“How many of you were surprised that the United States attacked Iran? And how many were surprised that they did this exclusively on Israel’s side? I would argue that any American president, under these circumstances, would have seriously considered military action against Iran — a weakened regime, diminished proxies, concrete intelligence — a tempting golden moment after half a century of containment and countless rounds of sanctions.

[related] The Obama administration, too, considered military options. In 2014, Iran was — according to some intelligence assessments — only months away from a so-called breakout. Yet diplomacy still had a chance at that time, not least because Russia and China were equally interested in a multilateral agreement and in curbing Iran’s uranium enrichment. The negotiations, backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, lasted eighteen months. They were hard-fought, though far from airtight.

Unable to secure a treaty due to Republican opposition in Congress and pressure from Israel, the United States was forced to negotiate a legally non-binding „agreement“. That agreement was time-limited and did not cover Iran’s support for regional proxies or its ballistic missile activities, but most critically, it was not a treaty. After several attempts to persuade the European signatories to expand sanctions and push Iran to extend the terms of the deal (a task I was involved in at the time), Trump ultimately took pleasure in tearing it apart in 2018.

In the years that followed, sanctions were imposed wherever possible — not only on Iran, but also on Venezuela and Russia — essentially maximum pressure against what felt like every oil-producing nation. The more Trump and later Biden rhetorically escalated sanctions, the more the entire concept lost its effectiveness. Switzerland, acting as the U.S. protecting power in Iran, carefully noted the steady flow along long-established smuggling routes into Turkey, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And the first shadow fleets began to emerge — much like those operating today in the North Sea. From sanctioned Iran across the Atlantic to sanctioned Venezuela, oil tankers continued to move through international waters.

„’Kinetic’ sanctions are a rather striking way to prevent the financing of terrorism.”

The next step, then, could only consist of bombs. The United States already had some experience in this regard. When the Islamic State expanded across the Middle East in 2014 and captured Mosul, it seized a branch of the Iraqi Central Bank that, thanks to continued U.S. payments, was filled with cash reserves in dollars. Physical money, after all, cannot be frozen by sanctions once you march in. So we bombed it — the first „kinetic sanctions“, ladies and gentlemen, in early 2016. An interesting method of preventing the financing of terrorism, wouldn’t you say? And notice the terminology: Ukraine now refers to its strikes on Russian energy infrastructure as kinetic sanctions. And when sanctions failed to bring down Maduro, the United States ultimately resorted to his abduction. The illusion of a quick and clean sanctions regime was replaced by the illusion of a quick and clean military operation. But of course, it is not that simple.

Our New Alliance

The era in which the United States could act unilaterally is over. So too is the time when it could make such decisions and only ask its allies in hindsight: are you with us or against us? Trump’s belated appeals for support once it became clear that the war would quickly grow more complicated than planned are relics of a hegemonic world order that both the United States and Europe assumed would last forever. That is how America operates. That is how thinking in the Situation Room works. One commands instruments of power that others can hardly even imagine, and becomes blind to their limits. The United States can no longer afford to act in this way. Building alliances is slow and demanding — in the past, avoiding that effort was considered bad form. Today, it is a fatal mistake.

I respect that Chancellor Merz, in his first statement, refrained from judging the decisions of Germany’s partners. For it is one thing to comment from the outside and quite another to be in a position where decisions must actually be made. In the end, there are only two options: to press the button or not. And let us be honest: it is not a tenable position for a country like Germany, which seeks to have a voice on the global stage, to say: We are glad the Ayatollah is gone and we support the elimination of Iran’s missile capabilities, but the war itself is illegal. Of course, I also respect the decision of all European governments, under these circumstances and given the two protagonists, Trump and Netanyahu, not to take an active role in the conflict. Even if one were willing to subject oneself to the shifting moods of the U.S. president, what role would Europe have been expected to play in any case — assuming it was not merely a symbolic gesture of deference to the „Big Daddy“ of NATO, but a tactically meaningful contribution? Ideally, Europe would have been involved, but under different conditions.

“The United States wants partners on equal footing, not dependencies”

Believe me: the National Defense Strategy published earlier this year is not a second Clausewitz. But there is one passage that will stay with me and with my generation of security experts in the United States for a long time: „With rare exceptions, allies have too often been content to rely on the United States for their defense while reducing their own defense spending and instead investing in social welfare and other domestic programs. However, the blame does not rest solely with them. It was, of course, their sovereign decision to underinvest in defense. But that decision was often encouraged by earlier U.S. policymakers who mistakenly believed that the United States benefited from allies who were dependencies rather than partners.“  It reads: dependencies, not allies. What does that mean? It means that the United States wants partners on equal footing, not dependents. Trump is a relic — the final incarnation of a hegemony that no longer exists.

I fear that this war will produce no winners, only losers — in economic terms: a net deadweight loss. Iran will need years to recover, regardless of whether sanctions are eased and the country complies with Western demands to limit uranium enrichment. Israel will have neither eliminated an existential threat posed by a theocratic regime nor regained international support — the images from Lebanon and Gaza are still too fresh. And the United States has once again demonstrated its unparalleled military and intelligence capabilities. But it has lost the political game.I am convinced that had Washington taken the time to build genuine alliances with Europe and the Gulf states, the process would have been slower, but it would also have strengthened its own position and likely avoided this outcome. In the end, Iran was never as close to the bomb as many assumed.

„The United States took a shortcut — and the bill is now coming due.“

The United States took a shortcut — and the bill is now coming due. Meanwhile, Russia and China are operating in the background, providing Tehran with intelligence and material support. This is a far cry from 2015, when they still sat together with the West at the negotiating table. Yet wars in a world in transition are like immersion blenders. For that reason, not everything is negative. Ukraine is emerging as a global leader in drone defense and is concluding agreements with Gulf states. These countries — particularly the Emirates, which long flirted with Iran — are now taking action against illegal Iranian financial flows. Lebanon and Israel are discovering a shared adversary in Hezbollah. And, most importantly for this region, Europe is making further progress in defining itself in security policy.

Step by step, information is emerging about an allied mission to secure shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. These are good news — first, for European security structures: a coherent military response by European actors in the European interest, without U.S. leadership. Second, for Europe’s relations with the Gulf states and other trading partners. Gradually, we are moving toward a European NATO capable of territorial defense — not without the United States, but alongside it, on equal footing. Not a dependency, but an ally.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are currently witnessing a global conflict in fragments. Imagine, for a moment, we were still living in Europe’s colonial world — it would be incomparably worse. What Europe does with the fragments now will be decisive: new alliances with Gulf states, missions to secure sea lanes, support for Ukraine. This is the beginning of a return to global politics for Europe. And that is why this war is also Europe’s war.”

Der Beitrag What the Iran war teaches about partnerships erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Check out the last edition of Better Be Prepared, moderated by Jakob Flemming, Senior Program and Research Manager at Atlantik-Brücke, below:

Der Beitrag “I do not think that the death of Khamenei would change anything.” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Check out the last edition of Better Be Prepared, moderated by Jakob Flemming, Senior Program and Research Manager at Atlantik-Brücke, below:

Der Beitrag “I do not think that the death of Khamenei would change anything” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On the sidelines of the conference, we interviewed five panelists about the challenges of our time:

• Dr. Norbert Röttgen, MP and Co-Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke
• Prof. Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, and Professor of International Affairs, Georgetown University
• Dr. Fritzi Köhler Geib, Member of the Executive Board, Deutsche Bundesbank
• Sven Weizenegger, Head of Cyber Innovation Hub, German Armed Forces
• Prof. Peter Neumann, Professor of Security Studies, Department of War Studies, King’s College London

“I’m convinced that the European interest is to uphold the transatlantic alliance” – Norbert Röttgen on global power rebalancing, America’s pivot to Asia and the shift in the dynamic of war and peace.

“I wouldn’t go so far as saying that Cold War 2.0 has already started – but it’s a little bit too close for comfort” – Charles Kupchan on the crisis of Western Democracies and why the war on Ukraine reminds him of WWI. 

“The cost of the tariffs will mainly hit American consumers” – Fritzi Köhler Geib on digital sovereignity, the cost of US tariffs for Europe and how Europe could reap the benefits of its common currency.

“Security agencies need to understand that the internet is a place, just like the street is a place” – Peter Neumann on how to deal with right-wing extremism, the threat of online radicalisation and why we should pay closer attention to Iran.

“We can leverage AI to save soldiers’ lives” – Sven Weizenegger on the role of cyber weapons in modern conflicts and why technology alone cannot tackle disinformation campaigns.

Der Beitrag “We can leverage AI to save soldiers’ lives” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Bringing together a selected group of young Canadian and German participants, the group will convene for five days to exchange and engage on current and future challenges on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition, the delegation will attend the main German-Canadian Conference taking place in Ottawa from May 4-6, 2025. Topics of discussion will include security policy and changing geopolitical realities, energy and the environment, and technology’s impact on politics, the economy, and society.

Format:

• Up to 10 participants (German, Canadian, gender-balanced)
• Delegates will be required to participate in five days of in-person program taking place in Ottawa, Canada. Arrival on Sunday, May 4, 2025. Departure on Thursday, May 8, 2025
• The program entails meetings and discussions with senior decision-makers, academics, and business leaders from various sectors. A cultural and social program is also planned (i.e. visits to museums, site visits, and memorials)
• English will be the primary language used
• Participants are invited to attend the annual German-Canadian Conference

Successful applicants will:

• Be Canadian or German citizens between the ages of 28 and 35 (inclusive as of the date of the program)
• Demonstrate leadership in their professional careers
• Show a strong interest in the German-Canadian partnership and in political, economic, and social issues
• Demonstrate willingness to contribute to the Atlantik-Brücke and Atlantik-Brücke Canada network
• Be from any sector including: business, government, media, military, non-profit, finance, academia, or arts
• Women and gender minorities, as well as people of all backgrounds are encouraged to apply to ensure a diversity of perspectives

Aim:

• To foster greater understanding of the German-Canadian relationship among the younger generations and to provide them an opportunity to make lasting transatlantic connections
• To learn first-hand about another country’s society, political institutions, history, and culture
• To create a young German-Canadian alumni network
• To increase future leaders’ presence in the network of Atlantik-Brücke and Atlantik-Brücke Canada

 Costs:

Participants will receive fixed stipends to support flight/travel costs to Ottawa, accommodation, and group meals. Logistical arrangements to/from the conference must be arranged by the individual. Incidentals are the responsibility of the participants.

Dates of Travel:

• Inbound flights to Ottawa, Canada, on Sunday, May 4, 2025; participants may arrive earlier at their own expense
• Outbound flights from Ottawa, Canada, on Thursday, May 8, 2025; participants may extend the trip at their own expense

Applications:

Deadline for applications is Sunday, March 23, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. EDT. Applications submitted after this date will not be considered.

To apply: Go to the application portal

• Step 1: Fill in the application form.
• Step 2: Upload your letter of motivation and CV.
• NOTE: All documents must be in English.

Notification:

Successful applicants will be notified by March 31, 2025.

Note: This program is contingent upon funding. The final number of participants will be determined by the level of financial support received for the program.

Contact:

Der Beitrag German-Canadian Young Atlantiks Program 2025 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On the occasion of the London Regional Chapter’s visit to the Warburg Institute, Dr. Nagila Warburg discussed the legacy of Aby and Eric Warburg and its relevance in these uncertain transatlantic times.

by Dr. Nagila Warburg

[related]

Dear members and friends of Atlantik-Brücke,
Dear Ambassador Miguel Berger, dear Prof. Bill Sherman,

On behalf of Atlantik-Brücke, a very warm welcome here at this special place: the newly refurbished Warburg Institute – the successfully finished Renaissance project.
Thank you, dear Bill Sherman and all Warburgians, for your hospitality. Thank you, dear Chris Rossbach and the London Chapter of Atlantik Brücke, for your initiative to have this evening at the Warburg.
Tonight, I have the pleasure of wearing two hats on my head, one as a member of the board of Atlantik-Brücke and the other as a member of the Advisory Council and Trustee of the Warburg Institute, the library of Aby Warburg. Two functions that I have the honor to serve and that are strongly connected to Eric Warburg, who was not only my father-in-law but also the nephew of Aby Warburg.

“Eric Warburg had the rare ability to understand when it was essential in life to act.”

Eric and Aby, both firstborn sons with all the responsibility connected with it in a Jewish family, were also very close. Eric gave the farewell speech at Aby Warburg’s funeral, in which he said, “It was bliss for us as his family to be part of the universe of his ideas.” After Aby’s death, Eric was in charge of the library on behalf of the Warburg family.

Eric Warburg had the rare ability to understand when it was essential in life to act.

In 1933 he recognized the imminent danger the Nazi Regime in Germany posed for the library of Aby Warburg and he played a crucial role in securing the financial and diplomatic support to move the library from Hamburg to London. He understood that this was not just about books and manuscripts but about preserving an entire way of thinking.
His efforts, alongside with Fritz Saxl and Gertrud Bing, ensured the survival of Aby’s library and its transfer to the Warburg Institute and hence to the University of London*.
In 1952 Eric Warburg co-founded Atlantik-Brücke to strengthen the still fragile relationship between Germany and the United States. At a time, when many still viewed Germany with suspicion, Eric Warburg understood that reconciliation and partnership were essential – not just for Germany’s future but for the stability of the Western world.

In its founding phase as well as today, extraordinary personalities have shaped Atlantik-Brücke. Sigmar Gabriel, our chairman and former German vice chancellor and foreign minister, is an important public voice in transatlantic relations; his predecessor at the Atlantik-Brücke was Friedrich Merz, who will soon become our next German chancellor.
Atlantik-Brücke became and remains one of the most important forums for political, economic, and cultural exchange between Germany and the U.S. We connect leaders, business figures, scholars, and policymakers to foster mutual understanding, shape policy, and strengthen democracy on both sides of the Atlantic.

Eric Warburg’s belief in dialogue over division, engagement over isolation, and cooperation over conflict laid the groundwork for the strong transatlantic alliance we were lucky to have for many decades, and which is – unfortunately – challenged today.

How do we deal with our partner on the other side of the Atlantic, who simply bypasses democratic checks and balances?”

Today, Atlantik-Brücke is “a bridge over troubled water” for those of you who still remember this song by Simon and Garfunkel…

With Donald Trump’s second term in office, Germany and Europe are facing not only significant foreign, security, and economic challenges but also deep divides in our societies in general. How do we deal with our partner on the other side of the Atlantic, who simply bypasses democratic checks and balances and seems to neglect us? We are witnessing a US policy that is “rewriting the rules”. If someone had told me last year that the United States would vote alongside North Korea, Russia, and Belarus in a UN Resolution not condemning Russia for its invasion of Ukraine – I would have said this is entirely impossible. But they did. This stance is tantamount to fake news.

This leads me to the place where we are meeting today, the Warburg Institute, and to the questions of why Aby Warburg’s thoughts are still relevant today and why they are relevant to members of Atlantik-Brücke.

During the First World War, Aby Warburg, ridden by depression, transformed his home into an observatory for war propaganda, collecting materials he intended to exhibit in a “Museum of Lies.” Aby, deeply interested in the power of images and symbols, was alarmed by how visual propaganda was used to manipulate public perception during the war. His critical stance on war propaganda aligned with his broader intellectual project: analyzing how images influence collective memory, emotion, and belief. He reflected on how institutions could present history in a misleading way, constructing narratives that served ideological rather than factual purposes. One of his central concerns was how propaganda replaced rational discourse with emotional manipulation. Nationalistic posters, patriotic war photography, and sensationalized news reports created a charged atmosphere where public sentiment was shaped not by critical thought but by powerful, often deceptive imagery. He feared that the emotional power of images, if not critically examined, could lead to destructive mass movements—an insight that would later prove chillingly true with the rise of fascism.

Aby Warburg’s observations are still of striking relevance today, where images are weaponized in disinformation campaigns, political propaganda, and social media manipulation. The rapid spread of manipulated photos, deepfake videos, and emotionally charged imagery follows the same principles Aby identified:
decontextualization, emotional appeal, and the use of symbols to shape collective narratives.

Aby’s method involved deep analysis of images rather than passive consumption. In an age of infinite scrolling, we need to learn how to analyze rather than just absorb images. His work serves as a reminder that visual literacy—the ability to critically analyze images and their historical contexts—is more crucial than ever.

If Aby Warburg were alive today, he would likely be studying how digital culture amplifies the very mechanisms of symbolic manipulation he warned about a century ago. He might have argued that the digital world is an even more dangerous “Museum of Lies” than anything he observed in the 20th century. He wouldn’t just be analyzing the afterlife of Renaissance paintings—he’d likely be mapping out Twitter memes, TikTok trends, and AI-generated propaganda as a new Mnemosyne Atlas of 21st-century disinformation. He would warn us about the emotional power of images and their role in mass manipulation. Aby’s insights into propaganda, irrational thought, and visual culture are almost prophetic today.

For those of you who are devastated – like myself – about the current state of the transatlantic relationship we – as European countries – have with the United States, I can assure you that we will continue building bridges in the spirit of the founders of Atlantik-Brücke, while having in mind the concept of Aby Warburg’s Museum of Lies.

*As an interesting side note: the personal contributions of Sir Samuel Courtauld, founder of the Courtauld Institute of Art (established in 1932), and his first director, William Constable, were also pivotal in the successful relocation and reestablishment of the Warburg Institute in London in 1934. Anthony Blunt, the later director of the Courtauld Institute (1947-1974), helped to integrate Warburgian ideas into British academic curricula. He was also a Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures and responsible for the Royal Collection. Anthony Blunt became also rather famous for being a Soviet spy, passing information to the Soviets during his time at MI5. He was one of the infamous Cambridge Five, a group of British Soviet spies recruited while studying at the University of Cambridge in the 1930s who worked for the Soviet Union (the others were Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess, and John Cairncross).

Speech of Dr. Nagila Warburg at The Warburg Insitute in London / Atlantik-Brücke event on March, 5 – 2025. Dr. Warburg is a board member of Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag „Dialogue over division and cooperation over conflict“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Julijana Rinka

Julijana Rinka joined our team in February 2025 as Assistant to the Executive and
Office Manager. With over twenty years of experience in office management, mainly in the Volkswagen Group, she brings extensive expertise to the role. After training as a hotel manager in Frankfurt am Main, she specialized in office management in the hotel and business sectors. Based in Berlin since 1997, she sees supporting the team on transatlantic issues as a fascinating challenge for the present and the future.

Louise Lüdke

Louise Lüdke has been Assistant Program Manager at Atlantik-Brücke since March 2025. With a master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Studies, she brings valuable experience from her time at the European Commission in Brussels. Her keen interest in foreign and security policy is reflected in her previous activities: as a working student at the Frankfurt Peace Research Institute and through internships at the German Foreign Office and the Centre for International Peace Operations in Berlin. In these challenging times, she is particularly interested in strengthening transatlantic relations.

Pia Kauer

Pia Kauer has been supporting Atlantik-Brücke’s public relations work as Communications Manager since March 2025. With a master’s degree in political economy, she brings with her initial professional experience from the German Bundestag, the Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate Protection and the Berlin School of Economics and Law. In view of the current global political uncertainties, she sees the cultivation of German American relations as essential and is very much looking forward to her new role in communications at Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag Three new faces join our team erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Your opinions are an important part of Atlantik-Brücke and our social media presence on LinkedIn, Bluesky, X and Instagram. Your point of view enriches the transatlantic dialogue and allows us to reflect on the issues at hand. We value a constructive and insightful exchange with our community.

When commenting, please remember that you are dealing with real people. So please behave as you would like to be treated.

Moderation Guidelines and Terms of Use

1. Desirable and Undesirable Behavior

Comments that meet the following criteria will not be tolerated on our site:

• Hate speech, including racism, degradation, belittling, and discrimination against any individual or group – especially on the basis of religion, ethnic origin, nationality, physical condition, sexual identity, age, or gender. Also inadmissible are derogatory remarks about human dignity, slander and defamatory insults.
• Threats or any incitement to violence against institutions, companies or individuals.
• Violations of the law of any kind.
• Demonstrably false statements and conspiracy theories.
• Off-topic comments or whataboutism.
• Links to dubious websites or unverifiable sources.
• Campaigning, petitions, and solicitations of any kind.
• Violation of privacy rights or disclosure of personal information.
• Advertising of any kind.

2. Consequences for violations

Our guidelines are designed to ensure that all members of the Atlantik-Brücke community feel comfortable. Please note that we reserve the right to remove comments or posts that violate these basic rules. There will be no discussion about deleted comments.

In the case of repeated or particularly serious violations, we reserve the right to exclude you permanently from participation in the discussion. Criminally relevant comments will be reported to the police – regardless of a ban.

We also reserve the right to change this netiquette at any time at our own discretion.

Der Beitrag Our Community Guidelines erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We are honored to introduce: 

Janhvi Bhojwani is an Emmy-award winning reporter for NBC News based in Washington, D.C., focusing on the social newsgathering and verification space. She is from the U.S. territory of Guam and Jakarta, Indonesia. Janhvi completed her undergraduate and graduate degrees at Georgetown University, studying the intersection of culture and politics and how technology has changed how society communicates and receives information. In between college and graduate school, she conducted a field study in Indonesia through a Fulbright-Hays scholarship on social media and misinformation.

