I would like to see a tariff applied to US goods produced in the US and exported to the rest of the world as means of charging the US for not abiding by the agreement.
Here's the full text of the Paris Agreement[0] and here[1] is Secretary of State John Kerry signing said agreement on behalf of the United States in New York on 2016-04-22.
Show me a text of this "NATO spending agreement", when and where it was signed by a Representative of the United States, and then we'll talk.
Interesting. I'd think NATO would involve some sort of negotiated terms, it's hard to believe that funding would be excluded from that, but who knows. I'm no expert on it, but it seems quite odd that this point of contention is a complete figment of the imagination of American politicians for several decades and European politicians never point out that it's completely made up.
I now wonder if my perception of the military blanket of protection the US provides to Europe also a figment of people's imagination. Do they have military bases and personnel in the region, or am I imagining that also?
The gist of it is that no NATO members are in arrears for the contributions that are required to NATO. There is a NATO goal that member states should spend 2% of their GDP on their own defence each year. This is where some countries are not meeting that goal but the money certainly is not owed to the United States. Further it could be said that given that the US is home to many companies that make weapons this is a way for the US to get NATO members to spend money on US goods. (NATO members are unlikely to buy weapons systems from Russia or China).
So as I said there is a very real difference between the 2 systems and it is unfair to use them in conjunction with one another because the NATO one is a goal, a 'nice to have' if you will.
>No. The 2 percent standard is just a guideline, not a legally binding requirement. In 2006, even as the United States was increasing military spending because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, European allies were shrinking their military spending. NATO defense ministers that year adopted a guideline suggesting that each spend the equivalent of 2 percent of its annual economic output on its military — but it was a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state.
So the NATO 2% spending thing is: "just a guideline", "not a legally binding requirement", "a target, not a rule, and not endorsed by heads of state".
While the Paris Agreement is a formal treaty, signed in New York by a Representative of the United States, and then ratified by the US afterwards.
I don't see how you can compare the two side-by-side in any serious discussion.
I don't think mistermann was after a serious discussion, he seems to have very little idea about NATO and just parrots Trumps (inaccurate talking points). I may be wrong and perhaps he is off reading all the linked articles but I don't hold out much hope of that.
Is it possible to disagree in principle without parroting Trump's talking points?
I wonder if know it all's on the left will ever clue in that international relations are extremely nuanced rather than a hard science. Perhaps some people's relative willingness to cooperate is influenced by the level of respect and willingness to understand differing points of view.
I would argue this is a very important aspect of human relations and negotiations, and real world events I think support this theory quite well.
This is not a left or right issue. You said that in return for a climate change tariff on US goods you wanted EU nations to meet their spending agreements for NATO. Now multiple sources have been provided to you showing that the EU NATO members are doing great what they agreed to and that claiming that they are not paying their way is inaccurate at best and downright dishonest at worst. You are not responding to those facts and instead have turned it into a left Vs right issue.
Regardless of my political affiliation I am aware that international politics is nuanced, unfortunately your president is just learning that himself. And yes you can disagree in principal but you don't seem to understand the system so it is difficult to accept that you disagree in principal when your sole argument (which has been thoroughly debunked for you) is based on claims made by donald trump. Do you have any other issues with NATO that you disagree with?
You seem to be under the impression that Donald Trump was the first person to raise the issue of Europe pulling its financial weight in NATO, which is not true.
Indeed, there is no hard explicit contract stating a dollar amount that is owed by European governments to the US, there are only "targets". And according to the general sentiment on HN, I've now learned that the word "target" is a code word for literally no compensation, full stop.
There, I can acknowledge objective reality.
In turn I'll ask you this:
Do you think it is plausible that the US military presence in Europe has contributed in a material way to peace in the region? Yes or no?
Do you think the US bears an uncompensated financial burden for this military presence in Europe? Yes or no?
No. Yes, however it is a financial burden they have placed on themselves and they understand the trade off between the cost of the presence and the influence acquired.
I don't think the two deserve comparison. One is about protecting the planet for future generations. The other is about going into countries to blow people up, for the most part, unnecessarily.
>The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth €1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.
To be clear the vast amount of money spent by the US on defence (or offence) is not directly spent on NATO. There is a NATO operating budget that is approx 0.33% of the US annual spending on military. So if the US withdrew from NATO they would not stop spending all that money on defence, sure they may close some bases in Europe and around the world but all that will do is further weaken their sphere of influence. And if there was a Russian or Chinese invasion of Europe then it would be in the US's interests to assist in any fight because if Russia or China managed to takeover mainland Europe that would be it for the USA in terms of any sort of world leader status/influence which is pretty much accepted because of the support of its NATO allies as it currently stands.
What you've said is largely true, but asserting that the US military presence in Europe costs literally nothing seems unlikely.
EDIT: I obviously misspoke using literally nothing, please replace with not a lot of money at all. The point that matters is: is it a non-trivial amount of money or not, and has it plausibly benefited Europe by decreasing the number of wars? The region does have a history of it after all.
This apparent sentiment that my line of thinking is 100% wrong feels a bit offensive to me, if anyone cares about such things, and believes that perhaps feelings affect real world behavior.
The placing of US military bases in Europe has not reduced the number of wars in Europe. That is directly related to the creation of the EU which was essentially set up for that specific purpose.
I'm not saying that there is no cost to US bases in Europe. They are probably expensive to maintain, but in general they are there because the US wants them there and they benefit the US more than the host nation. Same goes all over the world, Japan, the Middle East, Korea. The bases are there to give the US some influence and clout, it is force projection.
I would repeat for clarity that US bases in Europe have done nothing to prevent wars between EU nations, the credit for that goes to the EU.
> The placing of US military bases in Europe has not reduced the number of wars in Europe.
This is speculation.
> They are probably expensive to maintain, but in general they are there because the US wants them there and they benefit the US more than the host nation.
I agree the US wants them there, but who benefits more is far from clear.
> I would repeat for clarity that US bases in Europe have done nothing to prevent wars between EU nations, the credit for that goes to the EU.
Since you've stated this twice I'm going to have to ask for some evidence. Of course there's none as it would require running alternate threads of reality.
To be honest the EU as an organisation has probably saved as many (if not more) lives than NATO has if we are saying that preventing wars is saving lives. I have nothing against NATO but it does seem like you don't understand the system and are taking your president at his (notoriously unreliable) word.
This is an emerging talking point, but tariffs are a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot maneuver; restricting free trade increases the barriers to innovation, and innovation is precisely what renewable energy sources need to become cost effective.
We aren't talking about a tariff on renewable energy production though are we. A Tariff on goods produced by companies/factories that are powered by coal or natural gas due for export to the rest of the world. Prove you use renewable energy and you dont pay the tariff, this would motivate companies who export to adopt greener energy. It would also make trade freer for companies who do this and more difficult for those who do not, therefore there is incentive to innovate to use renewable energy.
Doesn't matter - tariffs decrease purchasing power (these things have a tendency to affect unrelated markets because of the economy's interconnectedness), and lower purchasing power means slower economic activity, which includes investment in things like research.
The idea of such a tariff, imposed by countries other than the US, would not be either preserving US "economic activity", nor to foster "investment in things like research" in the US.
It may be fine for self-absorbed silicon valley types with plenty to eat but that sentiment condemns people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder to financial ruin and death.
I know it's unpopular in the US but higher taxes on rich people/companies and higher well fare benefits might also be a way to help people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
.jpg){kind=link}