Reports suggest President Trump will imminently announce a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement. On Tuesday, Germany’s ambassador to the United States, Peter Wittig, sat down and spoke with me. He made it clear that Germany sees the Paris climate deal as part of the “international order,” similar to NATO. U.S. withdrawal from Paris would impel Germany to turn instead towards China.
Here’s what the ambassador had to say about the Paris agreement and broader notions of international order. The key elements are highlighted in bold.
Washington Examiner: What is your takeaway from the recent G-7 summit in Italy, and NATO summit in Brussels?
Ambassador Peter Wittig: Well, it was the first G-7 summit where this newly elected president participated, so it attracted a lot of attention. You know that the chancellor had come to Washington to pay a visit here in March. One of the ideas of that visit was to prepare for the G-7 and more importantly for us, because we are presiding over it, the G-20 summit in July. It [the G-7 summit] got a lot of attention because there was criticism about the appearance of the president. And if you refer to the latest headlines that [the summit] made, I’m very sober about it, because the chancellor has been saying all along that Europe has to take its fate into its own hands. She did that in the light of recent challenges to the European Union. So that is not something particularly new. The chancellor is a known lifelong Atlanticist. She values the relationship between the United States and Germany and she’s adamant about forging a very constructive relationship with this president. But at the same time we think it is important, even imperative is talk about the differences we have. And one of the differences that came up at the G-7 meeting is, of course, our approach to climate change. We’re not seeing eye to eye on this issue. But that doesn’t mean that the bilateral relationship or the U.S.-European transatlantic relationship is tarnished. It’s a sign we have to talk about our differences.
- Analysis: The ambassador’s comments are diplomatic-speak for Germany’s great disappointment, specifically its disappointment that President Trump seems to have abandoned the Paris climate agreement. But note that these comments are also qualified: Germany knows it must maintain a relationship with Trump even if he withdraws.
Washington Examiner: Chancellor Merkel is prioritizing climate change, and President Trump is prioritizing defense spending by NATO member states. But some Americans might ask, if we’re being asked to commit to timelines in climate change agreements, why shouldn’t Germany commit to a shortened timeline to get to 2 percent [of gross domestic product, the NATO target for member state defense expenditures]?
Wittig: There is a timeline. It’s a timeline that was laid down after the NATO summits in Cardiff in 2015 and Warsaw in 2016. And mind you, both of those summits came after the annexation of the Crimea by Russia. That was clearly a sea change in our relationship — also in the relationship of NATO — towards Russia. Those summits highlighted the need to raise defense spending among all member states. But the language at those summits was very careful. It said that within ten years from 2014 countries commit themselves to move towards the 2 percent of GDP target. This is an incremental approach. And we are committed to it. We raised defense spending by 9 percent last year. But what we have to clarify here is that there’s nothing we owe to NATO. It’s not like a membership in a club with the membership dues haven’t been paid. The common costs of NATO have always been paid by Germany.
- Analysis: This is a problem for Germany. Like many other European nations, the German government doesn’t want to increase defense spending. At the same time, however, Germany expects the U.S. to sign up to a timeline-fixed agreement on carbon emissions. That seems hypocritical and incongruent with fair diplomatic dealing. Note also in the following two questions. In both cases, the ambassador’s answer is uncomfortable.
Washington Examiner: Why not say, regarding that ten year timeline, instead of moving toward 2 percent, we will reach 2 percent within ten years?
Wittig: Our Parliament controls spending and controls the armed forces. It’s a totally different system to that of the United States.
Washington Examiner: But Chancellor Merkel could push for that change.
Wittig: Of course, and she has done so. And she has presided over a rise in our defense expenditure in one year alone by 9 percent.
- Analysis: Again, what we see here is Germany’s desire to slightly increase defense spending and then pass off that increase as evidence of a sustained effort to reach the 2 percent GDP target. The problem? Even after recent increases, Germany spends just 1.2 percent of GDP on defense.
Washington Examiner: How do you see Germany’s relationship toward China? The U.S., for example, is concerned about China’s construction of artificial islands in the South and East China Seas. But other U.S. allies such as the U.K. are very much focused on the economic opportunities China offers. Where does Germany strike the balance between trade and economics, and upholding the liberal international order?
Wittig: We hope that China can become a responsible stakeholder in the liberal international order. Germany is the No. 1 trade partner of China in Europe. We have had excellent relations with China at the leadership level. The chancellor visits each year. We have a lot of important interests at stake in a cooperative relationship with China. There are also divergences that we articulate to the Chinese. When it comes to the international order, there should be no vacuum. If we lose American leadership, others will step in. The recent “belt and road” conference in Beijing was a reminder that China is ready to step into a possible vacuum that the U.S. might be leaving.
- Analysis: This is a big deal. The ambassador is offering a very, very unsubtle implication that were the U.S. to withdraw from the “international order” — of which the Germans regard the Paris agreement to be a key component — China would find a positive reception from American allies. But what’s most striking to me here is the apparent shortsightedness. In essence, Germany is saying that ”if you don’t agree with us on Paris, we will start preferencing China”. This also affirms that the EU’s commitment to liberal international order is pretty paper thin. China’s imperial island campaign is largely ignored by European powers. Instead, they have their eyes on China’s investment dangles.
Conclusion: The horizon of U.S.-EU relations is a tough one. China and Russia will be loving this.