Darrin Quiroz Camilleri is currently in his first term serving in the Michigan State Senate following three successful terms in the State House of Representatives. He is also the Assistant Majority Leader, Chairman of the PreK-12 School Aid Budget, and serves on committees that encompass Elections, Energy, Transportation, Labor, and more. His district spans seventeen communities across Downriver and Western Wayne County, including Trenton, where he currently lives with his wife, Lama. As the son of an immigrant from Malta and a Latina, he became Michigan’s youngest Latino and first-ever Maltese-American state legislator. As the son and grandson of union auto workers, he has also been steadfast in his pursuit of opportunity for all communities in Michigan. As a first-generation college graduate and a former teacher, he is currently the youngest member of the Michigan State Senate.

Alan Y.C. Cheng is Venture Partner at Farron, Augustine & Alexander LLC, a private investment group focused on early-stage technology companies. Alan also serves as a U.S. Naval Reserve Officer in the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Before venture investing, Alan was Co-Founder and CEO at House Doctor, a telemedicine software company bringing medical doctors online for remote medical consultations over smartphones. Prior to technology entrepreneurship, he worked at Morgan Stanley in investment banking and at J.P. Morgan in private banking. Alan holds a BS in Business Administration from the University of California, Berkeley, and a JD from the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Ashley Hodges is a dedicated, budding EDI practitioner who grounds their work in Black and Queer Studies. Throughout her career, Ashley has worked in academia, philanthropy, consulting, and now government. Currently, Ashley serves as a Project Manager in the City of Atlanta Mayor’s Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion. In this role, they are dedicated to fostering diverse and inclusive environments and advancing equity in Atlanta and beyond. Ashley works to build a world where everyone can thrive. She does so by prioritizing the voices of those most impacted, building relationships, and listening to those who inspire them. Inspired by Toni Morrison’s words, they are reminded to “make a difference about something other than yourselves.” Ashley received her degree in African American Studies from Princeton University.

Chase Phillips is from Denver, Colorado, and currently serves as the Executive Advisor to the Mayor of Denver. He holds a bachelor’s degree in finance and is currently pursuing a master’s degree in political science. With several years of team management experience, Chase has successfully managed a multimillion-dollar milling budget for a local asphalt company and overseen $30 million in annual accounts receivable as a credit manager. Chase is also in the process of opening a dive bar in downtown Denver, capitalizing on the area’s revitalization. His goal is to leverage the dive bar into a hospitality group, with future plans to provide affordable housing to his community. Additionally, Chase is planning to run for State House Representative in 2026, aiming to make a positive impact on climate sustainability, affordability, and safety.

Sameer Rao is a Baltimore-based journalist whose work primarily focuses on technology, entrepreneurship, arts, culture, and racial and social justice issues. He currently works as an editor for Technical.ly, where he principally oversees coverage of Baltimore and D.C. He was previously a legal industry and access to justice reporter for Law360 and spent several years as an arts and culture reporter for such outlets as The Baltimore Sun and Colorlines. Sameer is a member of the Asian American Journalists Association, for which he previously served on various regional and national boards. Outside of journalism, he is a musician who put out an EP in 2017 with his now-defunct, Philadelphia-based rock band Taxes.

Maggie Salas Crespo is Co-Managing Partner and Director of Policy, Advocacy and Strategic Engagement at NReal Media Strategies, a leading multicultural PR, Government Affairs, Communications, and Marketing firm in Nevada. Maggie has spent over a decade working in Nevada’s public and private sectors in leadership roles across outreach, policy, and communications. Most recently, she served as Deputy Secretary of State for Southern Nevada. Prior to that, she served as the Political Director for Governor Steve Sisolak, the Senior Advisor for the Nevada Governor’s Office for New Americans, and the Outreach Coordinator for the Office of the Governor. Maggie graduated from the University of Nevada, Reno with a Bachelor of Arts in Cultural Anthropology, Women’s Studies and a minor in Ethnic Studies. She also received a postgraduate degree from El Colegio de la Frontera Norte in International Migration Studies.

Alex Schyllander (they/them) is the Senior Manager of Global Advocacy at the Human Rights Campaign where they are responsible for projects and initiatives and administrative matters related to HRC’s global partnership and international advocacy efforts. Prior to joining HRC, Alex worked as the Communications and Program Manager of the Public Leadership Education Network (PLEN), where they worked to mentor, inspire, and train the next generation of diverse and talented women and LGBTQ+ public policy decision-makers. Alex has years of experience working and interning in social justice organizations. Alex holds a Bachelor of Science in International Affairs from Eastern Michigan University and a Master of Arts in International Affairs from the George Washington University. Alex was born and raised in Michigan and lives in Washington, D.C., with their dog Honey.

Alejandra Silva, Director of Venture Café Miami, is a formidable leader with a career trajectory spanning hospitality, entrepreneurship, and innovation. A founder and seasoned professional, Alejandra brings incisive insights to Miami’s innovation ecosystem. Her expertise in hospitality management and digital marketing, coupled with her entrepreneurial acumen, enables her to dissect and address the complex challenges facing innovators and entrepreneurs. At the helm of Venture Café Miami, Alejandra functions as a catalyst for transformative change, strategically connecting stakeholders, disseminating critical knowledge, and galvanizing others into action. Her leadership, honed by diverse industry exposure, positions her as a dominant force in Miami’s entrepreneurial landscape and a master connector and accelerator of the Venture Café global network in other cities around the globe, cultivating an environment that breeds innovation and fosters the evolution of groundbreaking ideas.

Samantha E. Williams serves as a Local Government and Community Relations Executive at Ameren Missouri, advocating for community needs and guiding local governments in their energy transition. She earned a B.A. in Political Science from UMSL and an M.A. from Webster University. With a decade of strategic experience, she crafted legislative platforms for Illinois and Missouri State Senate leaders and supervised the federal rollout of the 2020 Census for a ranking Member of Congress. Recently, she represented Missouri’s community interests at a White House infrastructure roundtable under the Biden-Harris Administration. A dedicated community leader, she mentors students through the Regional Business Council, promotes diversity in politics via the National Women’s Political Caucus, and advocates for peacekeeping as Board Director of the United Nations Association-USA’s St. Louis chapter.

New Bridge to Germany is supported by the Transatlantic Program of the Federal Republic of Germany, funded by the European Recovery Program (ERP) of the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK), and by the Joachim Herz Foundation.

Der Beitrag New Bridge to Germany: Class of 2024 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The experts highlighted the pressing geopolitical issues that significantly influence our interests, particularly in terms of security. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, nuclear nonproliferation efforts in the Middle East, and tensions with North Korea were discussed, with an emphasis on the IAEA’s critical role in ensuring stability in these regions.

A major threat highlighted was Iran’s power in the Red Sea, especially after the Iranian attack on Israel, which escalates the risk of further conflict in the Middle East. This escalation poses a serious threat to global security. Panelist David E. Sanger emphasized that the threat from Iran should not be underestimated and stressed the importance of avoiding past mistakes in dealing with Russia. He referred to the mistakes Europe has made with Russia and pointed out several critical points. There were warning signs as early as 2007, when Putin talked about the territory he wanted to invade, but no one took his statements seriously. Even in 2014, Germany continued to trade with Russia. Just before the invasion of Ukraine, most people did not believe it would happen. Our perception has changed since then, and we must learn from this experience to avoid making the same mistakes with Iran or China, Sanger argued.

They also discussed the options available to Germany, and Berlin in particular, to rebuild the basic consensus in the international community. An understandable reaction in Europe and Washington is the desire to avoid a Cold War. However, it is crucial to consider how this desire is perceived by adversaries. The panelists noted that while it is essential to avoid a new Cold War, we must also plan for the possibility of failure in ways we have not done before. The message should be clear that accommodation is not an option, and we must be prepared to meet these challenges head on. The panel explored the potential use of nuclear weapons in conflicts between nuclear-armed and non-nuclear-armed states

Beth Sanner remarked, “all the assumptions we had about how the world works have been destroyed,” prompting the audience to question whether our current assumptions about global dynamics still hold true.

[related]

The Role of China

Understanding China’s intentions and actions is a critical issue. Contrary to the common belief that China is primarily concerned with economic interests, its strategy includes significant geopolitical considerations. China is making strategic moves and has clear interests in regional and global expansion. The interconnectedness of global threats was emphasized. Japanese Prime Minister Kishida significantly increased the defense spending of his country not only because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but also because of China’s actions in circumnavigating the island of Japan and standing on Russia’s side in the war against Ukraine. In particular, the Kuril Islands dispute between Japan and Russia has prompted Japan to take a clear stance on the conflict.

The Iran Nuclear Deal 

The discussion also touched on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the challenges surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Despite the initial compliance and economic benefits, the deal has faced significant setbacks, especially after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and Iran’s subsequent violations. Since then Iran has acquired dangerous characteristics and developed nuclear power. Panelist Rafael Mariano Grossi urges that efforts should be made to revive the JCPOA through diplomatic negotiations or a new type of agreement to ensure regional and global security. Efforts should be made to rebuild a basic international consensus to ensure global security.

The New Power Structure and Western Resilience

Another point of discussion was the emerging power structure, characterized by a coalition of interests between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, which seeks to establish an alternative system to that led by the United States and its European allies. This requires a strategic response from the West to maintain stability and security. The role of Artificial Intelligence and strategic weapons in this new geopolitical landscape was also addressed, with insights into the Pentagon’s plans to increase the number of strategic weapons and the implications of these developments.

Strengthening European Defense

The need for a stronger European defense industry was underlined, with calls for joint efforts to protect national interests and reduce dependence on American weapons. Beth Sanner explained the ambivalent position of the US. On the one hand, they want a stronger European defense industry, but on the other hand, they benefit from Europe’s dependence on US weapons. Nevertheless, it is important to strengthen the transatlantic relationship between the US and the European Union. In conclusion, the panelists stressed the importance of re-evaluating existing assumptions, understanding the interconnected nature of global threats, and developing comprehensive strategies to address these challenges. In closing, Beth Sanner advised, “Europe has a great story to tell, just believe in your own story.”

Der Beitrag The challenges of our global security erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We are honored to introduce: 

Enver Cetin is a Senior Manager of AI at Ciklum, based in Munich, Germany, where he excels in deploying the latest technologies, including Generative AI. An expert in this cutting-edge field, Enver leads strategic implementations, driving innovation and transforming business processes with AI solutions. Previously, he headed the Process and Digital Excellence team at a logistics company, where he crafted a digital excellence roadmap that significantly reduced administrative times and improved operations through strategic integration of automation and data analysis. With a Master’s in Business Consulting & Digital Management from FOM Munich and a Bachelor’s in Computer Science from DHBW Heidenheim, Enver combines deep technical expertise with a profound understanding of digital transformation’s societal impacts.

Loubna Doudouh is a passionate advocate for empowerment and inclusivity and currently serves as the Executive Director of Muslimisches Jugendwerk (“Muslim youth organization”). In this role, she oversees educational initiatives and intercultural and interreligious dialogues. Loubna started her leadership journey at Teach First Germany, where she delved deep into the structures of Germany’s educational landscape and witnessed the systemic injustices and structural discrimination of students first-hand. With a passion for videography, Loubna also amplifies the voices of marginalized individuals through film, shedding light on narratives that challenge societal norms. She earned a bachelor’s degree in international relations.

Mario Futh is currently pursuing his PhD in Political Science at Leipzig University, researching conservative and right-wing parties in East German election campaigns. His research focuses on the areas of gender, migration, and homeland and uses discourse and situational analysis. Mario’s life has been a journey of self-improvement, from working-class roots to earning a doctoral degree at the end of 2024. From 2008 until 2012, he worked as a nurse and then decided to realize his dream of studying. Mario earned his bachelor’s degree in social sciences and philosophy and his master’s in political science. After graduation, he worked as a researcher on a project on identity, German communities, and the logics of exclusion which informed his doctoral research interest.

Maycaa Hannon is shaping the sustainable energy landscape of the future. As a policy and regulations manager, she passionately advocates for regulatory frameworks that support the development of large-scale hydrogen supply chains. She obtained a master’s degree in economics and politics, during which she discovered her passion for foreign trade promotion. Maycaa turned her interest into action, working for both the German Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK) and the private sector, promoting German companies and enabling their export to foreign markets. She has worked in multiple cities, including Berlin, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi. As Co-founder of the SWANS Initiative, she strongly believes in the power of a diverse society. SWANS is an award-winning NGO that has championed over 1,000 young women facing intersectional discrimination and promotes their adequate representation in the academic workforce.

Joseph Langner is a Co-Managing Director at JoinPolitics, a non-partisan, non-profit incubator for political talents in Germany. Joseph’s work focuses on developing new approaches to political entrepreneurship, innovation, and funding to promote and strengthen democracy in Germany and Europe. Joseph is a member of the Grantmaking Council of Multitudes Foundation, an advisor to the 2hearts Community, and a supporter of the Afro-Diasporic Academics Network (ADAN e.V.). Previously, he worked as a consultant to European institutions as a Project Manager and Chief of Staff in the Public Sector & Digital Practices at Oliver Wyman. Joseph studied Business Administration, Philosophy, and Economics at the University of Mannheim and the WASEDA Business School in Tokyo. He is a scholar of the Deutschlandstiftung Integration and a former national board member of AIESEC in Germany.

Rita Lieder serves as a policy advisor for internal and legal affairs for a parliamentary group in the German Bundestag. She also works as an attorney in court-appointed cases for migration and criminal law. Rita was born in Kherson, Ukraine, and grew up in Kyiv. She came to Germany when she was 15 years old to attend a boarding school in Bavaria. Rita quickly became fond of the German language and decided to stay. She studied law at Humboldt University in Berlin, specializing in criminal law, and passed her bar exam in 2023. Being interested in theater, she also founded a drama club during her time in university. While living and working in London last year, she acted in a Richard III production in a local theater.

Anoja Perinpanathan is a German-Tamil professional with five years of experience in international development cooperation. Currently, Anoja works at Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), a service provider in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development and international education. Previously, Anoja worked for the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (UN-ESCWA) in Lebanon and the National Commission of UNESCO for Uruguay. Anoja’s technical expertise lies in migration, employment promotion, and social cohesion in fragile contexts, complemented by experience in management and strategy consulting, organizational development, and change management. Anoja completed her studies at University College Maastricht (UCM) in Liberal Arts and Sciences in the Netherlands, during which she spent a semester abroad at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito in Ecuador.

Azadê Peşmen (they/them) is the co-founder of Qzeng Productions and an award-winning host and podcast producer. They were live on air in 2010 at the Argentinian community radio “Radio Gráfica” on the rap program Rimas Rebeldes and have not left the mic since. Azadê has been trained at the public radio broadcaster Deutschlandfunk, reporting on security politics and covering investigative stories from Brazil, Turkey, and Iraq. They host podcasts, with narratives like “Deso- der Rapper der zum IS ging” (Deso- the rapper who joined ISIS) and daily shows like “Was jetzt?” (What now?). They also facilitate workshops and moderate events for companies and cultural institutions. Furthermore, they love to pass on knowledge to upcoming podcasters, like they did for Spotify’s Sound Up cohort of 2022.

Dr. Yen Dieu Pham has been a sustainability manager in the real estate department at Union Investment since 2023. She graduated with a master’s degree in architecture in 2017 and then embarked on a multifaceted journey. She worked as an architect and UX designer while also completing a PhD in computer science. Her research focused on sustainable software design. Yen Dieu is the daughter of a single mother who came to Germany as a former Vietnamese guest worker. She now lives with her family in Hamburg.

New Bridge to the U.S. is supported by the Joachim Herz Foundation and the Halle Foundation.

Der Beitrag New Bridge to the U.S.: Class of 2024 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

After opening remarks by Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke, Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT) delivered a speech and later engaged in a discussion with Mr. Gabriel. They discussed transatlantic friendship and the role of China. The U.S. is investing very fast in technologies to stop climate change, Murphy said. “For our friends in Germany, the IRA probably came too fast and took them by surprise.”

After the presentation of the Transatlantic Trust Survey (provided by Edelman and Allianz), which showed that mutual trust between Germany and America is declining (click here to read the survey) , Steven Sokol, CEO of the American Council on Germany, moderated a panel with Ines Pohl, Deutsche Welle, Majid Sattar, FAZ, and Allison Meakem, Foreign Policy, about the world in times of global elections. Ms. Pohl talked about her experience as a reporter and how she is appalled by the number of people who believe in fake news. “Lies in the media are the biggest threat to democracy in the U.S.,” she said.

The panel also agreed that foreign policy is a more important issue in this year’s election. “Economic factors are not decisive in the next election,” said Mr. Sattar. The U.S. economy is doing quite well, and by complaining about the economy, voters are just hiding their real motives for voting for Trump, the speakers stressed. These motives are anger, rage, and racism. “In this year’s election the Muslim population could be decisive,” Ms. Pohl added.

On day two, after a warm welcome from John B. Emerson, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany and now Chairman of the American Council on Germany, Julia Ioffe, Puck Media, Matt Gorman, Targeted Victory, and Jamieson Greer, King & Spalding, discussed with ZEIT-Reporter Kerstin Kohlenberg the political polarization in the US and their influence on the elections.

The panel with Phyllis Berry, National Intelligence Officer for Europe, Christian Gaebel, German Farmers’ Association, and Julian Müller-Kaler, Stimson Center, and Dr. Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University, discussed what’s to watch in this year’s European elections and the state elections in three Eastern German states. The vivid discussion was moderated by Claudia Kade, Die Welt.

Andreas Dombret, Oliver Wyman, Claudia Donzelmann, Allianz SE, Dr. Christof Ehrhart, Robert Bosch GmbH, and Dr. Inu Manak, Council on Foreign Relations, discussed global economic (in)Stability. The panel was moderated by Friederike von Tiesenhausen, Bloomberg LP.

Another topic at the German-American Conference was the divide over the Middle East. Julia Friedlander, CEO of Atlantik-Brücke, discussed with Bradley Bowman, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Norbert Röttgen, Member of the Bundestag (CDU), and Charles Kupchan, Council on Foreign Relations, the societal divide on support for Israel and the Gaza conflict.

Public Perceptions of the war in Ukraine were discussed with Evelyn Farkas, McCain Institute, Jovita Neliupšienė, EU Ambassador to the US, Deborah Düring, Member of the Bundestag (Green Party) and Terrell Jermaine Starr, founder and host of Black Diplomats.

We’re already looking forward to next year’s German-American Conference. See you there!

Der Beitrag The New Realities of Democracy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Bringing together a selected group of young Canadian and German participants, the group will convene for five days to exchange and engage on current and future challenges on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition, the delegation will attend the main German-Canadian Conference taking place in Berlin from May 12-13, 2024. Topics of discussion will include security policy and changing geopolitical realities, energy and the environment and technology’s impact on politics, the economy and society.

Format:

• Up to 10 participants (German, Canadian, gender-balanced)
• Delegates will be required to participate in five days of in-person program in Berlin, Germany:
  Arrival on Saturday May 11, 2024 / Departure on Wednesday May 15, 2024
• The program entails meetings and discussions with senior decision-makers, academics, and business leaders from various sectors; a cultural and social program are also planned (i.e. visits to museums, site visits and memorials)
• English will be the primary language used throughout
• Participants are invited to attend the annual German-Canadian Conference

Successful applicants will:

• Be Canadian or German citizens between the ages of 28 and 35
• Demonstrate leadership in their professional careers
• Show a strong interest in the German-Canadian partnership and in political, economic, and social issues
• Demonstrate willingness to contribute to the Atlantik-Brücke and Atlantik-Brücke Canada network
• Applicants can be from any sector including: business, government, media, military, non-profit, finance, academia or the arts
• Women and gender minorities, as well as people of all backgrounds are encouraged to apply to ensure a diversity of perspectives

Aim:

• To foster greater understanding of the German-Canadian relationship among the younger generations and to provide them an opportunity to make lasting transatlantic connections
• To learn first-hand about another country’s society, political institutions, history and culture
• To create a young German-Canadian alumni network
• To increase future leaders’ presence in the network of Atlantik-Brücke and Atlantik-Brücke Canada

 Costs:

Participants will receive fixed stipends to support flight/travel costs to Berlin, accommodation, and group meals. Logistical arrangements to/from the conference must be arranged by the individual. Incidentals are the responsibility of the participants.

Dates of Travel:

• Inbound flights to Berlin, Germany on Saturday, 11 May 2024; participants may arrive earlier at their own expense
• Outbound flights from Berlin, Germany on Wednesday, 15 May 2024; participants may extend the trip at their own expense

Applications:

Deadline for applications is March 3, 2024

To apply:

• Step 1: Complete the questions contained in the application form.
• Step 2: Upload your CV/résumé on the application form.
• NOTE: All résumés and short-answer question responses must be in English.

Notification:

Successful applicants will be notified by March 17, 2024.

Note: This program is contingent upon funding. The final number of participants will be determined by the level of financial support received for the program.

Contact:

Der Beitrag German-Canadian Young Atlantiks Program erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The Inflation Reduction Act has raised fears by trade partners of the U.S. around the world. What are the challenges, and how can German-Canadian synergies contribute to overcoming them? Will there, for instance, be more joint projects like the Cellcentric Fuel Cell Project in Burnaby?

