Writing in the Washington Post on Monday, the French and German foreign ministers declared that President-elect Joe Biden can “make transatlantic unity possible.”
But only, that is, if Biden is willing to pay Europe’s price tag. And what a price it is. These words from Jean-Yves Le Drian and Heiko Maas are presented as a pledge for new cooperation. From an American interest perspective, however, this op-ed reads as little more than a petulant “we can only be friends if you put European concerns and interests first.”
I strongly support NATO and a strengthened U.S.-European alliance. But this letter to America indicates that the European Union’s big two powers have a very skewed view as to where the balance of transatlantic compromise falls. Let me offer a reading between-the-lines interpretation of the key points.
On China, the ministers recognize that “under a Biden administration, the compass needle of U.S. foreign policy will continue to gravitate toward China.” But then comes the veiled warning that Europe does not want to upset Xi Jinping. Le Drian and Maas observe that China is, to Europe, “a partner, competitor and systemic rival at the same time. We must work together to deal effectively with China’s growing assertiveness and also to maintain necessary avenues of cooperation with Beijing, to face global challenges such as the covid-19 pandemic and climate change.” What the ministers leave out, here, is their interest in Biden’s turning a blind eye to expanded Chinese investment in Europe in return for European political deference to Beijing. Maas and Le Drian are not terribly interested in holding China to account for its more malevolent activities. If you don’t believe this, just run a Google search for what Mass, Le Drian, and their masters have had to say about China’s seizure of the South China Sea, persecution of Uighur Muslims, trade manipulation, intellectual property theft, and utterly disingenuous carbon commitments. You won’t find much of a serious substance.
On Iran, Maas and Le Drian “want to reengage the United States on a joint approach to ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program and to deal with the other challenges Iran poses to our security and the region.” No mention, here, of Iran’s ballistic missile program. We’ll see if Biden even bothers to make Iranian compliance on that issue a part of its rejoining of the JCPOA accord. If not, that rejoining will do nothing but give the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps much-needed financial respite in return for a Saudi-Iranian nuclear arms race. Oh, and the increasing likelihood of Israeli military action.
On Russia, the ministers say that “with Biden, greater transatlantic unity will be possible with regard to autocrats. But, they quickly add, “a principled approach does not exclude dialogue and cooperation … We are ready to engage with Moscow on issues relevant to European security, and we expect a constructive response.” The words “ready to engage” reflect Europe’s rising interest in reducing sanctions imposed on Russia following its 2014 seizure of Crimea from Ukraine. It matters little that Crimea remains under Moscow’s dominion. European exports, you see, are more important than territorial inviolability. I also note that there’s no mention of Vladimir Putin’s Nord Stream II energy pipeline. Le Drian and Maas know full well that the pipeline is deeply concerning to Washington. A passing reference would have served as an olive branch of greater European seriousness about U.S. concerns. But we don’t even get a reference to energy security.
As an extension, when it comes to NATO burden sharing, we’re told that “Europe takes on much greater responsibility for security in its neighborhood — from the Sahel over the Mediterranean Sea to the Near and Middle East, including the Gulf. This is the road we will follow.”
This assertion is false. European naval forces are very rarely deployed against Russian forces in the Mediterranean Sea. Or, for that matter, in the Arctic approaches. But the claim that Europe is handling security concerns in its own backyard is most easily proved false by the ministers’ earlier observation that America and Europe “will have to address Turkey’s problematic behavior in the eastern Mediterranean and beyond.” Don’t misunderstand: The U.S. should assist in resolving these concerns. But in demanding that support, the ministers reflect the weakness of their own security architecture. They want a return to the good old days. The days when the near-universal failure of European nations to meet the NATO 2% GDP defense spending target met only the quiet whisper of U.S. officials in private. Biden cannot accept that understanding. If he does, NATO might not survive the next Trump-style president.
On trade, “we will need to solve the disputes over tariffs, sanctions, taxes and subsidies, which have put a heavy strain on our partnership with the United States in recent years.” While there are legitimate disagreements between the U.S. and Europe on subsidies, with both sides sharing blame, this quote is likely focused on U.S. technology interests. Put simply, Berlin and Paris are upset that Washington has threatened tariffs over their effort to tax U.S. technology companies. They want a one-sided tax.
As I say, the U.S.-European alliance is both important and deserving of mutual compromise. But this op-ed serves something different. Although veiled under a rhetorical style of consensus, this is a call for Biden to do simply what Europe wants. Paris and Berlin appear to have learned nothing from the last four years.
