It was in the summer of 2018, when Donald Trump launched the first of his attacks on long-standing allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), that many people began to worry about the durability of the alliance. Amid the frequent diplomatic rampages by the US president, often throwing long-prepared NATO plans into chaos, this week’s summit in London was supposed to bring the allies closer together. It even included a reception hosted by the Queen that seemed designed to provide the alliance with a certain prestige and feeling of familial unity. Instead, the gathering ended in controversy, with the leaders of France, the UK and Canada caught in an unguarded moment speaking unfavorably of the US president, who is the only man able to underwrite the future of the alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron set the tone for the summit during an unprecedented interview with The Economist last month. He suggested that the alliance was brain dead, and questioned whether NATO’s Article 5 — the cornerstone upon which the organization was founded, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all — was inviolable. His comments drew significant criticism. Given the reticence of the US to guarantee European security, and Turkey’s unilateral decision to invade northern Syria, Macron questioned the alliance’s purpose in facing the challenges of the 21st century. Europe is increasingly concerned about the precarious nature of its unity, confronted as it is by the rise of China, the authoritarian nature of the regime in Russia, and being weakened from within by Brexit and political instability. It was in this context that the French president threw down the gauntlet. It was a challenge his US counterpart all-too readily accepted, and Trump subsequently stormed out of the summit following a heated exchange on Syria. Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO’s first secretary-general, famously argued that the organization was designed to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down.” For more than half a century this was its strategic goal. Trump shocked European allies, however, when early in his presidency he demanded they raise their financial contributions to the alliance by January 2019 or the US would go it alone. The Europeans were stunned by this previously unthinkable development: A sitting US president threatening to pull out of a military alliance his nation had fought to expand and protect for decades. Such sentiments seem to have come to a head in London this week, with some NATO leaders caught out criticizing the leader of a lynchpin ally that helped end two devastating world wars and thoroughly dispatched Soviet imperialism from the continent. They showed diplomatic immaturity in criticizing the US president in a way that was unbecoming of the leaders of some of the world’s greatest democracies. The US is critical to the health and future of the alliance, and the summit was an opportunity to strengthen ties rather than jeopardize them. Nevertheless, Trump’s tenure has posed a challenge. The leader of NATO’s single most important member has continually criticized the alliance, and undermined it by praising Russia’s kleptocratic leader and abruptly pulling US forces out of Syria with no coordination with allies, despite the potentially serious implications for European security. To remain relevant, NATO must evolve. In must now adapt to face a newly aggressive Russia, an unreliable ally in the form of the US, and the constant challenges stemming from China’s increased projection of power. Zaid M. Belbagi The leaders of NATO states would do well, however, to note that they face bigger problems than Trump: The alliance’s first out-of-area mission, in Afghanistan, ended in stalemate; Turkey invaded Syrian territory that was being defended by three NATO allies; and Russia has continued to undermine hard-won democracy in Eastern Europe. To remain relevant, NATO must evolve. In the same way it embraced new members and counterterrorism at the turn of the century, it must now adapt to face a newly aggressive Russia, an unreliable ally in the form of the US, and the constant challenges stemming from China’s increased projection of power. The alliance would do well to avoid discussions that compare the organization to a racket, in which members pay “Danegeld,” or a tax, to the US to maintain peace. Rather, NATO members must look to the organization’s roots as a mechanism to deter the Soviet Union and protect the fledgling democracies of Europe so as to strengthen their purpose. NATO was never just a military alliance — it represents values of democracy and freedom embodied by a continent. Gerry Osborne, a former adviser to the organization’s Center of Excellence, encapsulated future priorities perfectly when he said: “This week’s summit was a watershed moment for an alliance that must face challenges of modern conflict and asymmetric warfare. How the strongest alliance of its kind adapts in this environment will be important to watch.” Zaid M. Belbagi is a political commentator, and an adviser to private clients between London and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Twitter: @Moulay_Zaid Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view