US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland suggested on Tuesday 13 November that the United States could take action against the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Stressing that energy security was one of the “cornerstones” of transatlantic cooperation, the ambassador called on the EU not to underestimate the Russian threat.
“We have not deployed the full set of tools yet that could significantly undermine if not outright stop the project”, he explained at a conference at the European Policy Centre in Brussels.
While the ambassador hoped that “the opposition to the project would work organically" - "because the EU and its member countries agree that dependence on Russian energy is not a good long-term geopolitical decision" - he warned that if not, the United States would take action. “If that philosophy is not adopted and Nord Stream continues, then the President has many, many other tools at his disposal [...] to try and curb and stop the project”, he insisted.
Mr. Sondland recalled that the US opposition to Nord Stream 2 was based on geopolitical concerns and not with the aim of selling US LNG. However, the joint statement by Presidents Trump and Juncker on 25 July highlights the EU's desire to "import more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States to diversify their energy supply".
Making trade relations fairer
Returning to the importance of transatlantic trade, Mr Sondland made it clear that President Trump's objective was to recalibrate these trade relations “to make it more free and fair”, by tackling all the protectionist measures erected by Europeans. Thus, according to him, many of the regulatory standards were not taken to protect the European consumer, but to keep American products out of the internal market.
“We need action now to make it happen, not only with non-elected officials”, he added to the Commission. The more EU leaders play the “delay game”, the more pressure Washington will have to put on, the US ambassador said. " This president checks his watch not his calendar”, he added.
The American ambassador also recalled that agriculture “was always part of the discussion” (see EUROPE 12122), prolonging the ping-pong game with Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, who said just a few days earlier that this was not the case (see EUROPE 12134).
And to specify “let’s be candid: if the situation were reversed and we had a large trade surplus, the EU would focus on rebalancing”.
Keeping defence markets open
As for European defence procurement, Mr Sondland called, here again, for no trade barriers to be erected. Sales must “not be artificially determined by trade barriers”, he argued. "Regarding military expenditure: the market should be wide open. Best products and services should win [the contract]. This could mean US companies should sell to the European defence establishment”, he said.
If the Americans support the strengthening of European defence, this must not be at the expense of NATO or the United States, which are afraid of being excluded.
The ambassador said that the United States, which pays for Europe's security, particularly through NATO, should have a say in European spending. “What American taxpayers are asking for in return [for this funding] is that the EU be reasonable in its own military spending and allow the United States to sit around the table” regarding decision-making, “so that NATO is not undermined”, he justified.
Thus, returning to military mobility, Mr Sondland warned that while the EU was currently deliberating on investments - a subject that should be on the agenda of next Tuesday's Defence Council - the United States would work closely with Europeans “to ensure that efforts [are] consistent with NATO's security priorities”. (Original version in French by Hermine Donceel and Camille-Cerise Gessant)