Click here to view video of Murphy’s opening remarks.
Click here to view video of Murphy’s questions on Russia and Iran

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, pressed Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs A. Wess Mitchell on President Trump’s antagonism towards America’s closest allies in Europe. Specifically, Murphy questioned Ambassador Mitchell about President Trump’s assertion that Russia should re-enter the G7 and his attack of Chancellor Merkell over Twitter.

“The relationship between the United States and Europe is in crisis. It has never been this bad in the post-war era. It is getting worse, by the month,” said Murphy. “I don’t even have time to run through the gauntlet of abuses this president, in a short year and a half, has heaped on Europe, but here’s just a few. He has unilaterally backed out of the two most important diplomatic achievements between our two continents in the last decade, the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear Agreement. He has started a trade war, that the Chairman referenced, with Europe, perceiving our European allies to be global economic adversaries instead of partners. He regularly, personally, attacks European leaders on Twitter, reserving the most vicious treatment for Germany, the undisputed leader of the EU. He cheered as a candidate, and still cheers, the breakup of the European Union, parading Nigel Farage around D.C. like some sort of revolutionary hero. He traffics European white nationalist propaganda through his social media feed, trying to open, rather than heal, racial and ethnic divides in Europe. And he recently announced that Russia should rejoin the G7 without even a single consult with our European partners about what message that would send, given the fact that Russia’s behavior in the region has gotten worse, not better since Trump’s election.”

The full text of Murphy’s opening remarks and questioning of Ambassador Mitchell is available below:

MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ambassador Mitchell for being with us here today. As I hope you know, I tell visitors into my office from Europe regularly how lucky we are you have chosen to take up this very difficult assignment. I want to congratulate you on some recent good news with respect to an agreement between Greece and Macedonia, which hopefully paves the way for Macedonia to join some of the most important European and transatlantic institutions. Once again, I thank you for your service and your willingness to serve.

That being said, we had a nominee to be the ambassador to the EU before this committee last week, and it’s fairly ridiculous that it took a year and a half to get an ambassador to Brussels. but he characterized the moment we’re in today with respect to the U.S.-Europe relationship as just part of the normal ups and downs of the transatlantic relationship. This simply is not true.

The relationship between the United States and Europe is in crisis. It has never been this bad in the post-war era. It is getting worse, by the month, and if it collapses, as I would argue it is on pace to do, then the entire world order, based upon a joint U.S.-European drive to spread open economies and participatory democracies to the world, collapses as well. I know this sounds hyperbolic, but I really do think the stakes are this high. I think the state of the relationship, if it even is a relationship these days, is in that bad a state.

I don’t even have time to run through the gauntlet of abuses this president, in a short year and a half, has heaped on Europe, but here’s just a few. He has unilaterally backed out of the two most important diplomatic achievements between our two continents in the last decade, the Paris Accord and the Iran Nuclear Agreement. He has started a trade war, that the Chairman referenced, with Europe, perceiving our European allies to be global economic adversaries instead of partners. He regularly, personally, attacks European leaders on Twitter, reserving the most vicious treatment for Germany, the undisputed leader of the EU. He cheered as a candidate, and still cheers, the breakup of the European Union, parading Nigel Farage around D.C. like some sort of revolutionary hero. He traffics European white nationalist propaganda through his social media feed, trying to open, rather than heal, racial and ethnic divides in Europe. And he recently announced that Russia should rejoin the G7 without even a single consult with our European partners about what message that would send, given the fact that Russia’s behavior in the region has gotten worse, not better since Trump’s election.

This has all led one of the greatest friends of the U.S.-Europe relationship, [former] Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, to say, “Is Putin interfering and trying to destabilize the policies of the EU? Yes, but Trump, at the moment, is far worse.” The president’s hostility towards the EU is making the challenges we face, jointly, all the more difficult, from Brexit to the rise of populism, tension in the Balkans, finding a solution to immigrant flows, countering Russia’s energy dominance and interference politically in the region, fighting terrorism.

The United States should be standing side-by-side with our allies in Europe, not trying to break apart this relationship. I hope that you will continue to serve as a bulwark against the worst of these attacks from this president, but you and the other supporters of the U.S.-EU alliance are losing this argument within the administration, badly, so far. We are very lucky to have you and many others trying to win that argument, but unfortunately you’ve come out on the wrong side, and I look forward to exploring some of these topics over the course of this hearing. 

Murphy’s questioning of Ambassador Mitchell:

MURPHY: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Listen, it’s no secret I think our strategy with respect to Europe is just a total debacle. And it’s not your fault. I understand you don’t share the views of this president with respect to the attacks that he’s launched on Europe or some of the policies he may be implementing towards Russia, but you’re the only one we can ask, so let me try to get some clarification on what our policy is. Let’s start with Russia. The president recently announced a new U.S. policy to bring Russia back into the G7, reversing the previous policy of requiring Russia to implement the Minsk agreement before being invited back in to join the G7. Why did our policy change?

