Donald Trump Proposes Violating Treaty Agreements

From CNN:

“NATO was busted until I came along,” Trump said at a rally in Conway, South Carolina. “I said, ‘Everybody’s gonna pay.’ They said, ‘Well, if we don’t pay, are you still going to protect us?’ I said, ‘Absolutely not.’ They couldn’t believe the answer.”

Trump said “one of the presidents of a big country” at one point asked him whether the US would still defend the country if they were invaded by Russia even if they “don’t pay.”

“No, I would not protect you,” Trump recalled telling that president. “In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills.”

Given that Mr. Trump does not, apparently, pay his own bills, I find this remark quite rich. Article 5 of the Treaty states:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

Article 6 states:

“For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.”

From the US Senate:

The United States Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2). Treaties are binding agreements between nations and become part of international law. Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ”the supreme Law of the Land.” [Emphasis added – MDC]

 

26 thoughts on “Donald Trump Proposes Violating Treaty Agreements

  1. James

    What a I find rich is a GOP Senator (who knows the passage you cited above) still defending Putin’s puppet Trump by saying Trump doesn’t know how our NATO alliance works – Marco – Trump was president for four years – you consulted with him on this issue – you are on the Committee on Foreign Relations and Select Committee on Intelligence – you know the nature of the classified documents Trump stole – The GOP Senators defending trump are aiding a traitor to the U.S. https://news.yahoo.com/marco-rubio-defends-trumps-remarks-183600843.html
    Meanwhile WI only moderate MAGA/GOP rep – got so much blowback from MAGA extremists for voting against the unprecedented impeachment of agency head who has committed no crimes and is just doing his job – that he has decided to retire https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/10/mike-gallagher-republican-congressman-retiring (or maybe he foresees a more competitive redrawing his district or he will vote for Ukraine aid that will go to Oshkosh Trucks and is thinking ahead to his lobbying job?)

    Reply
    1. Ivan

      Yes, it is a funny thing to see GOPsters defend Trumps dangerously stupid remarks by indicating that he is a dimwit who has no clue. Guys he is your candidate for President of the United States!

      Reply
    1. Moses Herzog

      @ Kopits
      I knew after many years commenting on this blog, you might eventually, in random fashion, manage to FINALLY say something intelligent. CONGRATULATIONS!!!! Go have a six-pack of Samuel Adams beer to commemorate this atypical and unexpected event with my blessings.

      Reply
  2. pgl

    When asked about NATO both Nikki Lightweight Haley and Little Lindsey Graham say NATO is vital. But when asked about Trump bow down their allegiance of their demi-god. Go figure.

    Reply
  3. Moses Herzog

    Republicans have proven time and time and time again they don’t care about treaties, or the Constitution, they care about getting elected, by dishonest means or otherwise, or as creepy uncles like me say, “by hook or crook”.

    Treaties are promises, so you knew from the get go that would be something Republicans are rotten at.

    When I went to a used books sale recently in a small town, I was amazed to pick up this book, in very good condition, for $1.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9723361-the-federalist

    Maybe Republicans need to go back and read through it, as they seemingly only know how to say “That’s unconstitutional!!!! buhduhbuhbuhbuhduhbuhduh…… ” and have absolutely no idea what it means. It doesn’t mean “Anything I don’t personally like” = “It’s unconstitutional”. You need to know the principles and ethics spelled out therein, as it appears Menzie does better than most.

    Reply
    1. Macroduck

      You know about these guys, yes?:

      https://cspoa.org/

      If everyone is the ultimate source of authority, then no one is. If agreements, treaties, contracts and standards are subject to whim, then we can’t rely on each other, commit resources to future activity or plan with any certainty. Robber barons without borders.

      That’s the direction the right has been marching in for some time. Our current Supreme Court is happy to oblige, overturning settled law for the sake of ideology.

      A person can be ever so smart, but not see past the end of their nose when it comes to consequences. It’s an ideology based in selfishness and hypocrisy, small-minded in the extreme. It’s Trump’s brand, and the GOP has sunk to his level.