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is of significant interest to Canada. The Government of Canada is diligently working to understand and manage its implications. Canada is committed to continuing to attract investments in the green economy, and has put in place targeted measures for this purpose, such as tax incentives designed to grow a number of industries and sectors in the green economy, including critical minerals, hydrogen and nuclear technologies, and zero‑emission vehicles. The Government has also committed approximately $20 billion over five years to the energy transition, which represents a significant investment considering Canada’s GDP is roughly one‑tenth of that of the United States.

Given our shared interests, there are no doubt many opportunities for further Canadian‑German cooperation […] in addressing the challenges and opportunities that have arisen as a result of the IRA.

Given our shared interests, there are no doubt many opportunities for further Canadian‑German cooperation to leverage the synergies of our respective economies in addressing the challenges and opportunities that have arisen as a result of the IRA.

For example, it is clear that our countries could explore potential opportunities for digital and emerging technology firms, which will strengthen bilateral digital cooperation and continue to drive innovation across industries in both Canada and Germany. For instance, Siemens Digital Industries Software has partnered with two leading Canadian incubators, ventureLAB and MaRS Discovery District, to support and accelerate the development of digital technologies.

Joint projects such as Cellcentric’s fuel cell development underscore how Canada’s value as an investment destination lies in our competencies, such as our long‑standing global leadership in hydrogen technologies. These projects take advantage of experience and expertise from both countries, which will help support the move toward climate neutrality on a broader scale. Canada would be supportive of more such projects in the future.

Which industrial transformation processes offer the greatest opportunity for German‑Canadian cooperation?

In the face of geopolitical instability and the global transition to a green economy, Canada’s industrial policy includes a focus on building strategic relationships—by leveraging existing ones and forging new partnerships or alliances—in key industrial sectors.

Regarding the green transition, the Canada‑Germany Hydrogen Alliance represents a significant milestone in Canada’s efforts to accelerate the international market rollout of green hydrogen. It sets the stage for new transatlantic cooperation and will help ensure that the infrastructure is in place to enable low‑carbon hydrogen exports from Canada to Germany in the coming years. Continuing to leverage this newly established process will offer the greatest opportunity for ongoing Canada‑Germany collaboration in a cleantech subsector.

Additionally, Canada is doubling down on investments that support national expertise in harnessing the digital revolution, underpinned by modern, fit‑for‑purpose rules for data privacy and artificial intelligence (AI) through a series of Canadian initiatives, including the National Quantum Strategy, the National Cyber Security Strategy, the Digital Charter, and the Digital Adoption Program.

Digital and emerging technologies have the potential to transform and lead to new innovations in all industrial sectors, and international collaboration is essential given the current geopolitical environment and competition to introduce cutting‑edge digital technologies to market.

For instance, AI systems have the capacity to radically change industrial processes. They have the clear potential to contribute to a greener future. However, while these systems have the potential to yield enormous benefits to society, experts have raised concerns about the unique risks associated with advanced AI systems in their rapid, large‑scale deployment. Collaboration with Germany and other like‑minded partners on the responsible development and careful deployment of advanced AI systems will ensure that the world reaps the benefits of the technology while mitigating potential risks.

How do we maintain self-sufficiency in strategic industry fields during times of global crisis? What role does friendshoring play in this context?

Laying the groundwork for self‑sufficiency in critical or strategic industrial fields during times of global crisis requires a multi‑faceted approach. While governments around the world have been looking inward and developing or reinforcing domestic capabilities, a key element of this approach will always be enhancing cooperation with allied partners to ensure mutual benefits.

Another crucial component of this approach is innovation, which is vital to resiliency and future long‑term global economic competitiveness. Companies of all sizes, non‑profit organizations, and academia can play an important role in building greater domestic self‑sufficiency by helping countries improve their ability to transform innovative ideas into commercial products. Increased ecosystem cooperation can help accelerate work to better prepare for future global economic shocks.

To succeed in the face of shifting geopolitical and economic contexts, Canada is taking a multi‑faceted approach that includes developing supply chains and value chains in strategic sectors such as life sciences and critical minerals, as well as ensuring greater cooperation with like‑minded trading partners such as Germany.

COVID‑19 reinforced the importance of innovation and significant breakthroughs in critical sectors such as health sciences and technology. The Government of Canada’s Biomanufacturing and Life Sciences Strategy aims to build resilience within this sector by developing a long‑term strategy to support the development of novel and disruptive health technologies, including domestic capacity to develop and produce vaccines and therapeutics. Likewise, the Canadian Critical Minerals Strategy reinforces the importance of building a strong critical minerals ecosystem. This strategy aims to create good jobs and a globally competitive Canadian economy, and it better positions Canada as a reliable supplier of critical minerals to our allies.

From a Canadian perspective, friendshoring strategies are being pursued for specific supply chains whose security and resiliency are critical for our future economic well‑being.

Friendshoring allows like-minded partners to diversify their supply chains by relocating them to countries with shared interests or values. This entails coordinating joint strategies to secure the supplies of critical inputs and technologies and create shared markets in support of net‑zero industries. From a Canadian perspective, friendshoring strategies are being pursued for specific supply chains whose security and resiliency are critical for our future economic well‑being. It is a gradual process, and we have started making the investments and changes necessary to achieve this goal.

Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to you and your colleagues for putting together another successful conference. Canada, Germany, and other countries around the world continue to grapple with the impacts of the COVID‑19 pandemic and Russia’s illegal war of aggression in Ukraine, and the discussions that took place on June 5 were important, relevant, and timely. I look forward to next year’s conference and continuing cooperation and collaboration with our German partners and Atlantik‑Brücke.

Simon Kennedy is the Canadian Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. Previously, he served as Deputy Minister of Health. Read his full bio here. 

Der Beitrag “There are many opportunities for German-Canadian cooperation” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In office since August 2021, Under Secretary Fernandez is responsible for the State Department’s bureaus and offices working on climate change, clean energy, health, and supply chain security. Under Secretary Fernandez is also the United States Alternate Governor to the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank. Prior to his appointment as Under Secretary, he was a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP in New York, where he focused on mergers, acquisitions, and finance in Europe and emerging markets.

What are the Biden administration’s economic diplomacy objectives?

We are focused on diplomatic outcomes that have a real effect for middle-class America. This means upholding and enhancing international standards that protect American workers. It also means ensuring our industries can compete on a level playing field in both established technologies and emerging technologies. That is why we see the Transatlantic partnership as vital to those objectives. We have a long-established history of cooperation and shared values. We have our disagreements, just as all friends and family have disagreements, but our systems are built on the same foundations and the same international order to doing business.

How can the United States and Europe best work together to fix supply chain issues and achieve less vulnerability in the future?

I think an important first step was the vision set forth in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI) for an open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure Internet and digital technologies around the world. With these common principles and practices in place, we can begin the work of implementing the early warning system across entire supply chains. We look forward to deepening our cooperation with the EU through this initiative.

Both Europe and the United States are wary of China, yet are far from developing an effective shared China strategy. In Davos, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte expressed many Europeans’ fears of Europe’s role vis à vis the US and China when he said: “Our [Europe’s] own policy should be, first of all, that we have the mindset that we want to be a player and not a playing field.” Are his worries unfounded? And what could be the first steps towards a common transatlantic approach to China?

I think it is the PRC — and not the United States — that looks to try and make Europe the playing field. We seek to work with Europe to support our shared values and defend the international rules-based order that we worked together to build. The PRC does not want to play by those standards. The PRC wants to change the international rules-based order in ways that favor it. It is the PRC that wants to drive a wedge between the U.S. and the PRC, thus leaving Europe in the middle and making it the playing field as Prime Minister Rutte called it. Cooperation is the first step to a common transatlantic approach. We are already doing that through the TTC and the U.S.-EU Dialogue on China. This is not the United States against the PRC. It is upholding our values and the international system we built against any entity that would seek to undermine them.

Der Beitrag „We are focused on diplomatic outcomes that have a real effect for middle-class America“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In a moving speech at Atlantik-Brücke, Dr. Amy Gutmann, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, addressed the continuing importance of transatlantic relations and, against the backdrop of the Ukraine war, emphasized the need to work together to protect democracy against attacks by its enemies. The diplomat, whose father was forced to flee Nazi Germany because of his Jewish heritage, also spoke about the deep personal meaning her role in Germany has for her: “I know my father would be immensely proud that his daughter returned in his stead as the U.S. Ambassador.”

Der Beitrag „The defense of democracy is the defining challenge of our time.“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The climate crisis was one of the most hotly contested issues in the German election campaign. While new climate targets have been set at the European level, President Biden has also prioritized the issue on the other side of the Atlantic and has already launched several climate initiatives. Time and again, there is also discussion about digitalization in climate protection. Climate and green tech are also on the agenda of the new EU-US Trade and Technology Council.

The discussion focuses on the role of the tech sector in climate protection and the panel speaks about the following questions: Where is the greatest potential in terms of energy efficiency, reusability and recycling, and how can the climate-damaging effects of digital technologies be reduced? What political measures can we expect after the German elections and, above all, how can innovative technologies strengthen transatlantic cooperation on climate protection?

The speakers are:

• Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke
• Bernhard Fauser, Managing Director Central Europe, HP
• Dr. Marc Schattenmann, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
• David Livingston, Senior Advisor, U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate
• Andrew Winston, Founder, Winston Eco-Strategies
• Moderator: Britta Weddeling, VP Head of Communications & External Affairs, Marvel Fusion

The event was held in cooperation with HP.

Der Beitrag Transatlantic Climate Change Policy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The virtual event entitled “Conversation on Relations between China and the West: A Perspective from Beijing” was held in cooperation with the Munich Security Conference as part of the MSC’s “Road to Munich” campaign.

The speakers were H.E. Wang Yi, State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China, Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke; Former Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Federal Republic of Germany, and Federica Mogherini, Rector, College of Europe; Former Vice President of the European Commission and High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, European Union.

The discussion was moderated by Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman, Munich Security Conference and Member of the Board of Atlantik-Brücke.

The discussion ranged from Europe’s relationship with China, the US’s role in that relationship, to the value of multilateralism.

Der Beitrag A Conversation on Relations between China and the West: A Perspective from Beijing erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Robin Fehrenbach

Scientists have predicted the outbreak of a pandemic for some time now. To be well prepared for such an outbreak, worldwide different initiatives are working at the intersection of genome research, biology, and artificial intelligence. One such initiative, the Human Vaccines Project (HVP), was initiated by Wayne Koff at Harvard University in 2016. Today, he is the president and CEO of the initiative that started out conducting research on HIV. Together with a global network of companies and research centers, Koff and his team are pursuing a visionary goal: “In the long-term, the Human Vaccines Project is looking to create a model of the human immune system, with the help of A.I.,” says Koff. Within a decade, he estimates, experts in the field of artificial intelligence will be able to create such a model.

In the long-term, the Human Vaccines Project is looking to create a model of the human immune system, with the help of A.I.[quoter]Wayne Koff[/quoter]

Another important actor in the worldwide fight against diseases is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The foundation that was established by the Microsoft founder and his wife had also warned against the outbreak of a worldwide epidemic, long before the outbreak of Sars-CoV-2. The foundation specializes in supporting the development of vaccines. The Gates Foundation supports Koff’s work at the HVP. Anja Langenbucher, the Foundation’s Europe Director, made a plea for multilateral cooperation. She argued that the COVID-pandemic “serves as a textbook example” of “a global problem that can only be solved globally.” The discussion was moderated by the former federal minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who is also affiliated with the Human Vaccines Project.

Sequencing has allowed us to more accurately develop the right diagnostic tools, but it has also guided the development of vaccines.[quoter]Anja Langenbucher[/quoter]

However, the work on genetic sequencing is not just needed to combat COVID-19. Treating and eradicating polio, malaria, and various types of cancer also relies on cutting-edge R&D and technological progress. “Sequencing has allowed us to more accurately develop the right diagnostic tools, but it has also guided the development of vaccines,” Langenbucher stated. The already known mutations of the coronavirus underscore the importance of understanding how the virus is transmitted and how it spreads. This is why geopolitics play a crucial role in the development of safe and effective vaccines. Without the exchange of knowledge and data across continents and without the joint use of research facilities, production sites, and storage capacities, understanding the spread of the virus is much more difficult. Especially developing nations in Africa should be provided with adequate supplies and resources – such as personal protective equipment, testing capabilities, and later on vaccines – to fight the virus.

Der Beitrag Research Strategies against Pandemics erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

As part of the virtual 2020 German-American Conference, Atlantik-Brücke and the American Council on Germany held a joint video discussion titled »Changing Demographics: Diversity in the United States and Germany«. The speakers were Prof. Dr. Petra Bendel, Professor of Political Science, Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, The Honorable Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, United States House of Representatives, Janet Murguia, President and CEO, UNIDOS, and Cem Oezdemir, MdB (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Deutscher Bundestag.

The discussion was moderated by Michael Werz, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, and Member of Atlantik-Brücke’s Board of Directors

The panel discussed the demographic shifts taking place in both Germany and the United States and the likely effects of such changes. The United States is likely to become a “majority-minority” country by the early 2040s, and German society is becoming increasingly diverse – with nearly a quarter of the population with a migration background – and also aging quickly. The panelists also debated how transatlantic relations can become more inclusive and how changing demographics demographic might help – or hinder – transatlantic cooperation.

Der Beitrag “Changing Demographics: Diversity in the United States and Germany” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Former US-Ambassador to the EU Anthony Luzzato Gardner presented insights from his latest book “Stars with Stripes: The Essential Partnership between the European Union and the United States.” He and Atlantik-Bruecke-Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, former Federal Minister and former Vice-Chancellor,  also discussed the current and future state of the relationship between the U.S. and the EU. The discussion was moderated by Sarah Kelly, Anchor-at-Large, DW News (Deutsche Welle).

This event was a cooperation between Atlantik-Brücke and ESMT Berlin, initiated by Alexandra Oetker.

Der Beitrag Will transatlantic relations improve after the US election? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

 COVID-19 is the first time in a century we have experienced the same problem as a planet. In the facing this problem, we can either join together or split apart. At the international level, collective action should begin with the transatlantic community. Our ties have long been a source of strength and innovation as the United States and Europe have navigated epochal changes in the past.

The urgent requirements of the pandemic must intensify and accelerate a joint U.S. and European commitment to exchanging ideas and developing technology for our common benefit and to advance our shared values. Yet I fear it could achieve the opposite.

The response to the pandemic – closing borders and shuttering economies – has strained many of the ties in the transatlantic community. Diverging decisions about how to employ and regulate technology for everything from contact tracing to countering misinformation about the virus could lock in lasting differences between Europeans and Americans.

Underlying technology tensions

It has been jarring to see the technology debate on both sides of the Atlantic shift from transatlantic to bloc and national rhetoric in terms of technology governance, industrial policy, and national security strategy over the past few years. The EU asserted it would restore its “technological sovereignty” and challenged the reach of tech companies in Europe. Its leaders touted a research cloud “being developed in Europe for Europe and for European researchers.” The United States, meanwhile, initiated a full-court press to convince Europeans not to accept Huwaiei’s 5G gear on security grounds, but many European states viewed the calculus between security and commercial interests differently. Perhaps this moment of crisis will galvanize a more collective transatlantic response. Crises tend to be great accelerators of technological innovation. Covid-19 is no exception.

Accelerated technology developments

Defeating the virus and reopening the world will depend on making sense of data and making risk-based assessments. At Schmidt Futures, a philanthropy I founded, we are convening more than 50 organizations in business, government, and philanthropy in seven working groups specifically to find and elevate new tech-based solutions to crisis response and rebuilding. We should grow this cooperation across the Atlantic.

Contact tracing

The pooling of transatlantic data on the virus paired with AI-based applications could help inform a strategy to restart transatlantic travel and some sectors of the economy. We have the technology to improve contact tracing, but employing it requires addressing legitimate concerns about privacy. Promising bluetooth-based contact tracing applications are being developed in Europe and the United States, including by Google and Apple. As transatlantic travel resumes, it will make little sense to have separate U.S. and European systems. We must use this experience to build the protocols and technologies to prepare the transatlantic community for any recurring waves of this virus and for the next biothreat.

Misinformation and tech’s responsibility

The pandemic has demonstrated once again that social media platforms can amplify disinformation and contribute to the further fracturing of the transatlantic community. Social media companies – scorned in recent years for their slow reaction to terrorist propaganda, Russian disinformation, and now pandemic conspiracies – will play a central role in the survival of the transatlantic world.

The infrastructure for tele-everything

We are living in the era of tele-everything, some of which will endure after social distancing is over. We need a fully connected population and ultrafast infrastructure. 19 million Americans do not have any access to the Internet and likewise for around ten percent of households in EU states. U.S. and European governments must make significant investments – perhaps as part of stimulus packages – to convert digital infrastructure to cloud and link it with 5G networks.

Cloud computing

Given that the data and problems will be focused on open research and solving big societal problems, could a consortium of U.S. and European research institutes combine their effort, merge their datasets, and share computing power? Ongoing U.S.-EU talks on cloud computing cooperation should be prioritized and draw from examples of European initiatives with Japan, Brazil, and South Korea.

A shared approach to China

A collective decision about the depth and nature of technology collaboration with China built on shared principles is in the interest of Europe and the United States, and ultimately China. U.S. and EU research institutions should learn from each other and adopt similar standards for handling risks from collaborations with Chinese partners. A recent Mercator study highlighted expanding Chinese R&D collaborations in Europe, some of which may raise tech transfer concerns that impact security and economic competitiveness. U.S. institutions have been dealing with similar concerns, and MIT and others have implemented heightened scrutiny measures. The same principle applies to investment screening. The EU adopted a foreign investment screening regulation foreign investment screening regulation in 2019 that member states are expected to implement by October 2020. Officials on each side of the Atlantic could learn from one another as European nations develop and enforce their screening measures.

Conclusion

We still have a choice of whether to allow the pandemic to intensify differences or bridge them. The United States and Europe share the same core principles – including commitments to individual liberty and privacy – even if they both continue to arrive at different policy and governance decisions about what that means for integrating technology into society and the economy.

The United States and Europe navigated past eras of global disruption – in 1945, 1989, and 2008 – and emerged with a stronger commitment to transatlantic integration and common values. We must make that the overriding objective for this crisis too. Responding to the pandemic, rebuilding the economy, and recommitting to shared values will reinvigorate the sense of purpose that the transatlantic community has collectively lost. It will prepare us for the next pandemic and plant the seeds for the rebirth of a wider world shaped and led by the West.

Dr. Eric Schmidt is the former CEO and executive chairman of Google.

This piece was originally published in Atlantik-Brücke’s annual report.

Der Beitrag Technology and Revitalization of the Transatlantic Community erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Roy and Barbara Goodman Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Relations, Harvard University, discussed the effect the current pandemic has on the relationship between Europe and the United States with Atlantik-Brücke-Chairman Sigmar Gabriel.

Both Sigmar Gabriel and Nicholas Burns agreed that it is natural for governments to turn inwards during a crisis and to care for the health and well-being of their respective population. However, this should not distract from the fact that this is a global health crisis, which will be followed by a global economic crisis. Hence a global effort is not just desirable, but necessary. Ambassador Burns emphasized the need for cooperation within the G20. Meanwhile, Mr. Gabriel pointed out that the developing world now sees China as its main partner in fighting the corona virus, a role that the emerging superpower is happy to assume.

Although it is not too late for the transatlantic partners to lead the global effort in overcoming this pandemic and the economic shock, the current US administration gives little reason for hope that it will change its course, and on the other side of the Atlantic, Europe seems to be struggling to come to terms with its own internal divisions and export bans that prevented medical equipment from reaching Italy when the pandemic.

The discussion was moderated by Atlantik-Brücke’s Executive Director David Deissner.

Der Beitrag Covid-19 and its implications for transatlantic relations erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What has been the biggest surprise to you so far in the presidential race?

Michael Werz: The fact that President Trump still has an approval rating among registered Republicans that ranges between 79% and 88%, as well as the fact that GOP leaders have fallen in line behind the President, even when he has flouted both Republican orthodoxy and constitutional norms.

Peter Rough: The biggest surprise for me is the utter failure of any Democrats who hadn’t previously run for president (or flirted with the prospect) to catch fire. Biden, Warren, and Sanders are clearly the big three and from them there is a steep drop-off to the rest of the field (Harris, O’Rourke, Gillibrand, etc.). Given the current flux in American politics, I expected a relatively unknown Barack Obama-like figure to emerge to run a new campaign with new ideas. Instead, the Democratic field feels a bit stale.

Which issues will ultimately decide the elections 2020?

MW: Health care, economic issues and environmental policy consistently rank among Americans’ top concerns, but in a broader sense the election will be answering the question of where Americans want to see their society a generation from now. For many, this will be the most consequential election since the Second World War—there will likely be record turnout. For many Trump supporters, they will vote because they feel their white privilege and economic advantages are being threatened. Those who oppose Trump will vote because they abhor his targeting of minority groups and fear what another four years of what Steve Bannon called the “deconstruction of the administrative state” might bring.

[related]

PR: There will be a mix of traditional issues which always decide elections, most importantly the economy. And then issues which Trump has made his own, like immigration and trade. There are some issues which have been heavily discussed in the Democratic primary – race relations and climate change come to mind – that are unlikely to be big topics in the general election. The majority of Americans are white and almost half are male; I can’t imagine villainizing them to be an effective general election strategy. Moreover, the economic costs of largescale climate intervention will probably deter the Democratic nominee from making that a premier issue in the general election. I also think neither side will wish to emphasize health care. For Trump, the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare is the biggest setback of his administration; for the Democrats, Obamacare is still something of a liability. So both sides are incentivized to mute this issue, despite all of the primary talk of “Medicare for All.” One thing I can guarantee, however: there are bound to be unforeseen issues we aren’t talking about now that will matter a great deal come next fall.

