Reference News, July 6 report: The U.S. "Washington Post" website published an article titled "The High Cost of Trump's 'Peace Through Strength'" on July 1. The author is Eduardo Port. The article is excerpted as follows:
What the United States did to Iran last month required a huge amount of resources. The United States developed and built bunker-busting bombs, as well as stealth bombers capable of carrying these bombs across half the globe. The United States could also identify targets and coordinate nuclear submarines lurking in the Arabian Sea to launch missile attacks for air strikes.
It should not be surprising that the United States is the only country capable of doing such things. The U.S. government's military spending is close to one-tenth of the total budget. President Donald Trump and his military advisors believe that all this gives them reason to demand that NATO member states increase their defense spending. According to this logic, if NATO wants to prevent Russia, it needs to become stronger.
Most NATO member states seem to think that the price tag demanded by Trump is worth it, even just to prevent Washington from leaving NATO - which would leave Europe temporarily defenseless and eventually force it to increase defense spending to ensure a certain level of deterrence. As NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said, "Given the threat from the Russians, and the international security situation, there is no other choice."
But this is not necessarily a reason for every NATO member state to allocate at least 5% of its GDP to military spending. The idea that large-scale military spending is indispensable for maintaining global security deserves further scrutiny, regardless of the opportunity cost.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was criticized for refusing to accept Trump's demands, but he was right in defending Spain's social welfare system, as it would bear most of the costs of a significant increase in military spending. There are ample reasons to believe that maintaining social welfare helps maintain world stability.
Taking the United States as an example, the resentment of millions of voters excluded from the American success story pushed a president determined to overturn the global order into power, with their struggles ignored by a government focused on cutting taxes for the wealthy.
Trump undermined America's alliance network, intimidated allies, and even threatened to take over their territories. His reckless tariff threats toward allies and adversaries may also destroy the economic interdependence that has supported world peace for decades.
His reduction of foreign aid sacrificed an important means for the United States to consolidate world order. Just look at the list of major recipient countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia - and you will see how important aid is to national security. As a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies pointed out, "No amount of tactical victories or military efforts can replace political and economic stability in these countries." But aid can achieve that.
The argument for achieving peace through raw force is weaker than Trump would like. At least since 2001, the overwhelming military power of the United States has not established global peace. Instead, it has further exacerbated instability. The United States reduced Afghanistan to rubble. It filled Baghdad with shock and fear and ultimately destroyed Baghdad. It overthrew the Libyan regime. Saddam Hussein was found hiding in a cave and executed. Muammar Gaddafi was caught in a drainage pipe. But these displays of American power mostly created conditions for further chaos.
Militarists believe that the only way to deter any equally matched rival is to use powerful hardware to intimidate them, making them understand that any potential benefits of opposing the United States and its allies would be dwarfed by the costs they would pay.
But this simplistic view of deterrence encourages an arms race. It locks in a balance of hostility - dividing the world into allies and adversaries - and prevents us from seeing other strategies involving soft power. Obviously, it has failed to prevent repeated challenges from adversaries.
The military spending of European Union countries is almost three times that of Russia. The United States' military spending is three times that of Europe. This massive overspending has not stopped Russia's advance, including actions in other parts of Ukraine.
The United States remains too focused on waging wars. It pays little attention to the more complex task of achieving lasting peace. The United States' bunker-busting bombs may have effectively destroyed Iran's centrifuges, or they may not have. Iran may have successfully protected its enriched uranium, or it may not have. But one thing is certain: the impressive military invasion by the United States has not brought peace to the Middle East. (Translated by Lu Di)
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7523888663478927924/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Up/Down] buttons below.