Burdensharing

American demand that its European allies assume a greater percentage of the financial cost of operating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During the early 1950s, the United States government began to complain that its European allies were not paying a proportionate share of the costs of the newly formed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The federal government devised the overall-wealthto-military-expenditure criteria: Because the European nations did not spend nearly as much as the United States to develop weapons or deploy forces, they could afford to fund a greater share of NATO's operating costs. This ongoing dispute between the United States and its allies became known as the burdensharing debate.

European allies such as West Germany and Great Britain responded that the United States received other benefits from its military investment. Most notably, the European nations created a crucial buffer between the United States and the Soviet Union. If war was to erupt, the Allies contended, their nations would be the most decimated. Additionally, the Allies claimed that the United States economy benefited from military expenditures because of the increased spending on the defense industry. The European nations received no such corresponding investment. Instead, they noted, they incurred the costs of housing the United States forces and weaponry. Finally, the Allies noted that the United States remained the chief authority within NATO. If the United States wanted the Europeans to bear a greater share of the costs of NATO, then it would have to grant them a greater role in the decision-making process.

The burdensharing debate periodically continued for nearly three decades, but it became most contentious during the 1980s. Increasing budget deficits compelled the United States federal government to restrain spending. Again, the United States demanded that its European allies increase their share of NATO funding. However, developments in the Cold War made the European nations even more hesitant to augment their contributions. Relations between the Soviet Union and Europe had greatly improved, a Siberian-European pipeline had been opened, and the European nations reached other trade agreements with the Soviet Union. Also, the European allies once more accused the United States of not sharing its leadership role within NATO. They argued that NATO was not given a significant presence at the Reykjavik summit in 1986 between the Soviet Union and the United States. The emergence of the European Union also strengthened the ties among the European nations and isolated the United States within the NATO alliance.

Events at the end of the decade, however, radically changed the burdensharing debate. In December 1991, the Soviet Union crumbled, ending the threat of an invasion across Europe. Consequently, the debate now evolved to a question of burdenshedding as the United States began to reassess the size of its military presence in Europe. In 1990, the administration of President George H. W. Bush appointed an Ambassador-at-Large for Burdensharing. The ambassador's sole purpose was to devise ways that the United States could reduce its military expenditures in Europe.

The European allies, however, still desired a strong United States military presence. Even though the Soviet Union had collapsed, uncertainty remained over the stability of the governments in both Russia and the former Soviet satellite nations. Consequently, the United States did not immediately recognize the hoped for “peace dividend,” or a saving in expenditures from the Cold War.

...