The increasing popularity of socialism – at least the American definition of it – is discussed a lot in the media. How do you assess the role of the far left in current politics? How important will it be in the elections?

MW: From a European perspective, this discussion must be quite entertaining. The self-declared democratic socialists in the Democratic Party argue for the right to study at a state university and not end up with massive student debt, for a health care system that leaves no American behind, for the reinstatement of previous regulation of the financial sector, and for meaningful action to address climate change. Angela Merkel and most of her CDU supporters would wholeheartedly embrace these policy positions and still reject the label of being a “socialist”. Ultimately, the current discussion here in the U.S. proves just how far the entire political spectrum—including the Democrats—has shifted since the Reagan era.

PR: The left is more powerful than at any time in recent memory in the Democratic party. This is where the energy lies and explains why presidential candidates have positioned themselves on the fringes. It is also something of a liability for Democrats in the general election. There is a reason why Trump targeted the so-called “squad” of left-wing congresswomen: his goal is to make them rather than Joe Biden the face of the Democratic Party. A hugely consequential dynamic will be the eventual Democratic nominee’s pivot from primary to general election candidate.

What effect has Donald Trump’s presidency had on the political debate leading up to the primaries?

MW: A mixed effect: He defines some of the policy responses because of his extreme positions on immigration, his denial of climate change, his continuing redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top of U.S. society. At the same time, many Americans realize that forty years of deregulation and the illegitimate war in Iraq have undermined America’s reputation with the rest of the world and created massive economic inequality at home. The President has attempted to answer these challenges by rewinding the clock to the 19^thcentury – complete with tariffs, robber barons, and modern-day Jim Crow legislation. But because he has so destroyed the old norms, many Americans are increasingly open to new ideas that might have previously been dismissed as outside the mainstream. This desire for outside-the-box solutions to 21^st century questions is one of the reasons why Elizabeth Warren’s campaign based on detailed, bold policy proposals has proved so popular.

PR: Trump’s presidency is everything. He commands the ship, so to speak. It’s antiquated to talk of a news cycle, but perhaps it’s best to say that he’s driving the media narrative in directions of his choosing. It isn’t always smooth sailing, but there’s no doubt that he’s the object of attention.

What are the president’s chances of being reelected?

MW: It’s unlikely that President Trump will be re-elected. Over the past two and a half years he has been unable (or unwilling) to expand his base beyond his core supporters. In addition, his confrontational behavior, open racism, and cozy relations with authoritarian leaders have alienated some moderate Republican voters in suburban and rural areas – the midterm elections last November showed that trend clearly. The cruel border and immigration policies implemented by his administration – as well as the racist diatribes – will also motivate minority voters (one-third of the U.S. population) and millennial voters (now the largest demographic group of voting age) to get more involved in the electoral process than ever before.

PR: The last time a president lost reelection was 1992, so I think his odds are slightly better than 50/50. In my view, the Democrats have not really absorbed the lessons of 2016. Their hope is that the American public is so exhausted by Trump that it decides to dump him. And if this election is purely a referendum on Trump, they may very well win; however, if Trump succeeds in making this a choice between blunt Trumpism and American socialism, then he probably wins.

After the Russian hacks in the 2016 presidential election: How big is the danger of interference with the 2020 elections?

MW: It’s a substantial risk that has been almost entirely ignored by the Trump administration. President Trump’s denial of any Russian involvement will surely be read by Moscow as an invitation to interfere once more – which is also true for upcoming national elections in Europe. However, it seems that the intelligence community is better prepared and more sensitized than in 2016. Ultimately, American society and policymakers have no option but to assume that the voting process is being executed with integrity. Any doubt about the legitimacy of the voting systems and count would only add fuel to already simmering discontent about the unfair advantages provided to the Republican party by the electoral college, gerrymandered districts, and legalized voter suppression of minorities. This growing sense of illegitimacy poses a serious long-term threat to one of the oldest democratic system on earth – a system currently led by a man who openly said he might contest the last presidential election if defeated.

PR: Given the changing nature of media, I suspect foreign meddling in elections will be a permanent feature of Western politics. I doubt it will play a decisive role and tip the vote one way or another. But it is important to deter such pernicious behavior to the extent possible. Such interference should not be cost-free.

Der Beitrag Two Takes on the Presidential Race erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Dr. Charles Kupchan regards the Midterm Elections as a referendum on President Trump’s tenure. The Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University also explains in the conversation shortly before the election why there is no political center on Capitol Hill anymore and why the system of checks and balances is in a deep crisis.

Dr. Kupchan, which regions and which groups of voters do you expect to be decisive regarding the House of Representatives?

The most important factor to keep an eye on is the turnout. It appears that the American public is very mobilized, especially after the mail bombs that were sent to leading Democrats and the shooting in the synagogue. President Trump is continuing to use quite heated and provocative language trying to get his base out. But it appears that this is also going to get the Democratic base out.

[related]The demographics to watch are first of all women. Will they turn out in large numbers? Will they tend to vote for the Democrats? Secondly, minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics will be important. One of the reasons why Hillary Clinton lost in her contest with Donald Trump was that she had a lower turnout among minorities than Barack Obama had. The key states to watch are the swing states, places like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These are reasonably large states with high numbers of elected representatives. Going by the poll numbers it looks like the Democrats will take back the House. But I am very gun-shy about making any predictions given how misguided the polls were in the last presidential elections.

Do you think there is one single, dominant topic like health care that might be decisive in the aforementioned swing states?

One distinction between the midterms and the presidential contest is that the Democratic Party has clearly decentralized its messages and lets Members of Congress run on their own. The Democratic Party – depending on what part of the country you are in – is a very ideologically disparate group. In some districts Democrats stand a good chance if they run on the far left, if they call for medical coverage for all and for free tuition to go to college. In other parts of the country a Democrat who runs on those messages would be going nowhere.

The Democrats should now and in view of 2020 focus on bread and butter issues. On the economy, on jobs, on training, on health care. Many Americans are tired of the cultural wars and identity issues. Even though these issues dominate social media as well as cable news networks, most Americans are primarily worried about their pocket book.

Many Americans are tired of the cultural wars and identity issues.

Even if you are gun-shy, it seems pretty likely that there could be a change in the House. Do you agree?

It is more likely than not. One would hope that the pollsters have learned from lessons and figured out what they did wrong in 2016. They should look at the right demographics when they do their surveys today. But given that FiveThirtyEight, the New York Times and others had Hillary Clinton close to a 90 percent likelihood of victory, I am not ready to say that this is a done deal. But this is an extremely important election. It may be the most important election in modern American history, because first of all it is a referendum on Donald Trump. It will give us a sense of what is going to happen in 2020. Secondly, the bottom line is that Trump has largely been able to govern in an unchecked fashion. The founding fathers created a compound republic, the separation of powers, the system of checks and balances. But there has been very little to stop him on many issues. If the Democrats do succeed in taking back the House, there will be a political check.

The bottom line is that Trump has largely been able to govern in an unchecked fashion.

Let us turn to the Senate. 35 seats are at stake, the Democrats would need just two more seats than now. Why is it still going to be a lot harder for them than in the House?

Part of it has to do with demographics. In addition to creating a system that is supposed to guarantee checks and balances, the founding fathers also gave a lot of power to the states by giving every state two senators, no matter the population of the state. Many states in the Plains or in the South that do not have nearly as many voters as large states like California, New York or Florida, nonetheless have the same representation in the Senate. In that respect, the vote of a Republican in North Dakota counts much more than the vote of a Democrat in Massachusetts. Even though the country as a whole may vote Democrat overall, that bias will not show up in the Senate because of the voting system. Also, there are simply not as many races where it looks like that the Democratic candidate has a good chance of unseating a Republican incumbent.

What would be the biggest change in Washington, if the Republicans kept the Senate and the Democrats won the House?

The most significant change would be reflected in the checks and balances. Although Trump can still do a lot without the approval of Congress when it comes to issues like the Paris Agreement or the Iran Nuclear Deal or pulling out of the INF Treaty.

You are likely to see a House that makes it very difficult for President Trump to govern on a day-to-day basis because of one inquiry after another into his finances, into the Russia investigation, into just about everything under the sun.

But you are likely to see a House that makes it very difficult for President Trump to govern on a day-to-day basis because of one inquiry after another into his finances, into the Russia investigation, into just about everything under the sun. It is conceivable to me that you could see a move to impeach the president, if the Democrats take the House. It is going to be pretty nasty. You are not likely to see any significant change in the underlying animosity that today typifies American politics. The Democrats won’t come in and say: Ok, let’s go back to bipartisanship, let’s go back to rules that give the minority more power. I cannot overstate the degree to which the United States is in an unrecognizable political mood because of how polarizing this president has been.

I cannot overstate the degree to which the United States is in an unrecognizable political mood because of how polarizing this president has been.

Let us look at a second scenario. Which are the most important legislative projects on the Republicans’ agenda for the next two years, if they keep the Senate and the House?

There would be a high likelihood of further tax reform and tax cuts. We would likely see further efforts to undo Obamacare. And we would likely see a president who becomes more and more convinced that he has the right formula. Over the last couple of years since he has been in office, Trump has believed more and more in himself, he is more comfortable in his own skin. If the Republicans were to hold the House and the Senate, Trump would see that as a sign that he should double down on ‘America First’. There could be new tariffs and a sharper unilateralism. In some ways Trump has proven to be more ideological than we thought at the beginning. This would only deepen if this midterm election is seen as a confirmation of his style of government and his substance.

Do you think the President’s tax issues and past business deals would case him problems if the Democrats won the House?

You would see a mess, a chaos, a Congress that is even more dysfunctional than it is now. The president enjoys legal immunity on most fronts while he is in office. My understanding is that even if he had committed fraud before he came into office, that could not be prosecuted until he leaves office. The only legal recourse that you could see is a move to impeach him, if the Democrats take the House. But that would have very significant consequences for the American political system. Quite honestly, I am not sure whether that would be a positive step from the perspective of the political health of the United States. If the Democrats do take the House, their best strategy is to ride out the next two years and hope to take the presidency back in 2020.

If the Democrats do take the House, their best strategy is to ride out the next two years and hope to take the presidency back in 2020.

How severe is the crisis of the deliberative process regarding the legislative record in 2017 of declining debates carried out in the House and declining amendments considered in the Senate?

It is important to appreciate that Trump is a symptom as well as a cause. He reflects a trend in the political life that began in 1994 when the Republicans took back the House while Bill Clinton was president. That really is the beginning of what I would call the death of America’s political center. It is a process that is taking place in Germany right now. Although your political center is weakening, it is not yet depopulated. The American political center does not exist on Capitol Hill. It exists in the public, there are still many centrist Democrats and centrist Republicans. That is why you have seen these big swings in the pendulum from George W. Bush to Barack Obama, and then from Barack Obama to Donald Trump. You don’t know who will come next. It may be a centrist Democrat who looks a lot more like pre-Trump than post-Trump. But it is important to realize that whoever the president is, he or she will be working in a political system in which the political center is effectively gone. I see the Republican Party in particular as being overtaken by an angry insurgency on the far right that is not going to be repaired for a very long time.

The American political center does not exist on Capitol Hill.

Do you see any Democrat in the midterm races who might be that person to beat Trump in 2020 combining the two factors of mobilizing enough on the left and of winning enough in the rest of the political center?

I cannot give you a name. And I find that concerning. It is completely conceivable that the Democrats could take the House and that Trump could win the reelection in 2020. It is much easier for the Democrats to run when they don’t need a national figure or a national message. Once we get into the presidential campaign, and this is going to happen very quickly after the midterm elections, we are looking for a figure that can unify the party and can articulate a clear message that resonates with voters across the political spectrum. I would like to see someone like Joe Biden although he is on the older end of the spectrum. He is someone who can appeal to the white working class but at the same time can reach out to liberals and younger voters. It is important to keep in mind that almost 45 percent of the American electorate is white without a college education.

It is completely conceivable that the Democrats could take the House and that Trump could win the reelection in 2020.

Donald Trump’s approval ratings have increased lately; they are currently at 43 percent. How big are his chances to stay in office for eight years?

I would put the number below fifty percent, but not much under fifty percent. This is a theological statement and not based upon evidence and facts. It is theological in the sense that Trump is outside of the mainstream for many Americans. I hope that the American people will come back to their senses and vote for someone who is more fit to be in the Oval Office.

At the end, I would like you to complete the following sentences. Number one: after a very competitive race, out of the 23 seats the Democrats need to pick up in the House, they will …

… end up picking up more than 30 seats.

Number two: next year, Special Counsel Robert Mueller will eventually …

… set forth the finding of his investigations. More heads will roll, more indictments will be forthcoming. But it is anybody’s guess whether Mr. Mueller will get into the higher reaches of the presidency including Mr. Trump himself.

And number three: the future of the transatlantic relationship will, after all the recent challenges, …

… be up for grabs. I am an Atlanticist. Europe and the US don’t have any option other than to stay together. I hope, that the Europeans in general give the United States time to find its way back to partnership. I don’t know how long it will take, but it will happen. In the meantime, please do your best to prevent Europe from falling apart.

In the meantime, please do your best to prevent Europe from falling apart.

Der Beitrag “The most important election in modern American history” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

General Philip Breedlove would welcome “Germany’s recapitalization and retraining of its military forces.” In our interview, the former Commander of the United States European Command and NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) calls for a higher readiness of the whole Western alliance to cope with massive and complex threats. You can read an edited version of our podcast “Atlantik-Brücke On The Record” with General Breedlove below. The podcast was produced on the occasion of a discussion on the future of NATO, hosted by Atlantik-Brücke.

General Breedlove, how would you describe NATO’s current situation?

Our alliance is strong and it continues to be an important and successful alliance. However, I would also note that we are facing challenges now that are tough and we haven’t really faced some of these challenges in a long time. They force us to take a look at ourselves and to say: Are we ready for the threats that we see out there today? That is the biggest challenge to NATO.

What are the most pressing internal challenges which the Alliance is facing at the moment?

[related]Our current challenges began when the Russians invaded Crimea and the Donbass. A lot of attention again began to be paid to this neighbor to the North and East that was threatening Ukraine. Many of the former Soviet Warsaw Pact nations felt threatened again. There was a very strong focus on the fact that Russia was not going to be a partner but might actually once again be an opponent. At the same time, we were seeing massive migration problems in the South emanating from Northern Africa and from the civil war in Syria where Bashar al-Assad was murdering his people. Large numbers of people began to flee Syria.

One of those really tough internal problems in NATO is that we had a division in worry, a division in concern in that we saw this belligerent Russia to the East and the North, and we saw this very tough societal problem of immigration being caused by problems in Syria and Northern Africa. NATO had to come to grips with it. At one point, we created the ‘Strategic Direction East’ and ‘Strategic Direction South’ to label these internal problems. One of the biggest internal concerns is that NATO has to be able to address all of the challenges to its nations.

One of those really tough internal problems in NATO is that we had a division in worry, a division in concern in that we saw this belligerent Russia to the East and the North, and we saw this very tough societal problem of immigration being caused by problems in Syria and Northern Africa.

What are other severe external threats which NATO has to cope with?

There are other threats that may emanate from the same places, but they are different kind of threats. Clearly, the cyber threat that we face today is different than two decades ago. Cyber is a tool that is being used in everyday conflicts. We are having issues in cyber with our opponent to the East every day. These sets of old tools that many label hybrid war – Mr. Gerasimov (the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia; remark of Atlantik-Brücke) calling it ‘indirect means and asymmetric methods’ – are being used in a new way.

What worries you most?

Our nations are under a lot of pressure to address societal challenges and the policy solutions battle for the same budget that must be used to ensure that the militaries of NATO are ready to carry out the missions that they must accomplish. As the SACEUR it was clear to me that the readiness of our militaries in NATO was not adequate. It was not appropriate to the task that we saw from a resurgent and recalcitrant Russia. We need to address the readiness and recapitalization of our militaries.

As the SACEUR it was clear to me that the readiness of our militaries in NATO was not adequate. It was not appropriate to the task that we saw from a resurgent and recalcitrant Russia.

Being the former SACEUR and being equipped with the knowledge of your 39 years lasting military career, how do you assess the military exercise “Vostok 18” that was carried out by roughly 300.000 Russian soldiers as to the security of the NATO area?

First and foremost we should not be alarmed that Russia is exercising. We exercise. It is every nation’s right to exercise. The issue is that we must exercise responsibly. It is important that we are transparent in what we are doing, how long we are doing it, where we are doing it, who we are doing it with. Things that NATO advertises every day about its exercises. Vostok is an exercise towards the East. What worried me more as the SACEUR were the Zapad exercises. Those were the exercises done in the West. They were rarely open and transparent.

First and foremost we should not be alarmed that Russia is exercising. We exercise. It is every nation’s right to exercise. The issue is that we must exercise responsibly.

Do we witness the entering into a Russian-Sino phase at least on a military level when analyzing the participation of 3.000 Chinese soldiers in “Vostok 18”?

We should not be surprised. We as the West have issues working with Russia. We also have issues working with China. Geostrategically, why would we not expect them to possibly message us by collaborating? We also need to sit back and understand that the Russians have issues with the Chinese and the Chinese have issues with the Russians. It is not appropriate to overdramatize and to draw any major geostrategic conclusions from them exercising together.

Would you recommend any adaptations to NATO regarding its general strategy for the European security architecture?

We have been through two decades of fighting counter-insurgency and we have lost our focus on large scale war fighting operations. We do not have a focus yet on the size of operations that article 5 would require. We need to regain our ability through training and exercises. We need to regain our ability to understand how to command and control large formations against a dedicated opponent.

We need to regain our ability through training and exercises. We need to regain our ability to understand how to command and control large formations against a dedicated opponent.

Do you show understanding for Germany’s foreign and security policy that has not reached NATO’s 2-percent-goal yet?

I am not going to pretend to criticize or advise Germany. But the young Captain Breedlove who served during the Cold War here in Europe eight times and in Germany five times experienced that the Bundeswehr and the Luftwaffe of the Cold War was an incredibly capable military force. It was a leader on the European landmass. It is important for Germany to lead in NATO on the European landmass. I am not saying this at the exclusion of other large countries. But I would like to see that Germany’s recapitalization and retraining of its military forces show that leadership in NATO.

What role will NATO be playing in transatlantic security policy in ten years’ time?

The same role it played for the last seventy years. NATO is not perfect and it hasn’t kept perfect peace here in Europe. We have had some issues that we had to work through. But what NATO has done, is to prevent the kind of wars that ravaged Europe multiple times. NATO will continue to do that. NATO is a very capable and very important alliance. The mission that it has had for the last seventy years will be important for the next seventy years.

Der Beitrag “It is important for Germany to lead in NATO on the European landmass” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Dr. Ailish Campbell is Canada’s Chief Trade Commissioner and assesses the outcomes one year after CETA’s implementation: 99 percent of the Canadian-European Free Trade Agreement have already come into force, and the exchange of goods has already been stimulated noticeably. Campbell also explains in the conversation what is at stake in the final phase of the NAFTA renegotiations with the United States. Read in the following a shortened version of our Transatlantic Call with Dr. Campbell.

Dr. Campbell, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union is generally regarded as one of the most progressive, fair, and ambitious Free Trade Agreements at least of the last few years. CETA has provisionally entered into force on September 21 of 2017. Since then one year has passed. Can you tell us how the ratification process is making progress?

I am very pleased to say that 99 per cent of CETA on a trade-weighted value perspective have come into force. These are the elements that are under Commission authority on your side and which here in Canada are clearly under federal jurisdiction. The agreement now also requires ratification in member states.

Which economic successes in trade and investments can already be seen from CETA?

I would note that exports from both the EU and more specifically from Germany to Canada are up to 7.8 percent. This is only merchandise export of goods. We are also awaiting annual services data. Here in Canada trade is also up overall to the European Union including up 7 percent to Germany. The idea, though, that we should only look at what we are exporting to one another as if that is the measure of the agreement, does not provide a full picture. You may recall that there is someone else who is very focused only on the trade balance.

You are referring to U.S. President Donald Trump.

[related]Correct. We have to look at our two-way foreign direct investments, our innovation collaboration, our collaboration on the environment including the implementation of the Paris agreement. Student exchanges and a very rich history between Canada and Europe are also included in the full picture not only in the sense that a good portion of Canadians are of European descent. But also in the sense of continuing to do fantastic innovation together including clean cities and mobility. CETA is just one element of our long and enduring relation and collaboration. We should also take a more holistic view of our economic and social linkages.

The agreement is particularly progressive in terms of labor rights and environmental protection. Quite frankly, it is a masterpiece of negotiation led by Chrystia Freeland, now Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and the former Minister of International Trade. Does CETA have a positive impact on other negotiations of free trade agreements?

We hope so. Certainly, we have used aspects of the CETA negotiations in our work on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) specifically looking at issues related to the environment as well as labor. As you are seeing NAFTA being renegotiated we long had labor and environmental chapters there. We would like to see those become more robust. We also proposed a chapter on gender and on indigenous first nations’ trade in NAFTA as well. We will only see as these negotiations conclude what is in the final agreement. You have hit on a really important point. It is very simply this that our values are very well aligned between Germany and Canada, in particular the high protection of labor.

