BRUSSELS — In a major speech Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tried to explain one of the abiding conundrums of the Trump administration: How does a nationalist lead on the international stage?
The answer, he said, is to jettison some treaties and institutions while bolstering others. Among the institutions that Pompeo criticized were the United Nations, the European Union, the Organization of American States, and the African Union, but he embraced NATO — which President Trump has harshly criticized — as an “indispensable institution.’’
The speech, delivered in a palatial concert hall in Brussels, was intended to explain Trump’s worldview to a deeply skeptical audience, including many Europeans who see Trump as undermining international agreements that have kept the peace in Europe and enhanced prosperity.
“Even our European friends sometimes say we’re not acting in the free world’s interest. This is just plain wrong,’’ Pompeo said, adding that “under President Trump, we are not abandoning international leadership or our friends in the international system. Indeed, quite the contrary.’’
But since the end of the Cold War, the international order “failed us, and it failed you,’’ he said.
“Multilateralism has become viewed as an end unto itself. The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done.’’
Of the United Nations, he asked, “Does it continue to serve its mission faithfully?’’
Pompeo called Britain’s decision to leave the EU a “political wake-up call’’ for the bloc, which is based in Brussels.
He then asked whether the EU “is ensuring that the interests of countries and their citizens are placed before those of bureaucrats here in Brussels?’’ Someone in the audience shouted an unequivocal, “Yes,’’ a response Pompeo ignored.
The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization also came in for sharp criticism.
“International bodies must help facilitate cooperation that bolsters the security and values of the free world, or they must be reformed or eliminated,’’ he said. After the short speech, Pompeo took no questions.
Responses ranged from tepid to hostile.
In addition to Trump’s regular criticism of NATO, the United States and the EU are fiercely at odds over the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump has pulled out of.
Washington has restored harsh sanctions on Tehran, while America’s main European allies are doing their best to preserve the deal and find ways to go around US sanctions.
Washington and Brussels are also engaged in sometimes vicious negotiations about trade as well as US sanctions on European steel on the grounds of “national security,’’ whereas the Europeans do not see themselves as a national security threat to the United States.
The Trump administration is also threatening new tariffs on imported cars, all in an effort to reduce the US trade deficit with the EU.
And Washington has sharply criticized Germany for supporting the Nordstream II, a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany that is now under construction.
Pompeo’s challenge to the EU was a surprisingly undiplomatic comment from America’s chief diplomat, making some European officials wonder what the US response would be if a European foreign minister or the bloc’s chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, criticized the fissures in the United States in a public speech in Washington.
A spokesman for the EU refuted the claim that the bloc and its administrators fail the member states and their people.
Margaritis Schinas, chief spokesman of the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm, explained its governing structure and system of popular elections, adding pointedly, “I’m simplifying for those who do not know us.’’
“That’s how it works, OK?’’ Schinas said, throwing his hands in the air. “So for those people who come to Brussels and coin an opinion without knowing how our system works, that’s how our system works, and that’s our reply.’’
Ian Lesser, director of the Brussels office of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, which organized the event, said, “Clearly this was a speech intended to signal that multilateralism wasn’t dead; it simply needed to be revived. There may be a sharp debate about how he suggested to do that. But all in all I don’t think it was a destructive message about multilateralism per se.’’