NATO NUMBER-CRUNCHING

Today, the yearly summit of NATO opens in Brussels. The meeting comes at a critical moment for the security alliance, as Alex noted yesterday, but important discussions about its future are likely to be overshadowed by President Trump’s repeated calls for members to make good on their collective commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense.


Given all the attention, we can’t help asking: where did that number come from, and does it really matter? Here’s Gabe with some perspective:

The oft-touted 2 percent of GDP target was officially adopted as a collective NATO goal at a 2014 summit in Wales. The idea was to start a long-term process that would see European members carry more weight on defense at a time when the US was looking to expand its military commitments elsewhere in the world (read: Asia). The target is a goal, not a requirement, that the 29-member alliance has agreed to fulfil by 2024. Five countries currently satisfy it, and 16 are now on target to do so by 2024.

As an indicator of countries’ contributions, the two percent target has its limits. It’s a barometer of domestic spending, rather than direct contributions of troops or other support to specific NATO operations. And it offers little perspective on whether funds are funneled towards collective objectives – such as upgrading equipment or investing in new technologies – or largely spent on domestic concerns, like paying soldiers’ pensions. NATO members have also agreed to a lesser known, but arguably more important, goal to spend 20 percent of their defense budgets on major equipment upgrades and R&D of lasting value to the alliance.

The upshot: While the 2 percent target offers a broad gauge of countries’ defense investment, it obscures important information about their long-term commitment to NATO. That won’t stop President Trump, who prides himself on getting Americans their money’s worth, from using it as ammunition. But as you follow the almost inevitable combustion set to take place as he squares off against other alliance members over the next two days, remember that 2 percent is just a number.

Earlier this year, two powerful cyclones struck the northern coast of Mozambique and were followed by months of torrential rain. Mozambique faced an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. "The coast road from Pemba airport to the city center and its harbor was totally destroyed," said Franco Picciani, operations manager at Eni Rovuma Basin. The damage brought the city's economy to a standstill.

Eni answered the call, providing its equipment and expertise. "We rebuilt the coast road in less than two months," Picciani said. "We work in the area. We have a logistics base here. It's home to us. When the area needed help, we didn't stop to think about it for a minute. It goes without saying that we should look after the community we work in."

Learn more at Eniday: Energy Is A Good Story

Are we going to learn anything new from public impeachment hearings?

No, but like with Mueller, you know, people weren't reading the transcript, but they did actually listen to Mueller when he gave his speech. Now, the question is: Are they going to take anything different away from the public impeachment hearings? And the answer is, yes. They'll take very different things away, if they're watching on Fox or if they're watching on MSNBC. Still deeply divided and still can't imagine senators on the GOP impeaching, slash, convicting President Trump.

More Show less

Six months after pro-democracy Hong Kong protesters began marching against an extradition law that would have allowed suspects to be tried in mainland courts, things in the semi-autonomous territory feel on the brink. The question is, the brink of what?

Rather than a sudden break that resolves the crisis one way or another – either a government capitulation or crackdown by Beijing – Hong Kong may instead be facing a prolonged, violent, and costly stalemate. Here's why:

More Show less

Why do journalists keep sources anonymous?

So, anonymity can be granted for a number of reasons. The main one is a risk of retaliation against the person, against their job, against their personal safety. For instance, if you report in a war zone or on a crime victim. It can also be to protect vulnerable people such as children, or if it's just the only way to get the information out.

More Show less