Council meeting at the UN headquarters in New York, Aug. 1, 2019.
US President Donald Trump and French leader Emmanuel Macron clashed about the future of NATO on Tuesday before a summit intended to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Western military alliance.
In sharp exchanges underlining discord in a transatlantic bloc hailed by backers as the most successful military pact in history, Trump demanded that Europe pay more for its collective defense and make concessions to US interests on trade.
Related: Trump criticizes European allies as NATO anniversary gets underway in London
But he also said the alliance was growing stronger.
“So NATO, which was really heading in the wrong direction three years ago, was heading down,” Trump said at a news conference with Macron. “If you look at a graph, it was to a point where I don’t think they could have gone on much longer. Now it’s actually very strong and getting stronger.”
Macron stood by comments he made last month describing NATO as suffering from a lack of strategic purpose akin to “brain death,” and criticized fellow NATO member Turkey, which he accused of working with ISIS proxies.
Related: Macron says NATO is experiencing ‘brain death.’ What’s the future of the alliance?
Trump said Macron’s criticism of NATO was “very, very nasty” and questioned whether the US military should defend any countries that were “delinquent” on alliance targets for national military spending.
All 29 member states have a target of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on defense and Trump has singled out Germany for falling short of the target.
UK Ambassador to the United Nations Karen Pierce has been watching NATO’s 70th birthday party from her perch in New York and spoke with The World’s Marco Werman about the future of the alliance.
Pierce said NATO is here to stay. “It’s the most successful alliance, I think, in history. It guarantees the security and freedom of its 29 members.”
Karen Pierce: I wouldn’t, actually, agree that NATO had been going in a downward direction three years ago. I think NATO had some very important strands because it’s based on collective defense and that’s enshrined in what’s called Article 5. And it means an attack on one nation in NATO can be considered an attack against all. And new members continue to want to join it.
Related: NATO agreed Georgia would join. Why hasn’t it happened?
I think the president has been particularly focused on the cost of NATO to the US compared to other NATO allies. And I think the important thing about that is that the alliance has agreed to do what’s called burden sharing. They made the defense investment pledge in 2014 moving towards spending 2% of GDP on defense. That is what the UK does. So we are standing up to it and we obviously encourage others to do so.
Related: How long can NATO survive without American leadership?
I wouldn’t acknowledge that it has an Achilles heel, but I think there are legitimate questions about how far NATO should move into relatively new areas of cyber counterterrorism, possibly even space. But I also don’t want to give the impression that the threats in Europe have completely gone away. NATO has troops in Estonia for one very good reason, which is the threat from Russia. And I think allies want to talk about how exactly they can deal most effectively with some of these new areas.
Related: Pompeo warns that NATO should confront ‘emerging threats’ from Russia and China
I don’t think it’s that we have a difference on how we view Russia. What made a big difference, of course, to the West’s view of Russia was the invasion of Crimea. And because of the Salisbury chemical weapons attacks in the UK, for which we judge the Russian military intelligence GRU to be responsible, we probably have fewer automatic connections to Russia, whereas I understand that the Americans probably have more official dealings with Russia, comparatively speaking.
Related: NATO at 70: ‘Not anti-Russian,’ but committed to securing member states
I wouldn’t accept that the president’s unpopular in Britain. I think there is a lot of respect in Britain for the US administration. And people are pleased that the US president has visited for the NATO summit. There’s huge affection and understanding and respect for America as a whole. That doesn’t depend on one individual administration. And it was, of course, cemented during the Second World War and in the NATO alliance that came along 70 years ago. So I think there’s an enduring friendship and solidarity there that transcends politics, to be honest.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Reuters contributed reporting.