      When I see otherwise reasonable people mention “Trump derangement syndrome” (as if that’s original), I know their spine is short a few vertebrae. He’s a threat to democracy, to justice and to honor. The CSPOA is one more indication that his poison is spreading.

      Reply
  4. Bruce Hall

    Certainly Trump can’t singularly void a treaty; however, it should be noted that:
    During the 2014 summit, all NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2025. In 2017, only four nations met the threshold: The United States (3.6%), Greece (2.4%), the United Kingdom (2.1%), and Poland (2.0%). However, by 2021, ten countries were meeting the percentage target.
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/nato-spending-by-country

    NATO official report:
    https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf

    The question is: what actions/penalties will be imposed for failing to meet the 2014 agreement? It is unlikely that the majority of countries will meet the agreed 2% of GDP by 2025. So, is the 2% just a nice to have goal, but not really?

    Reply
    1. pgl

      I see that Trump toadie is skipping this statement:

      Given that Mr. Trump does not, apparently, pay his own bills, I find this remark quite rich.

      BTW – the US right now is not pulling its share in terms of defending Ukraine. The Europeans are. I guess little Brucie would not mind if Putin attacked Texas and NATO did nothing.

      Reply
    2. pgl

      Hey Brucie – read the DATE of this NATO document. July 2023. It is not 2025 yet. I say this as you really do need to learn how to use a calendar.

      Reply
      1. Ivan

        The goal of 2% is likely to be reached by all but a handful of countries.

        Because the expectations of war between Russia and NATO is that it will go nuclear in less than a week, everybody know that the 2% is simply a way to feed arms manufacturers, not to defend NATO countries. It is presumed that Russia will not attack any country covered by NATO articles 5 and 6 because it would have little to gain and huge potential loses.

        In return for US covering NATO with its nuclear umbrella there are only 2 European nuclear weapons countries. That lack of nuclear proliferation, at a minimal cost, has served US well.

        The war in Ukraine has pointed to potential problems with the NATO nuclear deterrence. It doesn’t cover NATO adjacent countries that are not members. Furthermore, the lack of capacity to produce conventional weapons has been a unique problem for the Ukraine situation. NATO need to produce a large amount of conventional weapons and ammo, not for tis own use, but for donation to Ukraine.

        As long as NATO hold together (with or without US) its main needs are not conventional weapons but nuclear weapons that are a credible deterrence. The buildup and deployment of more non-US nuclear weapons will be a high priority in the large NATO countries and push military spending up above 2% at least for the next decade. As long as NATO remains a regional defense pack (not a global military) it will have no need for spending even 2% of GDP on its military.

        Reply
        1. baffling

          “In return for US covering NATO with its nuclear umbrella there are only 2 European nuclear weapons countries. That lack of nuclear proliferation, at a minimal cost, has served US well.”
          well stated. in a world where nuclear proliferation is going to become exceedingly dangerous and unstable, anything that can reduce its spread is a bonus. we are not likely to have a nuclear war with russia or china. self assured mutual destruction. however, nuclear war involving aspiring countries such as israel, iran, iraq, and north korea etc are much more likely.

          Reply
    3. pgl

      “During the 2014 summit, all NATO members agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2025. In 2017, only four nations met the threshold: The United States (3.6%), Greece (2.4%), the United Kingdom (2.1%), and Poland (2.0%). However, by 2021, ten countries were meeting the percentage target.”

      2017? Seriously?

      Hey Brucie – try reading Graph 3 of your little NATO document. It seems that a lot more than 4 nations were expected as early as 2023 to hit that 2% target. I’m sorry but this lack of reading skills by little Brucie is worse than the SF 49ers understanding of the overtime rule.

      Reply
  5. Anonymous

    Having spent time around USAF scuttlebutts from 1972 thru 2002, my perspective is:

    Will USA, Germany and France (UK light weight) have sufficient force to send an order of battle which would not default to nukes in three days or less?

    I doubt any one in the EU only spending 2% would be much help!

    If the reinforcements are not enough do you all this NATO treaty is automatic commitment to nuclear war?