Our values are very well aligned between Germany and Canada, in particular the high protection of labor.

In the Mexico-U.S. negotiations on NAFTA our general position was: Please negotiate whatever you want into the highest standard. Because Canada continues to have the highest all-in wage compensation for workers. We continue to have the most robust public health care system. We are far more like Europe and various models particularly France and the UK than the US on health care.

The original North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA which was ratified in 1994 is being renegotiated between the USA, Canada and Mexico. Can you tell us in which phase the negotiation is at the moment?

Today my Minister, Chrystia Freeland, is flying into Washington. The negotiations continue. We have modernized NAFTA twelve times before. New issues come to the forefront, some of those are in CETA: Everything from e-commerce to improved services standards to trade in data and digital as well as improved environmental protection. All of these things are certainly on the agenda for us. We have an offer to the US that is under ongoing negotiations right now. Prime Minister Trudeau has been quite clear publicly about where some of the tougher areas are. Those include access to our dairy industry and issues around our cultural exemption which we maintain to particularly guard French language rights in Quebec and the ability to produce our own national content. A third issue would be chapter 19 which concerns the settlement of disputes. Minister Freeland has been very active with her counterpart Robert Lighthizer. In fact, the CETA negotiator Steve Verheul is our chief negotiator for NAFTA as well, and Steve is excellent. So, we are very well prepared. Certainly, we want to see a deal that works for all three parties, Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Certainly, we want to see a deal that works for all three parties, Canada, Mexico and the United States.

Do you think the deadline that has been communicated, October 1^st, is realistic?

We are working hard. I certainly hope that our American friends will see the value in what we have tabled as our proposals.

After the U.S. government decided to pull out of the completed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between the United States and eleven further nations in the Pacific Rim, the agreement was ratified as the now so-called CPTPP by the remaining group of states including Canada. How does CETA combined with CPTPP place Canada in a strategic position for Canadian companies and foreign direct investment?

It is very clear: Canada is not the United States of America right now, it never has been, and it never will be. One of the key factors for us right now that makes us very different from the United States is our openness to the rest of the world. Our position is that we want to be the gateway on our east coast and across the country of course to CETA, to NAFTA and an effective agreement with the Americas. We are also negotiating with the Pacific Alliance in South America as well as Mercosur. We concluded the CPTPP because we find it very important to set high standards and rules including the engagement of our state and enterprises in the market economies with Asian partners.

We concluded the CPTPP because we find it very important to set high standards and rules including the engagement of our state and enterprises in the market economies with Asian partners.

Having a deal with Japan, we felt has tremendous value. It is an incredibly wealthy and important G7 country but also one that shares our values in protecting the environment and consumers. So, locking in that deal, it is very important to set standards that influence supply chains. This is the kind of deal which we hope will be open over time after ratification of the initial group of members to other countries. We will also continue to watch what goes on with the UK and Brexit depending on their decisions. We just had Liam Fox, the UK Minister for International Trade, here. We have said that if and when those exit negotiations conclude, we would also conclude a free trade agreement with the UK.

In general, as a country of 37 million people, this gives us access to over 1.2 billion consumers in the world’s richest markets: the EU, the US, Mexico, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the other TPP members.

Would you recommend CETA as a role model for the United Kingdom and its future relationship to the EU?

Maybe you have seen this illustration from the European Commission trying to tell the United Kingdom how much it would lose in terms of influence by leaving the European Union. For example, it showed AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Area) and other relationships including CETA. The Canada-EU deal was portrayed as a series of many steps. It is not a membership with the EU, we don’t have a fiscal arrangement, the Common Agricultural Policy, and Schengen. The fact that the UK never joined the Monetary Union is another important aspect. CETA is absolutely a model for the UK. But that will be up to the UK government to decide what it is pursuing. I was joking with my UK counterparts who were here: That if they copy the agreement, we should probably charge them a license fee.

CETA is absolutely a model for the UK. But that will be up to the UK government to decide what it is pursuing. I was joking with my UK counterparts who were here: That if they copy the agreement, we should probably charge them a license fee.

Free trade agreements are complicated treaties full of technical details. The bigger picture of it however symbolizes openness and cooperation in a globalized world. Does free trade have the potential to offer opposition to the trend of protectionism and isolationism around the world?

I definitively subscribe to the trade theory of peace which is that it is harder for countries that are more open and integrated to go to war with one another, that they instead see what they have in common. That has to be joined, though, with ongoing dialogue on a host of other issues. We are not just our economies, we are societies. It requires conversations on human rights. There is so much we have in common with the European Union and Germany. Having lived in the European Union and being also a EU citizen – I have an Irish passport –, I know the importance of the European Union to Germany from a social perspective and also the concerns of Germany from a financial fiscal perspective. Canada has worked very collaboratively with Germany at the G7 and G20 on fiscal consolidation. An important part of this is the very clear reporting of overall deficit and debt levels between municipal, state, federal and supranational levels. We continue to be a fiscally very responsible partner.

We are not just our economies, we are societies.

There is such a rich set of dialogues going on. It is important that we don’t put all of this on trade. I personally don’t think that trade agreements can deliver everything, like integration. If globalization is only about trade, it will fail. If globalization is also about how we take care of each other and how we take care of the environment, including elements like development aid and helping other countries to develop a rule of law and an independent judiciary, to train police and military police, then it will work.

If globalization is only about trade, it will fail.

There are different styles of interaction with the current U.S. administration on the international level. We have seen the German chancellor Merkel dealing with President Trump in a typically sober manner, and the French President Macron being very charming at first. In comparison, the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau used more direct and maybe strict words after the unpleasant sequel of this year’s G7 summit in Quebec. To what extent has this approach altered Canada’s way of negotiating with the Trump administration?

Canada has a very simple philosophy which is that the United States first of all continues to be very important to Canada and always will be. It is our largest neighbor. Millions of Canadians share if not passports then family and business connections. The United States is of course the office of the President, it is also Congress, it is also Governors of states. They are incredibly powerful in the US system. For example, in ratifying the Paris Climate Change Agreement and supporting the members of that agreement we have reached out to the very active state and city level: In New York with both Governor Cuomo and the Mayor, in California with both the Governor and the Mayor of San Francisco. Canada will continue to pursue a multi-level strategy when it comes to engage the United States. Our British traditions in one sense will keep us very focused. There is an old British saying: Keep calm and carry on. We know who we are. We know what our values are. We are a multilingual, multiracial society that is very open to the world. That is challenging and requires constant dialogue with our citizens. It doesn’t mean we are immune to any of the problems with racism that exist in the world. The Prime Minister’s commitment to inclusion of women and of LGBTQ citizens and to the environment has been very well presented and will be continued by Prime Minister Trudeau whom I have the pleasure of serving.

There is an old British saying: Keep calm and carry on. We know who we are. We know what our values are. We are a multilingual, multiracial society that is very open to the world.

Der Beitrag “One of the key factors is our openness to the world” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We have some of our oldest businesses outside the United States here in Europe. We launched in Germany and the UK in 1998 and in France in 2000. Germany is, with over 16,000 employees, our second largest country after the United States.

We are a tech company and we are proud of that, because tech enables everything we do. But we are different from other tech companies, because we establish a physical presence and we hire thousands of people in the countries we do business. We are really integrated into the fabric of those countries. Something people even in the United States often do not know, is that at least half of what you see—and in Germany even more than half—is not Amazon, but third-party sellers. Tens of thousands of those sellers are European sellers. We are giving tools and services and empowering start-ups and small and medium-sized businesses, so that they then hire more people in order to have a great downstream impact on the economy.[related]

I am optimistic about Amazon’s future. We are here to stay and we tailor our markets to every country, not only operating in the native language, but also making sure that we provide the kind of customer service that people expect.

So, hearts and minds?

Yes, hearts and minds. It sounds like a cliché and before I went in, I might have thought it was, but it is actually true. It is customer obsession which is the driving idea behind Amazon. Every time we think about a new idea, we think about what the customer wants and how we get there. We work backwards from there. This sort of obsessive focus on the customers serves us really well, because customer trust and loyalty is really important. So we explain what we are doing and hopefully customers will like it.

To follow up on the trust question, what exactly is Amazon doing to alleviate some of the concerns that exist around Artificial Intelligence?

I think this is a great question, because Artificial Intelligence is a major part of what will drive technological innovation in the coming years and decades. Machine learning and computer vision are aspects of technology that hold great promise for making peoples’ lives easier and more convenient, and also providing services that not too long ago, we could not even have dreamed of.

But we understand that, as a company that is doing research and development on A.I. and machine learning and using it in our businesses, we need to help educate folks in terms of its impact on jobs and privacy. Everywhere we do business, we engage with local authorities and experts to make sure that they know that privacy is of paramount concern for us. Our Echo devices, which we have here in Germany with “Alexa”, have all kinds of safeguards built into them. These ensure that customers can find out everything that is sent to the cloud and are able to erase everything at any time they want to—either a single thing or the whole collection of interactions they may have had. You know, the Alexa devices have analogue microphones. Unlike your phone or most of modern technology, it cannot be tampered with through software—it has to be tampered with in person, which makes it much safer and more secure. So we are constantly looking for ways to enhance security and safety and also explain the benefits of technology that we use.

Interview: Ana Ramic

Der Beitrag “Privacy is of paramount concern to us” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

October 8 to 13, 2017

Over the course of six days, the Atlantik-Brücke delegation traveled to the United States and met with a diverse group of politicians, CEOs, journalists, academics, and others, in Charlotte, North Carolina and Washington, DC, the nation’s capital.

Each year, a group of the organization’s members undertakes this journey to gain new insights and to strengthen the links between Germany and the United States. With a new administration in place that has new priorities,  it is even more important to persist in creating dialogue. And each year, the delegates visit Washington as well as one other American city, to get beyond the beltway bubble. This year, the group traveled to Charlotte because of its strong trade ties to Germany, as well as to experience “the new South.” This term was originally coined by the journalist Henry W. Grady and characterized the new beginning for the economy of the South after the civil war and the end of slavery. In the meantime, the term has come to refer to successful economic growth in the American South, which is also promoted by innovative technologies.

Hope for the Transatlantic Relationship

“This president was elected to be disruptive,” is a sentiment echoed multiple times over the course of the week the group spent in the US. It became obvious that there is a major battle going on within the country. President Donald Trump’s attitude reflects some of the most negative ideas in American political thinking: isolationism, populism, nativism. Similar trends can be seen in Europe right now. What is unique in the US is that President Trump is acting as an independent president – independent from the party lines and positions which puts off many within his own party. The fact that many government positions have not yet been filled makes cooperation with transatlantic partners difficult.

“This president was elected to be disruptive,” is a sentiment echoed multiple times over the course of the week the group spent in the US.

And this is dangerous. Multiple government security officials noted that states with a different view of international order than the West are becoming more powerful (read Russia and China). For the American security apparatus, they see German leadership in multilateral organizations as greatly appreciated, and would like to see more of it in Central and Eastern Europe. On an “America First” note, it was pointed out that Americans “are spending as much as 3.5% of their annual salary on other countries’ security. Germany, as one of the most prosperous countries in the world must step up its own efforts.”

Despite these tensions, the relationship between the two countries remains a vital one at many levels: individual, corporate, political, administrative. Congressman Robert Pittenger (R), the US Representative for North Carolina’s 9^th Congressional District, assured that “We love Germany. Don’t believe the media, they are not our friends.” Several high-ranking members of government noted that “nothing has actually changed. Connections are as strong as ever.” As a consolation it was repeated that the “administration is still working itself out” and that partners should not be discouraged from interacting because the behind-the-scenes work remains the same as always. It seems that those who actually carry out the work do not share President Trump’s negative opinion of working with Germany. As Ambassador Daniel Fried of the Atlantic Council pointed out, “actual US foreign policy under President Trump is in fact picking up where the Obama administration was headed in its final months.”

Trade: Leave the Washington, DC Bubble

Frances Burwell, Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council and an expert on TTIP, foreign policy and transatlantic relations, warned that “not only is the government rhetoric on trade bad, but so are the policies themselves, under this president.”

The completion of TTIP, as the group heard often, is unlikely. “TTIP Light,” an edited version of the agreement which focuses on shared standards and other regulatory questions rather than import taxes, may be possible.

There is a “big push for protectionism combined with a lack of historical sense in the highest levels of the administration,” weighing heavy on long-standing partnerships. The completion of TTIP, as the group heard often, is unlikely. “TTIP Light,” an edited version of the agreement which focuses on shared standards and other regulatory questions rather than import taxes, may be possible. But as Congressman Pittenger noted, “the president prefers independent trade agreements” which would of course fundamentally alter the premise of TTIP.

NAFTA is another matter of great concern, particularly for the Canadians. The question on the table is whether there will be an exit from NAFTA, or just a renegotiation. There are no clear answers yet. In both cases – TTIP and NAFTA – the conditions for renegotiation certainly aren’t favorable. As the motto goes, “Buy American, Hire American.” Wilbur Ross, US Secretary of Commerce, however, has shown openness to join the conversation on how TTIP can be renegotiated. He is aware of the relevance of free trade for the US economy.

[related] In the end, a form of encouragement came from those who counsel against the fixation on Donald Trump. In reaching out to politicians, civil society representatives, universities, and innovators from across the country, one can find partners and allies outside of the Washington bubble. This is exactly what became obvious during the visit to Charlotte, where one notices firsthand the effect of German businesses in the region: Siemens Energy, Daimler Trucks North America, Groninger, Bosch Rexroth, Schaeffler Group USA Inc, and 200 others, including 59 US headquarters. This makes Germany the most largely represented foreign country in the region. With daily nonstop flights to Frankfurt and Munich and an active German community, the partnership between Charlotte and Germany is thriving.

The city’s outgoing Mayor, Jennifer Roberts, presented the city’s historic links with Germany – the city was named after Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz – but also its international nature. 18% of the city’s population is foreign-born, and the city boasts 1000 foreign companies, 200 of which have headquarters in Germany. 17% of the labor force of the city is foreign born, according to John Silvia, the chief economist of Wells Fargo, American international banking and financial services holding company. He also noted that nationally, foreign-born workers have accounted for half the growth in the labor supply over the past decade. Despite the unfavorable policies concerning foreign-born individuals living in the United States, Silvia hopes that “business is resilient, even with the fluctuation in politics.”

Preparing for Work in the Future Economy

In various meetings with the National Association of Manufacturers, the Central Piedmont Community College and its vocational training program, and the software startup Tresata, the need for change in educating a future workforce – both in the US and Germany – was very clear. Vocational training programs have been among the most successful exchanges between the two countries. The German vocational training model is well-known, but has lately been further improved by various programs in the US, some of whom have even surpassed their German counterparts.

Former and current US administrations have emphasized the need to fill the skills gap. President Trump in his meeting with Chancellor Merkel in March 2017 was joined by company representatives from the US and Germany and several young apprentices. This clearly shows that there is common ground and a common goal to advance alternative training options to fill the skills gap and offer a real opportunity for young people.

A highlight of the trip was a visit to Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) in Charlotte, which currently serves 70,000 students. 20% of those students are in the College and Career Readiness Program, which offers a variety of programs to prepare students for their working careers. CPCC has offered manufacturing apprenticeships since 1995. A four-year program that guarantees a job at the end that emulates the German vocational education and training (VET) system and is primarily used by German companies located in Charlotte. To graduates, IHK Karlsruhe offers certificates of completion for equivalency in competence for automation and CNC machining, and there are student/apprentice exchanges to Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Crailsheim, and Gaggenau. Fourteen CPCC faculty are trained in Berlin at the Siemens Technik Akademie, and there are ongoing facilitator and administrator visits and courses in Germany.

Kevin Poet, director of operations at the Siemens Charlotte Energy Hub, noted that Siemens Energy has a workforce of 1,550 employees and more than one million square feet of space under one roof. It has become the largest manufacturer in Charlotte, and the third largest among the 250+ energy companies based in Charlotte. To develop a trained labor force to operate the new Siemens plant, the company began a partnership with CPCC to develop a mechatronics apprenticeship program, in 2011. By introducing the German apprenticeship model to the US, Siemens has been able to train its Charlotte workforce successfully.

Conclusion

The 2017 members trip to the United States has proven the need for regular exchange between the US and Germany. In a time of uncertainty, it is more important than ever to reach out to those outside of the government bubbles in both countries, and create long-lasting relationships. This has especially seemed to be the case when it comes to preparing future generations to succeed in a new economy. The presence of German companies, individuals, and organizations in the United States greatly benefits the regions they are in, and the same is true vice versa. There is a great need now for a strong commitment to the relationship between the two countries, with a hope that it will continue into the future.

Der Beitrag The “New South”, New Skills, and Old Alliances erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Richard von Weizsäcker is an honorary member of Atlantik-Brücke and presented Eric Warburg, the namesake of the prize, with the award in 1988.

Guests that attended the ceremony included President of the German Bundestag Dr. Norbert Lammert, Chairman of the American Council on Germany Robert M. Kimmitt, Federal Minister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble, representatives of the Warburg family, and Former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who was awarded the Eric M. Warburg prize in 2012.

Der Beitrag Award Ceremony for the Eric-M.-Warburg-Prize honoring Dr. Richard von Weizsäcker erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On the first day, John O’Farrell, partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a company specializing in venture capital, revealed the seven secrets to success in the Bay Area. One of the central infrastructural prerequisites contemporary founders are able to draw on is the long tradition of successful tech-innovations in the area, which began with the founding of Hewlett-Packard seven decades ago. The universities located in the Bay Area are an essential success factor, as well, given the fact that they do not only produce excellent developers but also promote entrepreneurial spirit. The large number of start-ups located in the area play an important role, too: they foster mutual support and inspiration. Large companies such as Google and Facebook do not only serve as role models but are also “targets” of the smaller start-ups, which are much more flexible in their operations. Venture capital firms located in Silicon Valley are a financial source for the funding of brilliant ideas, and the Bay Area’s high standard of living attracts the best tech talents. Offering a comparison to the gold-rush of 1849, O’Farrell also emphasized the appetite for risk-taking shaping the Valley.

The delegations meetings with SV Angel‘s Robert Pollak and eVentures’ Mathias Schillingfurther emphasized that venture capital relies on different strategies when it comes to investments in promising start-ups. Personal contact to the founders plays an important role for all venture capitalists, but statistical analyses of successful business strategies also matter. In the end, however, good fortune plays a key role in success as well.

Tom Gillis, founder of the cloud computing company Bracket, does not only embody risk-taking propensity but also the willingness to overcome failure. Gillis talked to our delegation about the failure of his first venture and the tenacity it took to successfully build his current company. Former employees of Palantir founded the start-up BlendLabs and offered our delegation insights into how this young company is planning to simplify the application process for mortgages for both customers/clients and banks. A visit to BlendLabs’ office spaces revealed a lot about the everyday work of a young tech-company: a ping-pong table and a great variety of snacks were an integral part of the office equipment. The Airbnb headquarters offered a large variety of food and drink choices for their employees, as well, and creativity played a central role in the decoration and creation of the headquarter’s office spaces. During their visit, the delegation learned more about Airbnb’s business model, a platform for listing and booking accommodations with more than 2 million listings worldwide.

Maria Amundson of the communications and marketing company Edelman shed light on the downside of the tech boom in San Francisco: The high demand for housing has caused rents to skyrocket (the average monthly costs for a 1-bedroom-apartment are $3.500), and many of employees earning average wages are no longer able to afford living in the city. While the tech-founders donate large sums, these tend to benefit small groups with very particular/niche interests only.

The delegation trip’s itinerary also included a visit to the heart of Silicon Valley. The delegation visited the Facebook campus located in Menlo Park. Kevin Quirk talked about an initiative aiming at expanding internet access in areas without fiber optic cables, namely by using drones connected by laser beams. Kahina van Dyke further elaborated on another ambitious undertaking Facebook is pursuing: a peer-to-peer payment feature on the platform/Messenger. The delegation was able to observe the young founders at work at Plug & Play in Sunnyvale. A panel with German “Expatriates” offered insights into the factors pulling German founders into the Silicon Valley (apart from the quality of life, the proximity to American business partners is an important aspect) as well as an explanation of why Germany has not yet been able to create its own Silicon Valley (flexibility, openness for cooperation and a greater willingness to take risks). Arwed Niestroj, the head of the Mercedes Benz Research and Development in Sunnyvale, highlighted that well-established companies such as Mercedes benefit from the creativity in the Valley. Especially “automated driving” is an important topic for car manufacturers.

The delegation’s visit to a vineyard and Napa Valley and a ferry ride to Sausalito offered our participants a glimpse into why so many young tech talents move to the Bay Area: a beautiful landscape and Mediterranean climate.

Der Beitrag Delegation Trip to San Francisco and Silicon Valley erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

During their short, yet intensive stay in Germany the teachers got to know high-ranking leaders from politics, economics or the media and visited various schools, companies and institutions. Especially the group from Texas was grateful to escape the heat at home and enjoy the gentle temperatures in Germany during summer.

Thanks to the hospitality of Atlantik-Brücke members who opened the doors of their homes, the teachers enjoyed intimate atmospheres for open exchanges with invited speakers. This year, our member Dr. Sebastian Muschter and his wife Pamela invited the teachers to their home in Eltville. After the welcome by Patrick Kunkel, mayor of Eltville, and his wife Eva-Maria, the group took a walk through Eltville’s famous rosarium and enjoyed a wine tasting in the cozy backyard of the Muschter family.

In Berlin, the teachers were invited for dinner at the house of Atlantik-Brücke member Dr. Kurt Schwarz. During the dinner, Karsten Uhlmann, CEO of the Frankfurter Brauhaus GmbH and member of the Atlantik-Brücke, shared his experiences and memories of his youth in the GDR. At another private dinner invitation in Cologne, organized by our member Martin Wilhelm and his wife Kathy, U.S. Consul General Stephen Hubler talked openly about current challenges for the transatlantic relationship – mainly the NSA-affair – but also elaborated on the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Mr. Hubler also discussed possibilities for strengthening trust in the transatlantic relationship again.

Sandra Dieckman, a long-time German and Spanish teacher at Denton High School in Texas, summarized her experience with the personal contact to our members and guests-speakers as follows: “This was the best experience I have had in Germany. The assortment of people and topic fields was so diverse that I feel that every corner of my Germany picture has begun to fill in. Making the personal connection and simply being able to ask questions without judgment was invaluable.”

One of the core elements of the study trip is to familiarize the American teachers with the German school system. In order to be able to contrast the German with the U.S. school system, the teachers visited various schools and got to know teachers and students during several discussions. This year, the group visited the Paul-Hindemith comprehensive school in Frankfurt. The school’s principal Matthew George is especially committed to the integration of all cultural backgrounds and school forms. In Bonn the group visited the Clara-Schumann-Gymnasium and learned about the school’s approach of how to combine language teaching with history lessons. During a visit of the Bildungswerk Kreuzberg, the teachers learned more about the German concept of the dual education system. Beth Burau, German teacher at Bishop Lynach high School, Dallas, Texas, described the influence of the school visits on her own teaching as follows: „The Atlantik-Brücke Study Trip experience will be an instrumental influence on my teaching. Not only will I be able to share the facts, history, and story of Germany with my students, but I will now be able to fully immerse my Texan students (as much as possible) in the modern German culture. Stereotypes will continue to be dismantled and the significance and importance of the German / American relationship will be examined.”

A further topic on the agenda of journey was a visit at the WDR in Cologne. Here, the group discussed freedom of the press in the German media system – especially in comparison to the USA. In Cologne, the teachers also visited the Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft. Dr. Hans-Peter Fröhlich, Deputy Director, spoke on current economic developments in Europe, answered questions about the German labor markets. He also gave an overview on the hotly debated plans for aTransatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). At the European Central Bank, Christine Graeff, Director of the Department of Communication&Language, elaborated on the development of the Euro and the European banking system.

In Bonn, the teachers visited the Deutsche Post / DHL and were introduced to the company over lunch by Christopher Wade, team leader of internal communications. Wade, an American himself, also shared personal insights about his experience of cultural differences between the U.S. and Germany – for example that mowing the lawn on a Sunday is prohibited in Germany. While having a joint breakfast at Microsoft Ventures Accelerator in Berlin, the teachers gained insights about the German Start-Up scene and had a discussion with Shelley McKinley, Member of the Managing Board, Assistant General Counsel and Head of Legal and Corporate Affairs at Microsoft Deutschland GmbH. Afterwards the teachers participated in a discussion with members of the German parliament. Christian Hirte (CDU), Lars Klingbeil (SPD), Stefan Liebich (Die Linke) and Manuel Sarrazin (Bündnis 90 / Die Grünen) discussed the German political system, the transatlantic relationship and the current challenges it faces. The teachers were impressed that the politicians got along so well – in spite of their different party affiliations.

During their time in Berlin, the teachers also confronted Germany’s past. The group visited the Sachsenhausen memorial and learned more about National Socialism and the division of Berlin at the Berlin Wall Memorial.

Suzy Holland, German teacher at the Earl Warren High School, San Antonio, Texas, summarized her overall impression of the study trip as follows:„ I am honored that I was chosen to participate and get to know some very fine human beings. This far outweighs any nationality. I am hopeful for our future as I see what kind of people are working for mutual understanding here in Germany.”

Der Beitrag Study Trip for Social Studies Teachers 2014 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The 2015 program was offered in close cooperation with the office of Congressman Charlie Dent (R – PA) who also supported the selection process of the teachers. This year the regional focus lay exclusively on Pennsylvania. All teachers were expected to have several years of professional teaching experience in a relevant subject. Atlantik-Bruecke was looking for candidates that showed a genuine interest in cultural exchange and could demonstrate how they plan to utilize this experience for the benefit of their students and fellow teachers. Thorough preparation of the materials provided by Atlantik-Bruecke was expected of each candidate. Eventually ten women and five men were selected to come to Germany.

The study trip took place from the 14th to the 21st of June 2015 and led the fifteen teachers all across Germany to the cities of Stuttgart, Dresden, Leipzig and Berlin. During this intense week the teachers met German students, historians, high-ranking political leaders as well as the heads of some of Germany’s most exceptional businesses.
A number of Atlantik-Bruecke members invited the group to their homes for conversations and discussions in a more private setting. Among them were Harald Leibrecht, President, Board of Directors of the CEPA Foundation, Ingersheim and Karsten Uhlmann, Atlantik-Bruecke member of the board and CEO of Frankfurter Brauhaus GmbH, Frankfurt an der Oder. Harald Leibrecht and his family welcomed the group to a BBQ at the family’s historic castle Schloss Ingersheim. Karsten Uhlmann took the teachers on a tour through the Feldschlößchen brewery and spoke of his upbringing in the GDR over dinner.

In Berlin, the group visited the German Bundestag and met with Atlantik-Bruecke members Andreas Lämmel, MdB (Christian Democrats) and Stefan Liebich, MdB (The Left Party). Andreas Lämmel and Stefan Liebich discussed the current political issues in Germany with the group and shared their views on the crisis in Greece. The teachers were positively surprised by the level of transparency and comradery among the leadership. Afterwards the group headed to the foreign ministry for a joint lunch with Jürgen Hardt, MdB (Christian Democrats), Coordinator of Transatlantic Cooperation. Mr. Hardt, an Atlantik-Bruecke member, spoke of Germany’s global role and gave insights to the conflict in the Ukraine as well as current challenges for the transatlantic relationship.

At the United States European Command Headquarters (EUCOM) in Stuttgart, Ambassador Patrick Moon welcomed the group for a briefing, explained the deep and successful military ties between the United States and Germany and put them into a historical and contemporary perspective.

In Stuttgart, Minister Alexander Bonde (The Greens/Alliance ‘90), Ministry of Rural Affairs and Consumer Protection Baden-Württemberg, met the group for a joint lunch. Minister Bonde talked about the differences in consumer protection between the EU and the United States, thereby illustrating some of the challenges of successfully negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

One core element of the study trip and naturally of great interest to the teachers is the German educational system. The teachers visited the renowned Friedrich-Schiller-Gymnasium near Stuttgart and joined the children in their classrooms. In Dresden, the group visited the Berufsschulzentrum für Elektrotechnik Dresden (Vocational School) and got to experience and understand the German dual educational system. In both institutions the group had engaged exchanges with the students and their teachers and in some cases even decided to become pen pals.

Another important element of the trip is to experience the German business world. This began with a meeting at the Daimler AG headquarters with the department of external affairs. Here, the group received insights to the concerns, potentials and overall global strategy for the company’s Mercedes brand cars. At Bell Flavors & Fragrances in Leipzig, American-born CEO Michael Heinz introduced the teachers to some of the origins of well-known scents and tastes in the food industry and spoke of his experiences as an American living in Germany.

In Berlin, Launch Manager Martin Bell of Rocket Internet SE introduced the group the local start-up scene. Afterwards the teachers visited the office of Atlantik-Bruecke for an Energy-Talk with Atlantik-Bruecke member Dr. Wolfgang Dierker, Director Government Affairs & Policy, General Electric Germany, Berlin, Dr. Joachim Lang, Head of Berlin Office, E.ON AG and Marie-Christine von Hahn, Head of Group Representative Office Berlin, Aurubis AG. The discussion revolved around Germany’s energy mix, energy related policies and the public’s concern regarding fracking. Coming from Pennsylvania, the teachers were very informed and interested on the experts’ opinions on fracking technology.

At the ARD Berlin studio (German television), TV correspondent Arnd Henze explained the functioning of German public broadcasting and shared his views on current political issues and the role that the German media should play with respect to coverage.

Naturally the teachers were also keen to broaden their understanding of German history. The group visited the Sachsenhausen Memorial and experienced firsthand the darkest chapter of Germany’s past. A guided tour of the Berlin Wall Memorial illustrated the former division of Berlin, explained the geopolitical reasons behind it and gave insights to life in the GDR.

Andrew Hull, an economics teacher from the Palmyra Area High School in Palmyra, PA, acknowledged in his thank-you letter: “When I was younger, I was told that the world is only as big as a person can see. Through this trip, you have opened my eyes in a way that words cannot properly articulate. I am forever grateful for Atlantik-Bruecke coming into my life and for being accepted into the program.” Rick Hadley, a German teacher from the Kutztown Area Middle School in Kutztown, PA, summarized his overall experience as follows: “I was absolutely blown away by this experience! Meeting with policy makers, business men and educators first-hand is the best thing that has ever happened for my profes-sional career and students back home…” German Teacher Kristi Szabo, from the Parkland High School in Allentown, PA, concluded: “I think the program is fantastic! What I found most useful were the speakers who spoke about current topics and opinions in Germany. This is what I try and teach in my classroom.”

Der Beitrag Study Trip for Social Studies Teachers 2015 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Charlie Dent has been a member of the House since January 2005.

»Link to the biography of Charlie Dent

Marc Veasey has been a member of the House since 2013.

»Link to the biography of Marc Veasey

The event was held in cooperation with Haus & Grund Frankfurt am Main.

Der Beitrag Lunch Discussion with two members of the U.S. House of Representatives erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

According to Schulz, there is no other political area where claims are further from the true reality than in the European foreign policy. The Arab Spring, the crises in Lybia and Syria, and even dealings with China and other regions of growth show that the European states are often simply overwhelmed by the strategic challenges they have to face.

Schulz went on to state that in the reality of the 21st Century, the interests of the European states are better secured by the transfer of sovereignity to the European level. This “abdication of power”, as the convinced European would say, “will be returned to us as a gain in strength in the globalised world.” The loss of governing ability of the nationstate has already become obvious in many areas; by 2050, Germany will not qualify as a G8-state according to today’s standards. “Germany is too small for a world without Europe,” Schulz says.

The fatal mistake that European decision-makers make again and again is to position themselves against the EU in favor of domestic politics of their own countries, thus undermining European institutions’ credibility and capacity to act: “European achievements are nationalizied and failures europeanized.”

“We could be so strong, but we are so weak”, stated the President of the EU Parliament. However, Schulz believes that the European project still has enormous appeal and great potential to serve as an example for other regions in the world. If Europe wants to have global impact and influence, it will have to create a real European government with a strong European parliament.

Der Beitrag The EU Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Visions, Ambitions, Realities erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The panel agreed that the relationship between Europe and the USA is good – Europe and the USA are still the most important partners to one another. Still, the partnership shouldn’t be seen as self-evident. It is always necessary to explore ways how both sides can master new challenges together. An important project in this context is the planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It provides a wonderful opportunity for the transatlantic partners to prove their common leadership, by establishing global code of competition. At the same time, TTIP enables both sides to raise their gross domestic product.

The coping with the economic and financial crisis in Europe was mentioned as one of the challenges to the transatlantic partnership. Since Europe and the USA are also important economic partners, this is a topic that affects both sides.

Another big topic of the debate was the cooperation in the NATO, especially the distribution of financial and material responsibilities. The USA presently has 70% of the NATO budget, the European States 30%. The speakers were in agreement that the unequal distribution is not a good basis for a partnership on equal footing.

The division of responsibilities in the common security policy was also discussed. If the USA takes over tasks in which the European partners don’t involve themselves, then these must take matters in and around Europe in their own hands. But the war-weariness, which resides in the people of the nations which participated in the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, was also addressed. It was questioned, whether a military intervention would be sensible in every event of a crisis. Furthermore, the panelists discussed that also within Europe there are different priorities for military operations – which became clear through the disagreement about a military operation in the Central African Republic.

During the discussion with the invited guests, the surveillance methods of the National Security Agency and the ongoing conversations about a No-Spy Agreement, the role of parliaments in the legitimization of military operations, and the perspectives for pooling and sharing within the NATO were addressed.

Der Beitrag “Mapping Out Security Policy Strategies for the Transatlantic Partnership” – Discussion with Distinguished Security Advisors erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Against this backdrop and in anticipation of rising energy prices, greater independence was an important objective of Germany’s energy transition (»Energiewende«), according to Gabriel. This major project of the German government not only included a complete phase-out of nuclear power, but also aimed to reduce the volume of oil and gas imports. In addition, it emphasized energy efficiency measures and their significant potential for cutting energy demand. Yet, the Minister underlined, complete energy independence was unrealistic in a globalized economy. Diversification was the better strategy to avoid supply shortages. His recommendation for the EU was to build an internal energy market. Supply security could not be achieved on a national level, he stressed; it rather necessitated a Europeanization – and partly and internationalization – of energy policy.

The following debate was moderated by Matthias Naß, international correspondent of the German weekly Die Zeit. It addressed the question how North America’s current energy boom will affect transatlantic relations. Gabriel emphasized that close cooperation between Europe and the United States was needed more than ever given multiple crises around the globe.

Der Beitrag “Geostrategic Implications of Energy (In)Dependence” – Keynote Speech by Sigmar Gabriel erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Erlanger, who is currently the London bureau chief for the New York Times and previously worked as bureau chief in Paris, Jerusalem, Berlin and Prague, warned about a possible rift between the United States and Germany regarding their foreign and-/security policy and analyzed current challenges for the transatlantic partners.

Erlanger started his presentation with a comparison between the current situation and that of the summer of 2002. When former German Chancellor Schröder refused to send German troops to Iraq, Erlanger felt a significant and painful split between Germany and the US “My fear is that we are again close to another split if we are not very careful,” Erlanger said. The most important task at hand for both nations, Erlanger stated, is to develop a joint strategy on how to deal with Russia. Erlanger criticized Germany for claiming to be an authority on the interpretation of Russian motives and intentions, based simply on its geographical closeness to Russia. Erlanger stressed that Germany should instead try to achieve a joint assessment of the situation together with the United States. Erlanger also argued for putting fears of an escalation of the crisis in Ukraine in perspective – he deemed an armed conflict between the West and Russia highly unlikely.
Erlanger emphasized that Germany remained one of the most important allies for the US and noted Germany’s leading role within the EU. However, Erlanger pointed out that Germany was still reluctant to take on the role of Hegemon within the EU – a reluctance that is met with bewilderment on part of the United States.

According to Erlanger, a greater German commitment to foreign and security policy is desirable. This commitment, according to Erlanger, would not have to take the form of active military involvement, but could also consist of financial contributions to security measures. The topic of the Euro crisis was debated, as well. Erlanger emphasized the essential importance of economic stability of the EU for the US. He criticized that there had been no open discussion in Germany about a Greek exit of the monetary union until very recently. Especially in the light of the Ukraine crisis the transatlantic partners needed to understand that president Putin is pursuing the goal of undermining trust in Western institutions and structures. Thus, it would not be surprising if Putin tried to gain influence in Greece.
Following Erlanger’s speech a lively discussion ensued. Among other topics, the NSA affair was debated. Erlanger seconded the point of view of the audience that the NSA affair and the testimony of Edward Snowden in the past were not helping German-American cooperation in the area of foreign policy. Nevertheless, Erlanger called for a more cool-headed discussion. While German disappointment because of the US’ secret service’s actions was understandable, Erlanger stated that it should not undermine transatlantic cooperation.

Possible solutions for the Ukraine crisis were also discussed. Erlanger stressed that from now on a lot would depend on the people of Ukraine. He was not sure, he added, whether it was for the West to come up with proposals for the future of Ukraine. Erlanger characterized the overall situation as very difficult, making the implementation of an easy solution impossible.

Der Beitrag “Are We Losing One Another?” Talk by Steven Erlanger erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag Jeb Bush visits Atlantik-Brücke erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag Talk with former World Bank President Zoellick erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Link to the speech by U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter

Link to the speech by the German Federal Minister of Defense Dr. Ursula von der Leyen

Der Beitrag Carter: The Cold War play book is outdated erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The experts agreed that it is important to proceed with caution in regards to security policy in the fundamental and core documents of the German Federal Government. Goals should – when possible – be set in harmony and be proportionate with the resources and capabilities of the German Bundeswehr. The participants also recommended that it would be prudent to take into consideration whether a mechanism for verifying and, if need be, updating the fundamental security policy documents would enable a swifter, more effective response to developments in crises and conflicts. In this regard, perhaps a recommendation of the Commission for Verifying and Securing Parliamentary Rights in Regards to the Bundeswehr’s Foreign Deployment Mandates (In German: Kommission zur Überprüfung und Sicherung der Parlamentsrechte bei der Mandatierung von Auslandseinsätzen der Bundeswehr), under the leadership of former Defense Minister Volker Rühe, could serve as a starting point: the German Federal Government should document yearly which international alliances it is involved in and what specific obligations arise from them.

Dependable and active engagement

Germany’s partners and allies want to see the German Federal Government dependably and actively engaged in international politics, particularly in questions of security and defense. Germany’s increased geopolitical responsibility is reflected in these expectations. The fact that Germany’s identity within the security realm is still being shaped and realized, is yet another incentive for its active participation in influencing future decisions and for it to provide support in the implementation phases.

It is possible that majority rule as opposed to consensus decision-making would aid the institutions and states involved in the European Union’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) to improve their capacity for quick and decisive reactions in times of ever-increasing global insecurity. As the refugee crisis has demonstrated, the immediacy and time-sensitive nature of the crisis has challenged and compelled EU member states to coordinate political negotiations. Majority decision-making pertaining to the crisis has served as a litmus test for the states’ capacity to proactively respond in crisis situations. The participants in the expert discussions expressed that it is plausible that Germany will be an important contributor to strengthening Europe from the center outwards. More concretely, this means working on a larger scale and in cooperation with institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), African Union, or the Arab League to not only utilize effective defense policy, but also in order to fulfill its responsibility to the global community. Furthermore, collaborative development work, especially in the German Federal Government, should focus primarily on integrating education policy and security policy. The international transfer of responsibility must be executed within the guidelines of a comprehensive, holistic concept and not be restricted to the military dimension.

In the view of several participants of the discussion round, the German Federal Government is not alone despite its changing international role, especially in the European Union which is its immediate geographic and political sphere of influence. In particular, if the EU-States implement the Pooling and Sharing concept seriously and consistently, it would not only enable for the joint financing of technical devices and armament as well as their coordinated usage, but it would also help to alleviate the individual burden on states for educating and training soldiers and other military personnel. Other than the general expectation of increased efficiency, many experts also anticipate an estimated savings in the tens of billions. Through the successful pilot projects in cooperation with Poland and the Netherlands, Germany has already contributed to further cooperation and consolidation of European integration in the area of defense policy.

Protection of freedom

Three possible dependencies and corresponding goals were another focus of the discussion’s participants: firstly, the high degree of exchange in free trade and of investments between European states; secondly, peace and security; and thirdly, the stability of their democratic systems. The moral imperative to protect freedom itself emerges from these considerations. The experts recommended to select and shape the proceeding action plan in such a way that it will not become obsolete in light of inevitable changes to international security policy.

The strategy must be robustly planned and represented, in order to allow for flexible and adaptable security policy reactions even on short-notice. Certain premature considerations in regards to potential missions could prove to be a hindrance for some defined objectives, for instance if the White Paper working group was to describe and define no-go areas in which Germany should not engage in. The developments in the Ukraine conflict as well as the threats of the terrorist organization IS in Iraq, Syria, and Libya have made it abundantly clear how difficult it is to foresee – even drastic – political changes. New security developments can also lead to redefined priorities; however, on the meta-level, the constant must remain that German Federal Government’s defense policy imposes restraint and remains primarily defensive as opposed to starkly offensive. This also belongs to a pragmatic view of Germany’s new responsibility in global policy.

Der Beitrag Germany’s New Responsibilities in Global Policy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag ”Strong Europe”: Talk with Lt. General Hodges, Commanding General, US Army Europe erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag 1000 guests follow U.S. presidential elections erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“Thank you, Tom Buhrow.  And Friedrich, once again thank you for that warm welcome.  And I say “once again” because, in addition to the many times you and I have worked together and shared podiums over the past three and a half years, you and the members of the Atlantik Brücke were the first to officially welcome the Emerson family to Berlin back in August of 2013.  I remember that very vividly.  And I must say, it was a little intimidating to come into that tent, filled with so many of Germany’s luminaries, waiting to take the measure of the new Ambassador.  But you all made us feel so welcome, and quickly put us at ease.

We have become dear friends with so many of you who are here tonight. And in particular, I want to thank you for inviting many of my colleagues from Mission Germany, with whom I have had the honor of working.

And so, it is an understatement to say that this occasion is truly bittersweet; because in 36 hours, before the President-elect takes the oath of office, the Emerson family will board a plane and return to our home in Los Angeles.  Tonight is our official farewell to you, and to the people of Germany.

