Nato leaders are meeting this week at the Grove Hotel in Chandler’s Cross on the outskirts of Watford.
Here, the PA news agency has a look at the military bloc, what Donald Trump and others think of it, how much money members of Nato contribute, and where the UK’s main political parties stand.
READ MORE: The Big Read: Perilous times in battle to save NATO
– What is Nato?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was formed in 1949 to prevent a resurgence of nationalism and militarism in Europe after two world wars and to deter the Soviet Union’s expansion.
Its ranks have swelled to 29 member nations who agree to mutual defence in response to an enemy attack.
“An attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies,” as the principle goes.
They pledged in recent years to bring defence spending to at least 2% of each country’s GDP by 2024.
– How much does the UK spend?
The UK has met Nato’s 2% target every year since its introduction in 2006.
For the last seven years, the UK has been the second highest spender in Nato, spending 60.4 billion dollars on defence in 2018.
The US, meanwhile, has spent more than twice as much on defence than the rest of Nato combined in each of the last seven years.
Aside from the UK and the US, the other countries meeting the 2% target are Greece, Poland, Latvia and Estonia.
Between 2012 and 2018 total Nato defence spending has fallen by 72.2 billion dollars.
While Nato Europe have increased spending by more than 25 billion dollars in this period, Nato North America have reduced their expenditure by nearly 100 billion dollars.
– How does Donald Trump feel about Nato?
The US president has expressed concern about the cost of Nato, and has been unhappy at how much the other 28 members contribute.
In his State of the Union address earlier this year, he said that the US had been “treated very unfairly by friends of ours, members of Nato” over a period of years.
During his presidential campaign he called the alliance “obsolete” and criticised other members whose security he thought was being subsidised by the States.
However, he has since U-turned on that stance, to the relief of many, saying: “I said it was obsolete. It’s no longer obsolete.”
– What about French President Emmanuel Macron?
Mr Macron has said Nato leaders must have a discussion about the future of the military alliance and how ties with Russia can be improved.
He recently described the organisation as “brain dead”, a comment that was criticised by others within the alliance.
He expressed regret at the two previous Nato summits focusing “only on how to alleviate the financial cost for the United States”, and said the bloc really needs to focus on what it is about.
– Where does Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party stand on Nato?
At the weekend, Mr Johnson said if he wins the General Election there will be a major Integrated Defence, Security and Foreign Policy Review, and whilst making the announcement he said Nato has been the foundation of European security since 1949, adding: “We need to modernise it rather than abandon it.”
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said Nato remains the “cornerstone of our European security”, and writing in the Sunday Telegraph, he said: “Nato needs to adapt to tackle new threats like cyber-attacks, as well as maintain its focus on defeating Daesh.
“But, that means all of its members paying their way, reinforcing Nato’s operational capabilities, and forging an even stronger transatlantic unity of purpose.”
– And what about the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats?
Like the Tories, Labour has committed to renewing Trident – at a cost of no less than £31 billion – and to honouring the Nato pledge of allocating 2% of GDP to defence spending.
The Lib Dems say they will build on the UK’s “proud record” of international leadership through the EU, UN, Nato and the Commonwealth by promoting values of freedom and opportunity for all.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here