The difficult anniversary of the Atlantic Alliance

Despite the seventieth anniversary of the foundation of the Atlantic Alliance, the problems that are within the supranational subject characterize the recurrence. The United States, especially since Trump was president, has repeatedly called on the allies to respect the commitment to allocate two percent of each state's gross domestic product, for military spending; however in times of economic difficulties the Alliance countries have great difficulty in respecting this commitment and this creates serious conflicts with Washington. Only the United Kingdom, Poland, Greece and Estonia reach the share of expenditure agreed in 2014 during the summit in Wales, while the United States, with a cost of 700 billion dollars, reaches a percentage of three point six . The most economically strong nation, after the USA, of the Atlantic Alliance is Germany which commits one point two percent of its gross domestic product, which corresponds to 45.6 million euros. This brings us back to the relationship between economic capacity and military expenditure, but, above all, favors considerations about which international subjects Berlin has its economic relations with. Trump's logic is that the US, as the largest contributing country in the Atlantic Alliance, should be treated favorably. It cannot be said that this is justified: if the Atlantic Alliance also has a function against Moscow and Beijing, it is impossible to understand why Germany and other countries that are part of the Alliance, have such consistent economic relations with Russia. Certainly the world scenario is very fluid and the smaller territorial distance favors the economic exchange relations with the nearest countries, even if they are formally against the USA. Perhaps the problem is precisely this that Trump identifies the US and the Atlantic Alliance as almost coinciding, while the European partners make a distinction between the military and the economic plan. If Trump's reasoning is perhaps a little simplistic, it is undeniable that it is also coherent and, moreover, the practical necessity of the Alliance appears indisputable, not only in the face of terrorist threats, but as a contrast to the actions of Russian interference through computer systems on Western democracies and as a counterweight to China's growing military commitment, aimed at increasing Beijing's political weight in the world. Without a European army capable of facing these emergencies and without a unitary foreign policy of the Union, the Atlantic Alliance is, therefore, still essential. However, Trump's demands for respect of the gross domestic product quota are not only a stimulus for other states in terms of defense, but, they also mean military orders for the United States, which are missing if each nation does not comply with the signed financial commitment. The White House would have come to threaten a possible unilateral disengagement from the Atlancia Alliance, as "The New York Times" has revealed and this would have created the definitive end, however such a provision is impossible at the present state of things because it results in antithesis with American foreign policy, even the one with isolationist tendencies like that practiced by Trump. Politically, therefore, the Alliance still has a very high value but it must be held against the bad performance of the world economy that cannot allow the members of the Alliance to respect the due quotas, both for purely financial reasons, and for reasons of internal political order. Perhaps it is necessary to re-negotiate the quotas already established to establish more sustainable ones, to allow a secure financial commitment and in the same way it is correct to recognize the effort made by the USA, also taking into account the opportunity of some economic relations with nations that exercise unconventional means to fit into the democratic processes of sovereign countries.