On behalf of Kimberly and our entire family, I would like to thank all of you for your friendship and your support over the course of our time here.  Serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany has been the honor of my life; and it has been an enormous privilege for each and every one of us.

Our three girls have been a significant part of our presence here in Germany.  Taylor and Hayley finished high school and then took a gap year in Berlin, before beginning their freshman year at Washington University, St. Louis.  During their three years in Germany, they were able to further develop their soccer and musical skills (as some of you saw last week on MorgenMagazin) – and found many new friends on the Fussballfeld, on the stage, and in their various gap year internships.

In the fall of 2013 Jackie, our oldest daughter, started her freshman year at Stanford University, just a month after I arrived as a “freshman” Ambassador.  Last year she was able to do a semester abroad at Stanford’s Berlin campus, and she has spent most of her vacations here in Germany.  All three girls are missing their first week back at school so they can be here for our final goodbyes; and when they heard we had purchased an apartment in Berlin, they cried tears of joy.

As a board member of Human Rights Watch, as well as proving that with the Emersons, Germany got two Ambassadors for the price of one, Kimberly became deeply engaged in Germany’s humanitarian, arts, and entrepreneurial communities.  As the refugee crisis unfolded, she worked proactively to help.  And Kimberly has built so many close friendships here in Germany that we could not leave without getting that apartment!

As several of you have noted tonight, our time here has been anything but uneventful.  We have often worked together on many of the challenges Germany and the United States faced over the past three and a half years, most of which were not even on the radar screen when I was nominated for this job in the spring of 2013.  Consider the following: the NSA disclosures;  the civil war in Syria; the brutality of ISIL and the metastasizing of terrorism into Europe; the Russian incursion into Ukraine, its illegal annexation of Crimea, and NATO’s collective response to Russian aggression; the resilience of the Taliban in Afghanistan; Ebola; the Greek financial crisis; Brexit; the loud, vocal opposition to T-TIP in the one European country that will benefit most from that agreement; the demise of “safe harbor” and the damage that posed to inter-company data transfers; the threat to our governments, our economies, our societies, and our politics of increasingly sophisticated cyber-attacks by both state and non-state perpetrators; and the greatest movement of refugees through Europe since the end of the Second World War.

The extent of Germany’s engagement on these issues has been remarkable.  I remember vividly my first Tag der Deutschen Einheit back in 2013, and President Gauck’s eloquent speech,   in which he urged Germany to become more engaged globally.  And he spoke about trust, thanking Germany’s friends and partners for their steadfast belief that one day this country would be re-united, respected worldwide for its vibrant and stable democracy, and its economic strength.  This morning I was privileged to attend his farewell speech, and he built upon many of those same themes.

During the seminal and critical early post-war years, the transatlantic partnership was born out of a trust that was defined and nurtured by the members of newly-formed organizations such as the Atlantik-Brücke and the American Council on Germany.  Both were designed to promote reconciliation and understanding between Germans and Americans, and to build connections so that people could not only follow, but understand, developments in both countries.  Over the decades, transatlantic partners have invested heavily in this relationship, and strengthened their trust.

And to that point, let me unequivocally state that the European Project, which has long had, and continues to have, bipartisan support in the United States, is one of the great success stories of world history.  When Europe and the EU prosper, so too does the United States.  And if some in the incoming Administration do not understand that now, I am hopeful that in time they will.

Well, as it turned out; trust became a major theme of my Ambassadorship, and a challenge as well.  As noted, tonight serves as a bookend to my introductory speech to this organization, when I acknowledged   a “very large elephant in the room” – the disclosures about the NSA.  And from day one, my main priority was to re-build the trust between our countries that had been so badly shaken.

At that time, cooperation between our intelligence services was seen in a very negative light.  To put it bluntly, the whole concept of intelligence, and its relationship to law enforcement, was radioactive.  From the beginning, I stressed the need to reform; but to do so in a way that did not jeopardize one of the fundamental responsibilities of our governments: the protection of our citizens. Well, President Obama implemented important reforms.  And the tragic re-appearance of terrorists in Europe underscored that we have to take necessary steps to obtain and share information within Germany, within Europe, and between the U.S. and Europe, for the purpose of disrupting, and ultimately stopping them.

The reality is we live in an era where non-state actors and metastasized terrorist groups, having gone to school on how our intelligence services operate, thanks to highly publicized hacked and leaked information, have become very adept at using evolving technology to recruit, train, plan, and carry out their attacks.

Accordingly, it is essential that we continue working together to stay one step ahead of them.  The good news, as I look back over the last three and a half years, is that we have never worked together more cooperatively or effectively than we are today.

And yet, to be sure, in today’s world there is no such thing as 100 percent security.  The attack last month in the heart of a traditional Christmas market, nestled around the Gedächtniskirche, brought home to us once again the threat of violent extremism in our societies.  Nevertheless, in the face of such horrific violence, it is even more important that we hold fast to our values, and not allow acts of terror to incite xenophobic resentment or subvert our way of life.  I have been so moved by the manner in which Berliners came together throughout the holiday season, undeterred by this terrible tragedy, in solidarity and in strength.

Now I know that this attack, and others before it, has added to the ongoing debate regarding Germany’s decision not to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis on its borders in the summer of 2015.  Yes, there are likely some terrorists who came in to Germany through the refugee trail.  But make no mistake: the vast majority of individuals who have been committing these terrible acts in Europe are home grown.  And the idea that by somehow closing all its internal borders to those seeking refuge, Europe could eliminate acts of terrorism; or the related assumption that those bent on inflicting harm cannot otherwise find their way into Europe, is preposterous.

The course that Chancellor Merkel has charted, while difficult and challenging, is a demonstration of moral leadership, in a world where that is far too rare.  It is a course that, as President Obama said in Berlin last November, gives voice to the principles that bring people together, rather than divide them; something that is very much in the long term national security interests of both of our countries.

Chancellor Merkel and Aussenminister Steinmeier describe the German-American relationship as a cornerstone of their country’s foreign policy.  And from an American perspective, there are few other countries that project the same resolve, capability – and trust – on the world stage as Germany.  Our partnership is indispensable.  And in these complex times, a certain amount of predictability will be important as we go forward, which brings me to the topic that is, of course, on everyone’s mind: what will be the priorities of the new Administration, especially as it relates to Europe and to Germany?   Let me share a few thoughts.

First, in terms of foreign policy, it is no secret that there may well be some significant differences between the incoming and outgoing presidential Administrations: attitudes about climate change, immigration, Russian aggression, the Mid-East,  the Iran Nuclear Deal, and the role of multilateral institutions, to name a few.

Possible changes in our relationship with Russia have been in the news quite a bit these past few days.  President Obama has always believed it is important to have a good working relationship with Russia – that is clearly in all of our interests.  But having a strong relationship with another country does not preclude standing up for our values.  And after the lessons of the past century, we need to send a clear message to powerful nations that the unilateral re-drawing of boundary lines of adjacent weaker countries cannot and will not be tolerated; and neither will attempts to manipulate the electoral processes of sovereign nations.

The international community needs to stand up when this happens; there need to be consequences; they cannot be allowed to simply fade away because maintaining them seems to be inconvenient, politically awkward, or because someone says something nice about you.  And  as we saw during last week’s Senate confirmation hearings, many members of the United States Congress strongly believe this as well.

More broadly speaking, President-elect Trump campaigned on a foreign policy platform that was much more isolationist in nature than the long held bipartisan consensus in administrations going all the way back to President Truman and the Marshall Plan; yet many of the challenges we face are not ones that America or Europe can solve on their own.

President Obama said that one of the main topics of his discussion with the President-elect, right after the election, concerned the crucial role of the United States in addressing global challenges.  The fact is, good leadership on behalf of one’s own country requires engaging the world as a whole, and participating effectively in multilateral institutions.  That means that the United States, Germany, the G7, the G20, and the European Union all need to maintain, and in some cases expand upon, our engagement in the transatlantic alliance and in global affairs.

I know there is some concern here on this topic.  But as President Obama pointed out, once you’re in the White House, once you begin interacting with world leaders, once you have visibility to the full complexities of the challenges we face, the demands of that office tend to shape and in some cases significantly modify your thinking.  And the fact that the President-elect’s designated Secretaries of Defense, State, and Intelligence are career-long internationalists is a positive sign.  So we shall see.

A second topic: I am fairly certain that one of the President-elect’s priorities will be strengthening the American economy in hard-hit areas of the formerly industrial mid-West and in the rural communities of the United States.  That is where he got most of his support.  The question is: how he will go about accomplishing this?  Through a combination of domestic infrastructure spending and global economic engagement, or through a more protectionist approach?

I think most of us here tonight believe that trade can be a key to expanding global economic prosperity.  But, trade was also a red-hot focal point of the presidential campaign.  I am sure you all heard that the President-elect has declared the Trans-Pacific Partnership dead – and the leadership in Congress, which was previously supportive of TPP, went along with that, failing to push for its approval during the lame duck.  This is unfortunate.  When you consider that China is seeking to advance its own trade agreement with countries in the region, it is clear that the U.S. may have lost an opportunity to have helped set higher standards for global trade.

Now, the domestic politics of T-TIP in the U.S. are not as difficult as those for TPP; yet it is highly unlikely that the new Administration will make this a priority either, as I said repeatedly over the past year.  And, candidly, given the reluctance of many European politicians to forcefully confront the vocal opposition to T-TIP, and the embarrassment of the EU’s efforts to approve CETA, Europe will need to make clear to the United States that it wants, and can implement, a newly negotiated T-TIP – whether by that or another name.

Beyond that, I know there is some concern here over recent comments about Germany’s trade surplus with the U.S.  I trust that in time the new Administration will come to understand that there is a difference between trade surpluses that are generated by low wage, low standard economies with control over their own currencies, that have erected their own protectionist barriers, and those generated by high wage, high standard economies operating on a much more level playing field, that simply make high quality goods that Americans want to buy.  And by the way, BMW is on track to make more cars in Charleston, South Carolina than it does in Bavaria!

At some point, hopefully, trade negotiations of some sort will commence between the U.S. and Europe.  You all know the arguments for T-TIP; and many of you have led efforts to explain its potential benefits to a skeptical public here in Germany.  But clearly, when we finally do go forward, we need to do a much better job.  Complain as we might about the well-funded, often truth-challenged opposition to T-TIP, we waited far too long to get the positive story out, in ways that were clear and understandable.  The days when governments can go off and spend years quietly negotiating a trade agreement and then unveil it to an eagerly awaiting public are over.

With well-funded, perpetual advocacy groups, many of which depend on a bogey-man to generate their grassroots funding, and with pervasive social media allowing for the creation of silos where information and misinformation are exchanged back and forth at ever increasing volumes, the effort to explain the purposes and benefits of a trade agreement needs to begin with a well-structured, well-funded, proactive campaign, from day one.

There also needs to be greater transparency, from day one; not conducting negotiations in public, but explaining what the objectives are; what is included in the negotiations and what is not; where progress is being made and where it is not.  Otherwise, as we’ve seen, a vacuum of information is created which can be filled by anxiety-ridden fears and misinformation.

And from the outset, the fact that every trade agreement will have some dislocating effects must be acknowledged.  Our governments need to work just as hard at addressing the impact of that dislocation, as they do at negotiating the actual agreement.

Now, don’t get me wrong; there will always be those who oppose any trade agreement – but by taking these steps we will have a much greater likelihood of success in the future.

The third issue I would like to discuss is something I have heard from virtually everyone I have spoken to in Germany since the election, and that is the concerns so many have about the possible impact of our election on those coming up in France, Germany, and the EU this year and next.

Well, we all know what happened in the U.S.; and it wasn’t exactly how I – and many others – thought things would turn out.  Of course, any time you have a very close election, there are multiple factors and events that could have swung it one way or the other.  But at a fundamental level, what happened, and why?

The very complexity of our world – fueled by the rapid pace of globalization and technological change – has created a pervasive sense of unease.  Increasing economic, cultural, demographic, and social changes, coupled with a polarization in government and in society that makes it harder to get things done, have significantly diminished public confidence in the political process.  In the U.S. and in Europe, people on both extremes of the political spectrum are increasingly angry because they don’t think government, or any establishment institution – including the business world – is working for them.

But it’s not just a question of economic well-being.  Increasingly, since the 1980s, Americans are also divided by views regarding cultural questions, such as LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, religion, climate change, race and immigration.  These differences in views are most pronounced between rural and urban communities, the areas of America that coastal elites quite literally look down on as “fly over country;” and these cultural issues, which cynical political operatives exploit as “wedge issues,” have created deep emotional cleavages in our country.  The opposing camps are so entrenched that rational discussion seems almost impossible.  We need to get beyond that.

And polarization in society has been enhanced by the instantaneous news environment, where a 140-character tweet can capture the news cycle for an entire day; and by the tendency of social media and ideologically targeted cable news programs to create silos where people can easily isolate themselves, getting information only from sources which reflect their pre-existing points of view.  People increasingly “choose their news,” and their opinions are shaped in a post-factual environment.  The danger, as we have seen, is that this ‘siloization’ creates an echo chamber of misinformation and, ultimately, of anger that can be used to generate political support; or to undermine confidence in our electoral process.

This anger, and the anxiety from which it arises, contributed to the Brexit vote; to the rise of populism, both right and left, in much of Europe; and to the anti-establishment voting we saw in our Election 2016, as well as the anti-trade, anti-immigrant movements that we’re seeing on both sides of the Atlantic. So the dislocating effect of globalization must be acknowledged and addressed; so too the relationship between social media, the press, perpetrators of fake news, and our politics, especially with the European elections coming up.  This might be a topic for further examination by the Atlantik Brücke.

Now, I know there is a great deal of concern in Germany over the incoming administration; but I am convinced that the significance and importance of our relationship with Germany will not diminish over the coming years.  History and politics, as President Obama says, never moves in a straight line.  In his words: “We zig and zag and sometimes we move in ways that some people think is forward and others think is moving back.”  What’s important is that we retain our faith in democracy, and the lively, open debate that it presupposes.

Returning to the question about the next Administration’s priorities, for those who are trying to read the tea leaves for some answers, I have some words of advice.  First, don’t over-react to the tweets.  Pay attention to them, but don’t get distracted or spun up by them.  Tweets are not policy, and often what a President says is modified substantially after it comes out of the policy making machine that is the U.S. government.

Second, it is a truism in government that people are policy.  So, pay attention to the confirmation hearings, which began last week.   And by the way, who is asking what questions may be as revealing about how Congress will react to proposed Administration policies, and how those policies will be shaped, as the answers themselves.

Third, listen to Friday’s Inaugural Address.  This should be an aspirational statement of an incoming President’s vision, goals, and priorities; a high level road map for the next four years.  Listen to what is said; what is not said; and of equal importance, the tone of how he says it.

Then, finally, look closely at the budget that is proposed by the new Administration in late February.  A President’s proposed budget is an operational blueprint.  Closely examine what will be spent, and what will be cut.  This will show you what their priorities truly are.

Accordingly, I would urge folks here in Germany to approach the incoming administration with some patience, and with a sense of objectivity, but without hesitating to promote our shared values; and I would encourage you to emphasize how our close economic ties and trading relationship help to raise the prosperity of both countries’ citizens.

So, where do we go from here?  Yes, Chancellor Merkel and President Obama have a strong personal connection.  But it wasn’t always so.  German-American relations go far beyond the name or political affiliation of the current President.

The basis of our close relationship is at its core the personal contact between our citizens.  Our people flow across the Atlantic as writers, journalists, researchers, scientists, artists, students, business people, employees and tourists.  Our two-way trade and investment opens new opportunities for synergies, new products, and innovations in technology.  And strong institutions like the Atlantik Brücke and the American Academy in Berlin are dynamic platforms for German-American collaboration on issues of global importance.  So we need to re-double our efforts on the people-to-people and the business-to-business fronts, especially as we enter choppy waters.

I concluded my remarks in that first speech to you three and a half years ago, by talking about the crucial importance of reaching out to young people.  And those will also be my parting thoughts this evening.

One of the most indelible connections Europe and the United States share as partners is the miracle of 70 years ago when, from the ashes of global devastation and genocide, new principles were crafted and implemented for governing relations among states, and safeguarding the fundamental rights and dignity of all people.

There are entire generations of Germans and Americans, however, who did not live through the searing experiences of the second half of the 20th century.  People for whom the Luftbrücke, “Ich bin ein Berliner,” “Tear down this wall,” and reunification are so much as ancient history.   Our vibrant trans-Atlantic relationship is not an inherited trait; its value needs to be transmitted from one generation to the next.  That’s why we in Mission Germany consistently include youth in all of our public diplomacy efforts.

During his visit to Berlin shortly after our elections, at a small lunch in the Embassy, President Obama was asked what gave him the greatest concern, and what gave him the greatest hope.  On the concern side, by the way, climate change.  But without hesitating, Barack Obama placed his hope in young people.  He then noted, in a radio interview, that we have to do more than “celebrate or despair around presidential elections”; that we need to do more to help young people find their voices, hone their activism, and help to make a difference.

Politics can be frustrating, but as many are seeing for the first time in their lives, especially in the UK and the U.S., elections have consequences.  We need to focus on how, in our day-to-day lives, in our local civic lives, in our media, in our culture, we can all be part of the solution.  And that is what so much of the work of the Atlantik Brűcke is all about.

The fact is, today we find ourselves at a crossroads.  Simply put:  we are indeed stronger when we work together.  We must seize the opportunity to shape the future, based on our values and our ideals.

And so, in closing, Kimberly and I would again like to thank all of you for your dedication to building upon the close relationship between Germany and the United States, and for your friendship.  Yes, both Europe and the United States face a set of longer-run challenges.  But on all of these, we have much we can learn from each other; and with pragmatism, cooperation, flexibility, creativity, and hard work, there will be much we can do together in the months and years to come.

Vielen Dank.”

Link zur Rede von Botschafter Emerson

Atlantik-Brücke: Interview mit U.S. Botschafter John B. Emerson from Atlantik Brücke on Vimeo

Der Beitrag „Serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Germany has been the honor of my life“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In an interview with Robert Kagan, Dr. David Deissner, Managing Director of the Atlantik-Brücke, further explored some topics of the lecture:

David Deißner: In his speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President Mike Pence delivered the reassuring message that the United States ‘strongly supports NATO and will be unwavering in its commitment to this transatlantic alliance’. Nonetheless, there is still serious concern among Europeans with regard to the future of this alliance. What did you make of the vice president’s speech?

Robert Kagan: The United States will not pull out of NATO. That is not really the issue. I still wonder how significant Vice President Pence speech was, because I do not think that anyone outside Trump’s very small circle of advisors has any say over what happens in American foreign policy. Clearly Pence was given authority to say all these encouraging things, so at the very least the president has no intention of making any fundamental changes at this time. But if you asked me what is in the President’s heart and mind, I still think he is not a big fan of Europe. I think he does not know how important Europe is for the United States. I don’t think he has a clear understanding of the economic relationship. So Europe needs to be vigilant. Most of all, it is very important that Europe itself will come together and be as strong and capable as possible. If there are two pillars of the world order that we all value, it is Europe and the United States. The United States is the one in question right now. So it is more important than ever that Europe is a strong pillar.

President Trump has endorsed the so-called Brexitiers, those in favor of Britain leaving the EU. We also heard from the administration that they would be in favor of bilateral trade deals rather than having a comprehensive trade agreement with Europe. How should Europeans make clear that the unity of Europe is crucial also for the Unites States?

Well, it is obviously very important. Pence talked about the two world wars of the 20th century. The United States happened to be involved in these two wars. But he doesn’t talk about the importance of European unity in preventing a recurrence of that. The EU is an economic organization, but at its heart, it is a political answer to the past. The United States needs to go back to understanding that European unity is important. The president and his advisors should understand that America is dependent on the European market, and that it would be wrong to implement a strictly bilateral, beggar-thy-neighbor economic policy. If the European economy has troubles, the American economy has troubles.

At this year’s Munich Security Conference, it has been repeatedly emphasized that Germany and Europe as a whole will finally have to make an appropriate contribution to NATO. Doesn’t the new administration have a right to complain that Europe comes late in taking action?

This is true. And it has been true for a long time. I think Europe would be a more powerful actor on the world scene if it had more military capacity. And I want Europe to be a more powerful actor on the world scene, because Europe is a pillar of this order. The only part that I do not accept is the ‘or-else-argument’, which says: if Europe does not do this or that, America would have to rethink. I am not interested in re-thinking the relationship. It is too important.

Many Republicans would say that the new administration does not get its fair chance, because the media is overwhelmingly biased against the president and his team, and portrays them in a negative light. Maybe the media is too hasty to condemn an administration which has not yet fully settled, let alone presented political measures and strategies in more detail?

I think the administration has been treated more kindly by the press than it deserves. The press has just exercised normal journalistic criticism. We have a president who says outrageous things. We cannot expect the press to ignore the things Trump said about judges, things he said about the press itself, being the ‘enemy of the American people’. In addition, there was the obvious mishandling of the executive order regarding immigration. No one could claim that this wasn’t a disaster. Or think of Michael Flynn, who was talking to the Russians about foreign policy before the administration had taken power. No one would question the capability of people like James Mattis and Rex Tillerson, but their role in making policy is yet to be determined. At the moment it seems that all policy is being decided upon by a very small group of people immediately surrounding the president. This fact has not even been reported enough. So, I do not think they are getting a bad rap.

