New Federal Maritime Commission inquiry could rock Pillars of Hercules in US-Spain relations – The Mail & Guardian

Irrespective of the examination by the Federal Maritime Commission, the ICJ Case and NATO Summit will provide the Trump administration with policy windows to convey its threats. (Reuters)

Earlier this week, the Federal Maritime Commission launched an examination to identify any regulations, policies, or practices by other parties that create unfavourable shipping conditions in several choke points around the world. One of those choke points is the Strait of Gibraltar. That carries significant risks for the future of US-Spain relations.

According to the Federal Maritime Commission, the new examination will include a number of issues that could impact US-Spain relations. Examples include the status of Gibraltar, geopolitical tensions between Morocco and Spain, and other concerns for US trade in the vicinity of the Strait of Gibraltar. 

That last category is bound to include Spanish boycott, divestment, and economic sanctions efforts aimed at the Government of Israel.

A few months ago, the Federal Maritime Commission launched a separate investigation into the Government of Spain. That investigation was in response to reports that the Government of Spain had denied port entries to several US-flagged vessels and foreign flagged vessels that were engaged in trade with the United States. Those vessels were reportedly transporting US arms and other materials destined for Israel. 

Prior to that investigation, the Government of Spain joined the case at the International Court of Justice brought against the Government of Israel by the Government of South Africa. That case alleges that the Government of Israel has engaged in acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip. 

Afterward, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez went further. He called on the European Union to suspend its association with the Government of Israel. 

In Washington, there is a strong view that those efforts by a Nato ally have seriously undermined US national security, foreign policy, and trade interests. It is therefore not surprising that the President Donald Trump’s administration is now looking for a way to respond. The new examination provides a useful stage for political actors to fulfill that desire.

Under federal statute, the Federal Maritime Commission has authority to investigate foreign governments who take maritime-related actions that harm US trade. Should the independent establishment determine that foreign governments have imposed regulations, policies, or practices that harm US trade, then the Federal Maritime Commission has the power to take a wide range of actions to offset those actions in consultation with other US federal agencies.

In the case of the Government of Spain, the Federal Maritime Commission has already explicitly warned that those actions might include “substantial offsetting fines on Spanish-flag vessels, limitations on cargo carried between Spain and the United States, and other remedial actions within the Commission’s discretion.” 

The Federal Maritime Commission will now have to make a couple of determinations that could shape the next decade of US-Spain relations.

Specifically, the Federal Maritime Commission will need to determine whether the Government of Spain has taken any actions that harm U.S. trade interests in the vicinity of the Strait of Gibraltar and, if so, what actions could be taken by the US Government to offset or reverse those actions by the Government of Spain. 

If the Federal Maritime Commission determines that the Government of Spain has taken actions that have seriously harmed US national security, foreign policy, and trade interests, then it is unclear what happens next.

At that time, the Trump administration might determine that the levelling fines and cargo limitations is an insufficient response. That is one of the scenarios that would risk opening a Pandora’s box in US-Spain relations. 

Among other things, it could lead the Trump administration to consider more extreme policy options in search of credible threats.

Those more extreme policy options could include the closure of US overseas military bases in Spain and efforts to undermine Spanish sovereignty claims over Ceuta, Gibraltar and/or Melilla. In extremis, they could even include the formal suspension of US security guarantees to Spain under Nato.

That should worry those who value strong US-Spain relations. 

In the near future, the ICJ Case and Nato Summit will provide the Trump administration with policy windows to convey such threats. For that reason, the Spain Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union, and Cooperation and US Department of State should start working to resolve their strategic misalignments on national security, foreign policy, and trade as soon as possible.

However, one must be realistic. For domestic political reasons, it seems unlikely that two governments will be able to restore strong strategic alignment in the short-term. 

For the Sánchez Administration, that carries additional risks. One is that a poor state of US-Spain relations could prove useful to partisan interests of Spanish political actors on the far right.

Michael Walsh is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.