    I am sure Trump is not thinking this way but to sign on to nuclear war for Lithuania is not my preference.

    Reply
    1. Macroduck

      We have a doctrine – mutually assure destruction. It ain’t pretty. It’s “thinking the unthinkable”. It’s also clear that Putin has it firmly in mind when he decides who to invade. Whether our doctrine is your preference is not all that important in the greater scheme of things. What else you got?

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        The couple of years where my wife and three small children lived a mile and a half from the alert facility…….

        good times!

        People in Georgtown were about as safe.

        Reply
        1. Macroduck

          1) You made a choice to work for the Air Force. You put your family near the nukes.

          2) Georgetown has so far proven safe from nuclear attack. Mutually assured destruction has worked to prevent the use of nuclear weapons so far.

          3) Got a real pount to make?

          Reply
    2. Ivan

      There are no such thing as a battle between NATO and Russia that doesn’t go nuclear in a few days, because the default to nuclear is not based on failure to defend against a conventional weapons attack. It is automatic – because of the huge advantage of being first to attack with nuclear weapons. It doesn’t matter whether NATO has enough conventional weapons to hold back Russia for 100 hours or for 100 years, the Nukes will come in less than 3 days. As soon as one side see the other preparing nukes, they will have to prepare their own and then it becomes a race to who can fire all they have first (to at least blunt the nukes coming from the other side). But that preparation has to begin at first armed hostilities because otherwise you would not be able to fire first. The European NATO countries understood that and never wanted to waste money building up a bunch of conventional weapons that would be of no use in a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.

      Reply
  6. Macroduck

    Speaking of the dishonesty of the Criminal Candidate, he and his political gang want you to think crime is rampant. It ain’t so:

    https://www.npr.org/2024/02/12/1229891045/police-crime-baltimore-san-francisco-minneapolis-murder-statistics

    Menzie’s observation that Trump has no ground to stand on when demanding that our allies pay up applies equally well to his rants about crime. Found by a court of law to have committed rape, indicted on 91 (and counting?) criminal charges, determined by authorities in two (more?) states to have committed sedition, this goon then lies about crime to keep his voters fearful.

    Reply
  7. baffling

    so in the past 48 hours, trump has welcomed putin to invade fellow nato members with no concern. his interest is to dissolve nato. then he went off the rails and claimed that haley’s husband, serving his country overseas in a military operation, was a coward who left her side in distress. lovely talk from the man convicted of sexual assault and slander.
    and yet folks like rick stryker, econned and bruce hall continue to kiss the ring of the most vile individual to ever run for office of president. just curious guys, how low can trump go before he crosses your red line? is there even a red line? there is not a single competent servant of trump from his first term who believes this monster is fit for office. not a single one. and yet fools like stryker, econned and hall continue to fondle his b@!!$ for what? what kind of happy ending are you tools after? he has already promised to be a dictator on day 1, and be the instrument of vengeance against his opponents. really democratic talk. and you tools continue to support him? stunning collapse of moral values on your parts.

    Reply
  8. Ivan

    Donald Trump is a pathetic little narcissist who’s only goal in life is to draw attention to himself. His NATO remarks were designed for, and succeeded in, that.

    Those remarks also did damage to the world, US, our military, and his own chances of becoming President again. The first three he don’t give a shit about and he is probably to stupid to understand that even though this may get him cheers from the MAGA cult members, it will likely hurt him with the non-MAGA voters he need to win.

    Reply
    1. baffling

      i just find it amazing that the republican party, the party of reagan, has gone so far down the maga hole that they actually embrace russian victory as a party platform. absolutely amazing. people like rick stryker, reconned and bruce hall stand for russian military victory over western democracies. no way anybody could have predicted such a takeover a decade ago. and yet here we are. from “tear down that wall” to “i hope russia invades and kicks the ass of some nato members”. truly baffling.

      Reply
  9. pgl

    Inflation remains low:

    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

    CONSUMER PRICE INDEX – JANUARY 2024
    The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.3 percent in January on a seasonally adjusted basis, after rising 0.2 percent in December, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.1 percent before seasonal adjustment.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *