| 000 -LEADER |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
03192nam a2200181Ia 4500 |
| 008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION |
|---|
| fixed length control field |
181130s2018 xx 000 0 und d |
| 100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME |
|---|
| Personal name |
Mukherjee, Bhaswati |
| 245 ## - TITLE STATEMENT |
|---|
| Title |
A strategic essay: |
| Remainder of title |
dynamics between a super President, a military alliance and an intrastate entity |
| 260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC. |
|---|
| Date of publication, distribution, etc. |
2018 |
| 300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION |
|---|
| Extent |
p.290-304. |
| 504 ## - BIBLIOGRAPHY, ETC. NOTE |
|---|
| -- |
Sep |
| 520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC. |
|---|
| Summary, etc. |
The emerging dynamics between President Trump, NATO and EU promises to constitute a fascinating new narrative of the changing contours of the international order in this millennium. President Trump has completely reversed American policy towards NATO.As a businessman, Trump has made it clear that henceforth US funding and support would be linked to the US getting a �good deal� from its NATO partners. NATO had earlier anchored itself to the benchmark goal that 2% of a country�s GDP should go to defence spending. President Trump is yet to establish close and friendly relations either with NATO Secretary General or leaders of NATO Member States. Trump�s public embrace of autocratic rulers has caused resentment within NATO. On CSDP the earlier European approach was to lean heavily on the Americans to fund NATO. The friction between the goals of NATO and CSDP increased under the Trump Presidency because of Trump�s insistence on burden sharing of resources and funds among NATO Member States. The CSDP and NATO have overlapping mandates which could be complicated in crisis situations. An independent CSDP remains the core issue causing friction. The U.S. and other non EU weapons producing countries (chiefly Norway and soon the U.K.) also believe that CSDP is manipulating the rules of defence procurement in favour of companies based on EU soil. Is the US justified in attacking CSDP? Many EU Member States believe that protecting European defence industries is a small price to pay for ensuring that a NATO under American leadership not get involved in small regional wars, as an example, in Francophone Africa. Brexit is casting a long shadow. EU and NATO would need to realign themselves from a strategic perspective. NATO and the EU need to prepare for a strategic scenario post Brexit. Following Brexit, 80 percent of NATO defence spending will come from non-EU members. This would shift the onus of decision making within NATO away from the EU. One of the greatest challenges for NATO and the EU is America�s new narrative on Iran and North Korea. EU and NATO are slowly waking up to the new reality that there will be no �business as usual�. If NATO�s military deterrence loses its credibility, this will undermine the credibility of both EU and NATO and endanger international peace and security. What could the EU and NATO do next? Are there any �low hanging fruits� that could be picked in the near future? The EU and NATO understand that there can be no �business as usual�. The new global narrative on security would depend on how NATO and EU respond to America�s changed narrative. A timely response is the need of the hour. - Reproduced. |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
European union |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
Government and politics - U.S.A. |
| 650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM |
|---|
| Topical term or geographic name entry element |
NATO |
| 773 ## - HOST ITEM ENTRY |
|---|
| Main entry heading |
India Quarterly |
| 906 ## - LOCAL DATA ELEMENT F, LDF (RLIN) |
|---|
| a |
NATO |
