CLEVELAND, Ohio—A top Donald Trump adviser said on Thursday that the Republican presidential nominee’s suggestion that the United States might not come to the defense of some NATO member states would actually strengthen the security alliance.
Trump foreign policy hand Sam Clovis defended the candidate’s stated refusal to honor NATO defense obligations for countries that do not spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on national defense. Just five of NATO’s 28 members currently meet that threshold.
Asked whether Trump’s position would undermine America’s commitments to its allies, Clovis insisted it would do "quite the opposite" because it would encourage member states to contribute more money to the alliance.
"It says we’re going to be right there with you, we’ll stand with you, but you’ve got to—if you’re going to come to a gun fight, carry a gun!" he said.
Trump’s comments came in an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday. He said the United States would not fulfill its obligations to defend NATO member states if they did not step up their financial commitments to the alliance.
"If we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth … then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, ‘Congratulations, you will be defending yourself,’" Trump said.
The comments immediately drew heavy criticism from other Republicans, who said that Trump had in effect undermined the entire purpose and utility of the alliance.
"I disagree with that," said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). "I want to reassure our NATO allies that if any of them get attacked, we'll be there to defend them."
Other congressional Republicans were more heated in their repudiations of Trump’s remarks. Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger called them "utterly disastrous" and said they caused him to rethink who he would vote for in November.
"You have allies right now, I mean I have friends that, you know, serve in parliament in places like Estonia, that every day worry about the Russians deciding that this is the time to reannex and take them back," Kinzinger said. "And comments like this are not only ill-informed, they’re dangerous."
Clovis insisted that a Trump administration would "honor our commitments to our allies all over the world," but "we want talk about the issues on burden sharing."
"We want everybody to do their part and we’ll be happy to take that leadership role," he added. "I think Mr. Trump is committed to supporting our commitment to NATO, but by God we’re going to have to start taking a look at things."
Asked whether Trump’s statements on Wednesday amounted to a hard and fast policy statement or simply a negotiating position, as he has claimed about a number of his more controversial proposals, Clovis suggested reading "one of his many books," but did not answer definitively.
He made the remarks at an event near the convention in downtown Cleveland. It was hosted by the International Republican Institute, which supports greater European-American security collaboration, and featured speakers who called for a larger NATO role in transatlantic military and security cooperation.
"If I might invite the next U.S. president to do something with Europe, it would be … to be more focused on NATO as a basic tool of transatlantic security," said Jan Zahradil, a Czech member of the European Parliament and the chair of that body’s Conservatives and Reformists bloc, which promotes a greater role for NATO on the continent.
NATO is "the only real geopolitical tool or instrument, particularly of the United States, to execute its global role toward Europe and to maintain an Atlantic link—if the U.S. still cares and will care about Europe, and I hope that it will," Zahradil said.
Trump’s Wednesday comments were not his first anti-NATO remarks. He called the alliance ineffective and "obsolete" in March.
"NATO doesn't discuss terrorism. NATO's not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn't have the right countries in it for terrorism," Trump complained.
In fact, the only time that the alliance’s mutual defense obligations have been invoked in the 21st century was in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, after which every NATO member contributed to the military force that invaded Afghanistan.