4 minute read
Short interview with Michael Singh, Washington D.C. Trump’s uppercut to transatlantic relations The Alliance has always survived
The North Atlantic Alliance has survived previous sharp disagreements Trump’s uppercut to transatlantic relations
Interview with Michael Singh, Lane-Swig Senior Fellow/managing director, The Washington Institute, Washington, D.C.
The European: Mr Singh, your colleague Michael Eisenstadt’s plea in our last edition for US-EU cooperation on the Iran deal (JCPOA) will not be achievable. Trump’s decision to pull out of the treaty disregards the signatories of the JCPOA, making his solidarity addresses implausible. What could be the consequences for the North Atlantic Alliance? Michael Singh: The North Atlantic Alliance has survived other sharp disagreements, and it will survive this one as well. European states have been angered by Washington’s abandonment of the JCPOA and of the US-initiated diplomacy to strengthen that agreement. The Trump administration was dissatisfied with it, and believes that the concerns of the agreement’s critics in Washington were ignored by those who negotiated it. But both sides will find that they need one another now more than ever – American sanctions alone will not succeed without the cooperation of our allies, and European states still hope for American leadership in the Middle East to combat a range of threats, from ISIS-style terrorists to revisionist states like Iran and Russia. Of course, the US-Europe relationship goes well beyond the Middle East, and there is no issue or threat important enough to either side to simply discard it.
The European: Trump apparently wants to police industries by submitting them to US legislation. Europeans, who had become accustomed to faithful and reliable US-EU relations, are shocked. How can this be repaired? Michael Singh: In reality, the power of so-called “secondary sanctions” is a reflection of the extent to which the American and European economies are intertwined, and the extent to which our large multinational companies operate across national boundaries. It is in the interest of both sides to be very careful in erecting obstacles to open trade and investment across the Atlantic, and when doing so to be fair and transparent. But it is also important to bear in mind that the disagreement between the US and Europe is not fundamentally one of economics. Europe does relatively little business with Iran, and most multinational firms would have stayed away in any event due to the many risks of doing business in Iran today. Instead, the dispute is over security – European states thought the JCPOA advanced their national security, and the Trump Administration disagreed. Having withdrawn from the deal and reimposed sanctions, the US will now be expected to present to its allies a strategy that will better address the security threat that both sides agree is a serious one. If it can make a compelling case, then working out a modus operandi on sanctions will be easier.
Michael Singh
Photo: The Washington Institute
is the Lane-SwigSenior Fellowand managing director at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a former senior director for Middle East affairs at the White House from 2005 to 2008.
The European: The European signatories of the JCPOA are trying, with Iran’s leaders, to keep the treaty alive. What would be the relevance of such a treaty without the US? Could such a compromise lead to the end of the security guarantee of the US towards its allies? Michael Singh: The key question is whether Iran will choose to resume the nuclear activities it temporarily halted pursuant to the JCPOA. If it does, then European states have indicated they will join the US in reimposing sanctions; if not, then the basic framework of the JCPOA will likely remain in place for the time being, albeit without the participation of the United States. But neither scenario will spell the end of US-Europe security and economic cooperation, which by far eclipse the Iran issue in importance.
The European: Do you think that it is possible – though no one hopes for this – that the “America first” policy, which includes the nuclear issue, will soon turn against the US by downgrading its economy and lead to political isolation? Michael Singh: Transatlantic relations are going through a difficult period, to be sure, and our disputes seem to be multiplying rather than diminishing at the moment. And in reality, the alliance has suffered for years from complacency and a lack of common purpose. Yet both Americans and Europeans will be far better off if we take the long view and prioritize the preservation of our alliance, which is fundamental to our shared security. The threats we face are increasingly global – terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, aggressive revisionist states, etc – and whatever the disagreements among us, we will have far more success if we face them together rather than individually. For the US, our alliances are not a detriment to American security, but essential to it.
The European: Thank you very much, Mr Singh, for this insight.
Climate Change
“Here in Europe, experience tells us that peace and security are not only about peace treaties and defence budgets. Peace has to be sustainable in time. And sustainable peace requires good jobs, decent access to natural resources, and sustainable development. Sustainable peace needs climate action […] So let us keep this in mind: when we invest in the fight against climate change, we invest in our own security.”
