President Trump, Frank, Nato discussed on 1A

90.3 KAZU
| 90.3 KAZU

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

I heard that president who owns it it was great and I think that's very insulting Frank what's the context of this particularly in light of what NATO is what NATO does and just the fact that this is a kind of a milestone anniversary for NATO I think what McCall is getting out is a big question he was asking even in this press conference not too long ago with president trump today is what is dados purpose and particularly what is going on with Turkey and the United States you have to NATO countries one in the case of Turkey saying it wants to go in and go after these fighters the United States stepping aside may is a very very strange situation have people in the countries in the same military alliance acting in this way and he's also very concerned about Turkey's roles as we've been reporting over the last number of days Turkey is saying that in less the a a that night that NATO define the fighters that it is against the ones I've actually been working with the United States in the past to go after ISIS defines terrace that that in fact Turkey is not going to support any number of policies that might you know come out of the summit and so a lot of what micro is saying is without what he considers to be strong American leadership where does this where does NATO go for NATO is effective militarily but politically vertically in the last three years or so especially with the president trump attacking members for not spending enough on defense it's it's really struggling to figure out what its direction isn't exactly what should be doing him and I think that struggle also has to do with the fact that when NATO was founded in the post World War two era to try to kind of create this alliance that could deal with that kind of a global threat again the global threat had to do with nation states with national actors as opposed to people who saw a you tube video or downloaded something on bit torrent or watch to discord stream and then they decide they're going to take up a cost so need it was kind of dealing with the world that it literally wasn't designed for a NATO would argue that there still are those nation state threats that it needs to contend with especially from Russia on its eastern borders I they would argue that especially at the beginning of the trump administration when it was made clear to NATO that they had to do more on counterterrorism that's basically a quote from the president they they did they created something called NATO cells they created a whole new analytical framework to focus on the Mediterranean the southern perspective from from Europe focused on migrants on counterterrorism to specifically fill that gap fearing that otherwise the president might just pull out of NATO here we are after they've made that effort after they've been providing a lot of support in particular in Iraq and Afghanistan and they're wondering what our commitment is not just to NATO in general but to those types of deployments there's a lot of concern in Europe among the NATO allies that the president's looking to cut and run in Afghanistan where will that leave them NATO was particularly active on the ground in Afghanistan could you elaborate on that a little bit mad in terms of what NATO means to the U. S. I mean part of the point of NATO is to create a military alliance that if someone was attacked at all of these nations would come to our aid there's at peace article five which we hear about that an attack on one is an attack on all I believe the only nation that's ever invoked article five was the United States after the September eleventh terror attacks so we do NATO something but that calculus going forward is exactly what the president's comments about NATO get at but is it clear what he wants out of NATO other than more money but the the president's sense of you know equal equal contributions a something that's been a constant we know that that's something he wants to be on that I'm not sure exactly if it is clear what he wants I I don't think that the president necessarily sees for example our commitment and deployments to Europe as something that we're doing not just as a favor to them but because that's in our interest because the alliance is in our interest because the alliance not only protects Europe in western democracy but has been able to go places and step up whether it's in North Africa and Afghanistan and Iraq and engage in a coalition a military coalition that's been able to contribute to international security and Frank how much of the economics of NATO on the president's agenda are there other things he's been talking about so far he really he continued to hit on the economics and you know he looks at this very much as the former developer from queens that he he is at his heart which is he's a very transactional businessman and I think he he sees a lot of money going out and he doesn't see the kind of return that he that he expects or once and I also don't know that he necessarily seem to appreciate that with the sort of stability that NATO brings that also means that markets remain safe and they economics remain safe and risk is low which is always very good for business and so I'm not he doesn't seem to have that appreciation of the sort of stability that NATO brings that actually is very beneficial for the western economies of western Europe as well as the United States account we will continue in a moment with NPR's Frank Lankford and Matt Levitt of the Washington institute for Near East policy including talking about that attack on London Bridge Jordan asked how is two people getting killed anything more than a local news story this is being sensationalized I'm Joshua Johnson you're listening to one a from W. A. M. U. N. N. P. R. I'm tiny mostly from NPR's here now when Peter was founded we had.

Coming up next