Sweden and Finland in NATO: What’s in It for Us?

20.500.12592/t56fp1

Sweden and Finland in NATO: What’s in It for Us?

19 May 2022

If the U.S. wants to remain a superpower and defend its own citizens’ interests, it must learn to say no.Both Finland and Sweden are applying to join NATO. The Blob, as the foreign policy establishment has come to be known, is ecstatic. It cannot conceive of saying no to any alliance applicant, no matter how insignificant or irrelevant.Once upon a time, serious nations defended themselves, rather than begging faraway great powers to do the job for them. And no serious great power would do so unless it believed the other state to be essential for its own security. As Great Britain’s Lord Palmerston remarked, countries had no permanent friends, only permanent interests.Even serious defensive alliances could drag members into war, often against their interests, when deterrence failed. World War I provides the most dramatic modern example. Serbia committed an act of state terrorism against the Austro‐​Hungarian Empire. When the latter threatened Belgrade, Imperial Russia stood by its Slavic brethren, lest Vienna establish dominance in the Balkans. Imperial Germany backed Austria‐​Hungary with the infamous “blank check.” France supported its ally Russia. Great Britain feared a rising Berlin and joined its historic enemies Paris and St. Petersburg. Other states, either feeling threatened (Ottoman Empire) or perceiving a chance for territorial gain (Italy) later joined in.The result was continent‐​wide catastrophe, and another much worse war just a generation later. The latter turned America into a global power and left Washington to play leader of “the free world,” defending Western Europe and Asian dependencies amid fears of Soviet aggression and threats posed by the newly created People’s Republic of China. The policy made sense as a temporary expedient, protecting vulnerable states as they recovered and became able to defend themselves.If the U.S. wants to remain a superpower and defend its own citizens’ interests, it must learn to say no.It wasn’t just the Old Right which feared “allies” becoming permanent defense dependents. So did Dwight Eisenhower, World War II allied commander, first NATO military head, and U.S. president. He warned against acting like “a modern Rome guarding the far frontiers with our legions.” Instead, he advocated helping “these people [to] regain their confidence and get on their own military feet.” Foreign policy scholar Mark Sheetz explained that “The purpose of America’s ‘temporary’ intervention in Western Europe was to eliminate the need for ‘permanent’ intervention.”

Authors

Doug Bandow

Published in
United States of America