The struggle for consensus on the NATO summit exposed various vulnerabilities of the European Union. Report in Hague of CNN Portugal Special Envoy, João Guerreiro Rodrigues
If on the first day of the summit the rooms overflowed that they listened closely to the promises of the leaders of NATO, on the second and last day a new army appeared to occupy the ground: armed with hundreds of cameras with great objectives, portable and blocks of notes, more than a hundred journalists await patiently in a dark room to hear the words of the true protagonist of the alliance – the one whom whom Rutte sent an SMS: Donald Trump. And in this SMS, Nato’s secretary -general had promised to give the US president “a triumphal entry” in The Hague – and when Trump came to the stage, flanked by the secretaries of state and defense, it seemed anything but disillusioned.
“It was a tremendously big trip but it was worth it,” Trump announces. Who got what he wanted from the alliance: forcing all 32 members to reach the 2% investment target of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) later this year and accepting the new target of 5%-initially suggested by “Daddy Trump,” as the Alliance Secretary General dubbed. “It’s something no one thought possible,” he said.
Behind the scenes it was whispered that Europe, trapped by Trump’s unpredictability, gave in not by consensus but out of necessity. The day before, the US President publicly shared such SMS that Rutte sent and said: “Lord President, dear Donald. Congratulations and thanks for his decisive action in Iran, it was truly extraordinary and something no one could, ever, giving us all safer. Donald has led us to everyone at a very important moment for America, Europe and the world. Rutte’s words were considered “vassalage” by the Spanish press but not only: “vassalage” was a word recurrently repeated in the corridors of the summit.
As soon as the speech ended, dozens of arms of journalists rose, eager to question. Trump, with a provocative smile, could not resist his attention. “Wow, so many hands!” He joked, shaking his arms toward the crowd. Then Trump points to the audience and begins to demonstrate how those who dare to ask him are treated: “Who is a good person? You are not a good person”; “Wait until you hear this question,” he provoked, in the face of the nervous laughs of some journalists.
Will pay double
Only one country dared to challenge Trump. Pedro Sánchez, president of the Spanish government, resisted to the end of the 5% goal proposed by the alliance, arguing that 2.1% would be enough to meet the needs of the NATO. Spain, who is the least spent member in defense due to GDP, was also the main target of Trump’s speech. “They are the only country that does not pay. We are negotiating with Spain a trade agreement. We will make them pay double,” Trump threatened.
Away from the stage where all eyes and ears were focused on Trump, Sánchez remained firm. His posture did not denounce that he was under the fire of the leader of the largest military power in the world. “Spain will fulfill its abilities and will continue as a pillar of European security, from the south flank to the east, where we highlighted almost three thousand military personnel, with vehicles and avant -garde technology,” he said. He spoke in a paused voice, insisting that the choice to maintain 2.1% of GDP in defense was “sufficient and realistic.”
But the words and calm tone of Sánchez hid the backstage battle that happened to reach an agreement for the final statement of the summit. Among the 32 members were factions. East countries, where Russia lurks so closely, required the goal of 3.5% of GDP to be reached by 2030. Others also supported the increase, but asked for a wider deadline not to question public finances. In the end, only Spain remained inflexible, insisting on an exception that challenged Trump’s pressure and tested The Hague’s patience.
The Portuguese informal unlock
The impasse was only surpassed behind the scenes, where Portugal had a role to play. A Portuguese diplomatic source, speaking of anonymity, revealed that Portugal played a “very important but informal” role to unlock the final statement of the summit. In a game of delicate equilibrium, Portuguese diplomats, in articulation with Mark Rutte and key allies, managed to bring seemingly irreconcilable positions closer. “We asked us to facilitate, almost personally, dialogue with Spain and other reluctant countries compared to the 3.5% GDP goals,” the source confided.
Portugal eventually emerged as an unlikely bridge, which he played behind the scenes a crucial role for the agreement – which needs unanimity to approve – not collapse under the confrontation between the Spanish and American demands. The main obstacle, as expected, came from Madrid, but was not the only one. Several allies, including Portugal, expressed reserves on tight deadlines, citing internal budget restrictions. Rutte’s initial proposal, which set 2032 to reach 3.5%, faced resistance from nearby countries from Russia, which pressed by 2030. Portugal managed, along with countries such as the United Kingdom and Italy, increase the deadline to ten years to 2035.
Portuguese diplomacy has also been at the center of the proposal for the revision of the goal to 2029, an interleaved review that will serve to assess the threat situation in which the NATO is, and can extend or shorten the deadline for 2035. Initially suggested by national diplomacy, the measure eventually reaps the support of “other important allies”, becoming a fundamental aspect to balance the vision of the countries that wanted a smaller and more reduced deadlines. that asked for more time. This flexibility would turn out to be crucial to reaching consensus and preventing the summit from derarestling.
But the Portuguese government wanted to show that it is not like others and that its merits are only confined to the interiors. In one of the many small press conference rooms, with the walls with the various shades of blue of the alliance, Luís Montenegro has announced that the defense area will reinforce the country with the country with the group of countries that invests more than 2% of GDP in defense in more than the end of the year. “It will ride around a thousand million euros, perhaps slightly less, direct investment in equipment acquisitions, infrastructure, appreciation of our human resources,” said the prime minister, who promised to announce the date “as fast as possible.”
Win the new war
In a shadow transformed into a fortress for the summit, Trump may have dominated the last day but was not the only one to come victorious. To understand the true range of the event, it is necessary to retreat on the first day, when the focus was on a flooded future of military equipment. “This Wednesday, June 25, it will be a historic day not only for the alliance, but for our defense industry,” Ruben Brekelmans, the young minister of defense of the Netherlands, proclaimed.
The focus here is the defense industry and the dilemmas that plague the rulers. Brekelmans admits that it is often confronted with these difficult decisions: How does the Budget of the Armed Forces rises and at the same time benefits the national industry with this money? Overcoming the new war, the “New War of Production”. “That’s what this summit treats,” Brekelmans explained. The goal is clear: to ensure the industry the predictability necessary to expand factories and forge arsenal capable of sustaining the NATO.
The goal is to give the industry the predictability it needs to increase its production capacity and give what Mark Rutte says is a “quantum leap” in NATO’s defense capabilities. “When there is will, our industrialists and entrepreneurs will find their way” and create “millions of jobs on both sides of the oceans.”
In the corridors, where Sánchez’s resistance was still the subject of conversation and Portugal’s discreet role continued to go unnoticed, all eyes were still concentrated in the huge amounts of money that are about to be unlocked to the defense. But while the summit was closing between hand and chamber flashes, a question hovered in the air: Can Europe, shaped by Trump’s unpredictability and divided between the boldness of some and the caution of others, turn this effort into sovereignty or be reduced to being an echo of Washington’s demands?