AMBASSADOR MITCHELL: Thank you for that question, Senator, and let me answer both the first and second part of it. The first part of it, I’ll say our approach to Europe is well articulated in the president’s Warsaw speech, and I think his starting point – and the starting point of this administration – is to say we’re not going to strengthen the West by continuing the polite fiction of some areas of U.S. and European policy that are weakening us collectively and probably preventing the United States from wanting to stay engaged in Europe long-term.  So burden sharing, Iran, imbalances in trade, Nord Stream 2—all of these have been positions that we’ve staked out very forcefully because we believe if you don’t address those things in the years ahead, the West collectively will be worse off.

On the issue of Russia, the administration has been clear that the door to dialogue with Russia is open. We’ve stated that repeatedly at various levels. We’ve opened avenues of communication on Ukraine, on Syria, on cyber. An improvement in the bilateral relationship, however, can only happen if Russia stops its aggressive behavior. So far we’ve been disappointed in the Russian government’s unwillingness to accept responsibility for its actions. With regard to upcoming developments vis-a-vis Russia and the G7, the department—we have nothing to announce at this time. I think what we’ve been clear on and what I’ll continue to fight for is an approach to Russia that is open to dialogue that does not sacrifice our principle or our friends.

MURPHY: But just to be clear, the president expressed his desire for the G7 to bring Russia back in with no preconditions. Regardless of what the State Department has to announce, you are not in charge of U.S. foreign policy—the president is, and he announced that his desire is to bring Russia back in without preconditions. I mean, we all watched him say it on TV. Is that not the president’s position? 

AMBASSADOR MITCHELL: Well I think that’s extrapolating somewhat from the comments that he made. As I understand the president’s view of Russia, this is one of the world’s largest nuclear powers—we have to be open to dialogue. We have to reach out and keep the channels open. But I think this administration in the last year and a half has done more to take a tough stance on Russia than the previous administration did in its first six years in office—in a reset that helped pave the way for the Ukraine war. So I think our record on Russia, if you judge this administration by our actions: the stance we’ve taken on sanctions—213 individuals and entities in the last year and a half, what we’re doing on Nord Stream 2, what we’re doing to buck up our allies – I think we have a good record.

MURPHY: Let me – listen, the administration got dragged kicking and screaming to implement those sanctions by people on this panel, so to suggest that the administration is leading on a set of sanctions that you were forced to put into place by legislation passed by this Congress—I just think, I have great respect for you, Ambassador, but I think that’s stretching the bounds of how this played out.

The president recently tweeted, “The people of Germany are turning against their leadership as migration is rocking the already tenuous Berlin coalition. Crime in Germany is way up. Crime in Germany is up 10% since migrants were accepted. Other countries are even worse. Be smart America.” This is pretty exceptional that the president is openly campaigning against the leader of the most important country inside Europe—tweeting that Germany is “turning against their leadership.” We know that the statistics he references are not true. In fact, crime is down 10%, not up 10%. But why is the president openly trying to undermine Chancellor Merkel’s political support in Germany. How does that support U.S. objectives? 

AMBASSADOR MITCHELL: I think the situation with migration in Europe is one that we have to take very seriously, and in the last few months in Italy, Austria, Germany, France, I think publics in these countries have been very clear that they want stronger borders. They want to protect the nation-state…

MURPHY: I guess that’s not my question. This a very personal attack on Chancellor Merkel. He is saying that the people of Germany are turning against Chancellor Merkel and using his social media and using his voice to criticize her and to cheer those who are politically opposing her, side-by-side with an ambassador to Germany who has openly stated that he is going to use his position to help conservatives across the continent politically. My question is not about our position on migration. My question is why is the president weighing in on the political circumstances of the Chancellor? Why is he using his voice to try to politically undermine the Chancellor? You can disagree with me that you don’t think that tweet is doing that, but it certainly sounds when you say Germany is turning against Angela Merkel that you are trying to undermine the Chancellor. 

AMBASSADOR MITCHELL: Well I interpreted the president’s tweet to be an expression of concern about the state of migration in the western world generally, and I think we’ve been slow to wake up to this challenge. It’s a divisive issue in a lot of our societies. As I understand the president’s statements on this, we have to take migration seriously. Irregular migration in Europe is challenging societies at all levels, economically, socially. And it can’t be addressed by simply saying that the door is wide open without a serious public policy discussion about how we regulate and moderate the flow of irregular migrants. 

On Ambassador Grenell, I think his comments were taken out of context. He has made clear that he is not endorsing any particularly candidate or political party. We have a very robust dialogue with the German government on a lot of areas of the relationship and expect that dialogue to continue. Ambassador Grenell has since clarified his comments and noted that it is not U.S. policy to endorse candidates or parties and he was making general observations in the interview. 

My focus overall in the relationship with Germany is to increase engagement in all areas possible. We have a very strong bilateral relationship with Germany. A lot of areas of cooperation in security, counter terrorism, trade. I take the long view, I think the transatlantic relationship, the U.S.-German relationship have been through a lot of storms in our history. That should not bowl us into complacency. I think we have to be very proactive in building up as much cooperation as possible, but I think the relationship is a lot more healthy than is often made out in the media.

###