What would be your recommendation to Europeans, and in particular an institution like ours which is devoted to transatlantic dialogue and partnership. What should we focus on in these turbulent times?

This is an opportunity for Europeans and institutions like yours to speak up, certainly more than has been necessary before. Before the election you were maintaining ties which were pretty healthy. Now you have to be more active in letting Americans know that Europe matters, that this relationship matters. Europeans should speak up and say: When you Americans are doing the right thing we are going to support you. When America is doing the wrong thing, we are going to tell them that it is the wrong thing. Speaking up will have a beneficial effect.

Der Beitrag “Europe matters, this relationship matters” – a conversation with Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Trump’s protectionist and nationalistic plans pose new challenges for Germany. His foreign policy approach centers around military armament rather than international cooperation – a point made clear by his budget proposal, said Martin Klingst. Trump sees himself less as the head of government and more as the leader of a political movement. This is also reflected in his confrontational governing style. Thomas Bagger added that it remains to be seen whether Trump will align himself more with the ideological wing, as spearheaded by his chief strategist Stephen Bannon, or pursue more pragmatic solutions.

Both speakers agreed that European self-assurance is an important prerequisite for successful transatlantic cooperation. Only then will Europe be able to protect its values and make a careful determination of common interests with the U.S.

To ensure continued dialogue across the Atlantic, it will be important to establish a smooth personal relationship between Chancellor Merkel and President Trump. This is likely to be a formidable task, given their vastly different personalities and divergent views. However, the initially rather distant relations between President Obama and the chancellor also evolved into a friendly relationship over time.

Approximately 40 members and Young Leaders alumni attended the event in the Magnus Haus. They engaged in a discussion with the speakers about President Trump’s prospects of success, the similarities between the Tea Party and the positions of the new administration, as well as the differences between Trump’s and Obama’s relations with Europe.

Der Beitrag Losing the Bigger Brother – Foreign Policy Discussion erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What was surprising, however, was that Kirchick, an author and fellow at the center-right Washington, D.C. think tank Foreign Policy Initiative, started his remarks to the audience and moderator Katja Gloger, editor at large at STERN, by stating: “I’ve written a pro-European book.” It is about a crisis of the old continent’s values, Kirchick said. Speaking one day after the United Kingdom’s official application to leave the European Union, Kirchick explained that several member states no longer represented the values of the bloc and violated the commonly agreed set of rules. Hungary and Poland were named as examples.

“Russia is aggressive, Europe is apathetic – and the US absent.” This is how the author summarized the core thesis of his recently published book. Russia is, according to Kirchick, boosting its military budget while perfecting the art of hybrid warfare. On top of that, the Kremlin led by Vladimir Putin considers Chancellor Angela Merkel public enemy number one because she is the mostly likely leader to unite the West. “There is a high probability that there will be a cyber-attack on the German federal election,” Kirchick warned.

Brexit could not have come at a worse time for Europe, Kirchick went on to say. Demographic pressures as well as dismal economic growth has eroded trust in European societies and fueled the rise of populist movements and growing resentments towards foreigners in face of the refugee challenge.

Kirchick offered plenty of criticism of his own country as well. President Donald Trump is “hostile towards the European idea” and publicly advocated for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. Fundamentally, the 45th US president fails to grasp NATO’s basic premise, Kirchick explained: “You can’t attach a price tag to the value of the protection and security of Europe.” Trump‘s election has reinvigorated NATO’s long-standing burden-sharing debate. According to Kirchick, the president can cause considerable damage internationally, especially through his inaction. Specifically, Trump’s calling into question of the collective defense clause in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty poses a grave risk, the author said.

A plea for strength and unity

At this point in the discussion, Dr. Richard Herzinger suggested that “The End of the West” would have been a more fitting title for the book, given the nationalistic and isolationist tendencies that can been observed in the United States. In the eyes of the WELT correspondent, there is a glimmer of hope for Europe’s future despite recent developments on both sides of the Atlantic. On the one hand, anti-American sentiment is on the rise across Europe. In Germany in particular, this anti-Americanism is highly irrational because the federal republic is the country that has benefitted most from America’s preeminence since post-World War II. “On the other hand, many citizens are becoming aware of the value of the Western alliance that must be defended,” Herzinger said. The key question for him is whether the West is able to stand its ground against the new authoritarianism. In this context, Herzinger accused European politicians of fundamentally misunderstanding Putin and Russia. The Russian president is already pursuing “hot wars in the Ukraine and Syria”. The only way to counter this is with unified strength – both in foreign and security policy as well as economically.

Not all hope is lost for Europe and the United States, even for Kirchick. Rather, he called on the transatlantic partners to stand up for the shared principles they have built up over more than 70 years. Constant and tireless efforts are required to raise awareness of the strengths of the liberal world order. “Angela Merkel is the most experienced politician of the West and the free world,” Kirchick said. Yet even she will not be able to solve this difficult task alone.

The Transatlantic Dialog is a cooperation of Atlantik-Brücke with Microsoft Germany.

Interview with James Kirchick

Der Beitrag “Russia is aggressive, Europe apathetic – and the US absent” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Speech by Ambassador Gervais-Vidricaire

Der Beitrag “Partners at eye level”: Farewell for Ambassador Marie Gervais-Vidricaire erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag U.S. Congressional Staffers in Berlin erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

According to the minister, Europe furthermore plays an important role in the stabilization of Africa. Only the engagement of states as well as private investors could prevent the situation from growing worse. The year 2015 proved the negative effects on the stability of Europe. Following the speech, chairman Friedrich Merz engaged in a panel discussion with the minister. Members of Atlantik-Brücke enjoyed the remaining evening in the garden of the Magnus-Haus.

Der Beitrag Schäuble speaking at Atlantik-Brücke annual assembly erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Boyle also talked with around 20 guests about President Donald Trump´s governing style. So far, the president has shown little respect for democratic institutions. But especially the judiciary has kept the White House in check, Boyle stated. Moreover, he regards Trump´s constant attacks on the media, by which the president targets the first amendment too, as “deeply worrying”. These attacks have neither boosted President Trump´s approval ratings nor helped him passing his agenda. Despite Trump´s behavior, only a few Republican Members of Congress have publicly spoken out against the president in order to avoid possible backlashes in their constituencies and states.

The discussion group touched on the future strategic focus of the Democratic Party as well. Today, the Democrats are no longer perceived as a “Big Tent Party”, which represents people from all parts of society and throughout the United States. Instead the party brand is mainly associated with the interest of minorities as well as progressive, affluent voters on the East and West Coast. Especially blue-collar Americans feel disconnected from the party nowadays and, therefore, voted for the outside candidate Donald Trump, Boyle said. Hence, the Democrats must try to win these voters back and offer them an alternative. In the end, the message of the Democratic Party for the midterm elections in 2018 and the presidential election in 2020 will also depend on the further course of Trump´s presidency, the Congressman concluded.

Der Beitrag Congressman: Transatlantic Partnership still a matter of crucial importance erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Dr. Lipton, you were at the recent G20 meeting. How did you experience the atmosphere compared to earlier summits? And did you shake President Trump’s hand?

Well, we did say hello to each other. I was in the room for the meeting of all the leaders. Whenever the leaders are together, there is a chance for people taking each other’s measure and trying to do a little diplomacy on the side. But I think, this year the atmosphere was special because of the presence of President Trump. The leaders were all very curious to hear him speak, to try to understand the view points of the new administration. There were concerns about how that would go. It was a quite lively meeting actually.

What core message did the US delegation deliver?

It began of course with all the preparatory meetings. Often these meetings start ahead of time discussing the communiqué and what the statement will be. You can see in those discussions the direction that this is going to go. Clearly, the United States administration has a view that the rules that have governed international economic issues are important and that the institutions that have been built have delivered a lot for many countries including the United States. But the other countries have not entirely played by the rules or have one way or another taken advantage of the United States. So, there is a need to level the playing field. The administration has expressed in various ways at different times its willingness to do that less through multilateral means and more through bilateral means and if need be through forceful means. However, President Trump added in his opening remarks the important message that once this is accomplished the USA wants more trade and a continued interconnectedness of the global economy. That poses a challenge not just to the transatlantic relations and to Europe but to the whole world how to interact with the US to achieve a mutually beneficial relationship.

How did you see global leaders react to this message and how should Europe engage with the Trump administration on these issues?

It was clear in the negotiating sessions and then in the meeting that countries very much want to have a dialogue and want to continue this multilateral approach to dealing with the problems of the world. And even though the Trump administration injected some new thinking into the communiqué with respect to very sensitive subjects like climate and trade and sustainable development, other countries gave the United States wide berth. Their view was that one should talk about what can be accepted and what cannot be accepted. But let us also try to make sure that we have a dialogue and that we keep talking to each other. From my standpoint, it is very important that European and other countries as well don’t find the argument very persuasive to level the playing field. They may also not agree with some of the prescriptions of the Trump administration for what to do in the world. On the other hand, it is also clear that some of the American complaints have a germ of truth: Our institutions are not perfect, many of our trade agreements have been in existence for some time, the world is changing. There is plenty to talk about in terms of what really works for everyone, how to deal with the negative side effects of globalization and interconnectedness. So, I think, the right answer is: Let us see where there is a basis for continued collaboration because that is far superior to seeing a breakdown of dialogue and a return to bilateralism or even unilateralism as a form of diplomacy. The clear decision of the other 19 countries was to try to proceed with some dialogue.

What risks do you perceive if transatlantic partners fail to find a basis from which to address issues of globalization?

Our international economic system has been built on seventy years of cooperation. And there are many opportunities still ahead. But there is also the risk of some disintegration of the international order if there is a failure of dialogue and a failure of cooperation. We would certainly hate to see a return to forms of protectionism that might lead to an interruption of trade and finance. It is important that these two sides have this dialogue, and it really is two-sided. The United States has to embrace that it can ask for consideration of its complaints. In the future, continued interconnectedness is not just key to emerging markets in developing countries that need trade, technology and investment in order to grow rapidly and have some convergence of their living standards to those of richer countries. It will benefit the United States as well because in the future those will be the trade and export and investment opportunities. There is plenty of opportunity to deepen the interconnectedness, to share technologies and to improve the interconnections through further trade negotiations.

President Trump has highlighted how important deficit reduction is to him, he has singled out Germany for its trade surplus. How worried should we be on either side of the Atlantic about movements in this area?

The subject of imbalance is an important one. We at the IMF have it in our mandate to address. We have just finished our annual examination of global imbalances and put out what we call our external sector report. The case is remaining that there are some substantial deficit countries and substantial surplus countries. Those are now concentrated more in advanced economies than in emerging market economies where those imbalances were more prominent a few years ago. Deficit countries by the nature of deficits eventually have to adjust because they are borrowing every year and borrowing can only go on so far. There is a bit of a asymmetry: Surplus countries are acquiring claims on other countries since there is no natural adjustment mechanism. If only the deficit countries adjust and the surplus countries don’t this is what happens: There is a reduction in import spending and that absence of increase of import spending from the surplus countries leads to slowdown of growth. We see this is as a modest-sized problem. We want to see it addressed. We tend to view it from the multilateral, global perspective. It is an argument for cooperation. The Trump administration tends to view the subject more from the bilateral standpoint whether some of its trading partners have trade or other economic practices like subsidization of industry sectors that should be ended with the hope to narrow imbalances. It will be best for the international system if both the deficit and the surplus countries do their part in order to fix this special problem.

You have mentioned the necessity to maintain interconnectedness. Can you give a practical example with regard to TPP?

What is even more important than the imbalance issue is that there be ways in which productivity which has been slowing down is accelerated. Many of the calls that have come from the German government and other governments for structural reforms and for taking steps to try to use the new technologies in order to increase growth will be very important to the rich and to the poor countries. One aspect of that is that these new proposed plurilateral trade agreements like TPP and TTIP try to get at that subject. With tariffs already reduced to low levels, there are other frontiers for collaboration. For example, there can be a harmonization of regulation whether it is in automobile safety or pharmaceuticals. These alignments across countries save costs. Right now, a German automobile manufacturing company needs to have one model for the US market, another one for the European market and maybe even a third one for another market. And cost savings would lead to higher productivity. A second aspect is that structural reforms that are needed to boost growth are hard decisions to take politically. And sometimes a government can join into a trade agreement and commit itself to take the hard structural reforms and get things done that might otherwise would not be possible. Japan for example, was ready to join TPP and in that context to reform the agricultural sector. These are not reforms that Japan can easily do politically without this big international commitment. And now, with TPP sidelined by the decision of the US not to pursue it, it is proving hard for Japan to take measures that otherwise they might. I suspect that there are opportunities like that for Europe in pursuing TTIP or some version of a similar transatlantic trade agreement. Everyone can commit to do things they know they need to do, things that will raise productivity and growth and that way make TTIP a win-win proposition.

We have seen varying signals from the administration regarding TTIP. What kind of deal would be palatable to the Trump administration?

I am not sure what the political path will be. It is important to put the different mutual gains back on the table. The US administration has expressed a preference for having bilateral trade negotiations. Perhaps there can be some discussions between individual countries and the US that can identify potential win-win propositions. Then it can become clearer that doing this altogether would even be more beneficial.

How should Europe position itself with regard to China’s “One Belt, one Road” strategy?

’One Belt, one Road’ is really two different initiatives, one economic, one political. There are many parts of the emerging market world that under previous trade agreements have done a huge amount of liberalization. This has opened the door for interconnectedness. But until countries are linked together in terms of their infrastructures, it is really just a framework. The Chinese interest in ‘One Belt, one Road’ is a way of saying: Let us try to mobilize finance and carry out some of the infrastructure investments that will give us mutual gain but in doing so lay down the infrastructure that will hook up our countries and make the gains from interconnectedness easier to attain. There is also a political aspect to it with the demise of TPP. The Chinese see a political opportunity in being more of a leader in the subject of pursuing interconnectedness in its region. This is an opportunity for all of the countries that might participate with China. It is one where Europe certainly can play a role. The Chinese are asking us very specifically how to leverage the initiative in order to get a kind of co-financing, to get investors of other countries interested.

How do you view Germany’s “Marshall Plan for Africa”?

We have worked strongly with the German government from the beginning of its year as serving in the presidency of the G20 to develop what was originally called compact with Africa. It is a very important initiative. The IMF is helping countries that are going to participate in this to have the capacity in their governments, to be able to attract investments. What will be needed is a follow up in the coming year to try to interest private investors to go to the countries that are designated. I hope this will lead to some success that can be emulated by other countries in the region. This initiative includes the political motivation to try to make sure that Africa, especially in the northern parts of the continent, does not fall into very difficult economic circumstances or into political conflict in a way that would exacerbate the outflows and migration of refugees.

People close to the US administration have accused Germany of being a currency manipulator. The IMF and Germany have clashed over the resolution of the Greek debt crisis. How do you see the impact of Germany in Europe and the world today?

We at the IMF consider Germany to be a very important member country. We have very good relations and Germany helps with an awful lot of international initiatives and played a central role in the presidency of the G20. That is impressive. Germany’s economic strength has been important in carrying Europe through the very difficult period since 2012. Germany has forcefully argued for structural reforms that can boost growth in Europe and continues to play a role along other important European countries in providing a kind of global leadership in support of our institution and its mandate for growth and stability in the world. Do we sometimes have disagreements? Yes. We have identified that the German current account surplus should be addressed. Germany has had a surplus above four percent of GDP for thirteen years now. I think, its origins go to the foundation of the eurozone, the Hartz reforms and to the fact that Germany does not have a monetary or exchange rate policy. It would certainly benefit Germany, Europe and the world if there was a concerted effort to try to reduce it by several points of GDP. When Germany has a surplus of eight percent of GDP it means that its income is eight percent higher than its spending. Germany is acquiring foreign assets mostly treasury bills being bought by the companies that manage ordinary German’s pension funds and insurance plans. And those are yielding very modest returns over the last years. Where at the same time Germany has infrastructure needs that would bring a much higher return to the society by improving the profitability of the private industry and strengthening competitiveness for the longer term. Some adjustment with smaller surplus and some greater spending at home should be something that can be orchestrated and that would be beneficial.

German banks and savers complain about low interest rates. Others worry about the potential for inflation from excessive monetary stimulus. Where are we in the process of interest rate normalization and which risks do you see?

The United States is seeing inflation starting to return towards its target and has begun a process of normalization of interest rates although they are proceeding extremely slowly. I think, in Europe the process of inflation returning to target appears still to be very slow. Mario Draghi, the head of the EZB, has said so just a few weeks ago. There is no need to raise interest rates until there is some indication that wages and prices are heading back to target. It would be actually counterproductive if there was a premature normalization or even if markets began to anticipate it because that would mean that the higher interest rates, the higher capital costs and the steepening of the yield curve might all be unhealthful for the standpoint of growth. The bottom line is that the world is going to see sustained asynchronicity of monetary policy with the USA normalizing, with Europe in a watchful mode and with Japan still also very far away from beginning normalization.

Listen to the Transatlantic Call

Der Beitrag “Protectionism might lead to an interruption of trade” – Transatlantic Call with David Lipton, First Deputy Manager of the IMF erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Alec, can you tell us the two top strategies to stop alt-right narratives as well as Russian propaganda distributed through social media?

The platforms have substantial responsibility themselves. People from government and from civil society need to insist that platforms like Twitter and Facebook monitor very carefully who is using these networks and whether they are doing so for the purpose of manipulating the information environment in a malignant way that violates the terms of service of the platform. All of us should push these platforms to be much more responsible. In addition, we have to name and shame the purveyors of this activity. This is very difficult sometimes. Particularly Twitter allows for anonymity. However, people who are orchestrating these campaigns have to be identified. They have to be named and shamed so that there is consequence to their actions.

How much sense does it make to name and shame the purveyors if they are actually not individuals and not located in the United States?

If the point of origin of attack is from Macedonia but it is receiving instructions from Russia, which is frequently the case, you have to engage diplomatically. Honestly, the United States is unlikely to do so, because we have a president who is sympathetic to the extremists. For other countries that still believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the key is to put real pressure with consequences on the actors behind it. It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians are seeking to destabilize the Western democracies. It is time for us to begin to hold Russia to account for molesting our democracies.

Given that there is also some anxiety in Germany with the upcoming general election, how can you make yourself less vulnerable against such attacks?

There is nothing you can do as an individual candidate. Beyond the technical things – every candidate and every political party should do what they can from a technical perspective – the responsibility is really on the nation state to make clear that there are consequences if there is foreign interference in the election. For example, with your election on September 24, the best way to keep the Russians from molesting that election is to let them know through public channels and through private channels that if there is evidence for their doing this,  there will be severe sanctions. Germany often has mixed emotions about sanctions but if you are not willing to say “No, we won’t buy your oil. No, we will not engage in commerce with you,” then you make yourself vulnerable.

Recently, Samir Saran, the Vice President of the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, demanded a compulsory social media participation from citizens in elections. Do you think that citizens should be held more responsible for their own online participation?

No, things that are compulsory are anti-democratic. People should have the freedom to engage and the freedom to not engage.

What do you think about the new German law that holds for instance Facebook to account for the content that it publishes?

I am not sympathetic to the German law in this respect. The most effective response to offensive speech is more speech. As long as what is being published does not violate Facebook’s terms of service, people should be free to publish it. The idea that 196 sovereign nation states could have 196 different sets of laws to govern a single private sector platform does not make sense and is inconsistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that allows for the freedom of expression. Freedom of expression allows for the freedom of offensive expression as well. It may irritate me. But a platform should not be regulated in terms of the kind of content that is there – as long as it does not incite to violence.

So the naming and shaming that you mentioned is holding accountable in a moral sense.

And holding accountable in an economic sense. For example, the most effective means for shutting the marchers in Charlottesville down in many respects has been putting their faces on the internet, making clear that they were marchers. What happens? Their employers fire them. They go home and suddenly everyone around them hates them for being white supremacists. The naming and shaming is both moral and economic. It isolates people societally.

Especially in Europe, populists from the far-right and the far-left use technology such as social media more effectively than other big parties. For example, the populist right wing party AfD here in Germany has almost as many Facebook followers as other parties in Germany combined. What can mainstream parties do to improve their use of social networking sites?

They have to be willing to take a bit more risk. A lot of these far-left and far-right parties are not afraid to engage in a rather over-forward way with citizens where the more formal, long-standing parties do so in a way that connects with people less effectively. Their tweets or the Facebook posts read like press releases as opposed to a conversation. If you want to connect mainstream political parties with the governed more effectively using digital tools, you have to connect directly and in a way that is a bit less formal.

How can that be achieved?

Using things like Facebook live for live video chats or speaking in a way that sounds more like people speaking on the street than behind a lectern. These stylistic differences matter greatly when connecting with younger voters. Mainstream political parties also have got to confront the nationalist parties parties when they are putting out fake news, when they are saying things that are actually inaccurate or when they are doing things which are rooted in racial or ethnic bigotry. We cannot be polite in responding to them. Part of how you confront people is most effectively done through social networks.

How do you confront the U.S. President best on social media?

Donald Trump has proven to be almost immune to being confronted on social media. Where He doesn’t pay any attention to what people say to him online – maybe just because he cannot even work his phone except send a tweet. But you can see him in an absolute rage some days because of what he watched on the morning talk shows or what he read in the newspaper. The way to confront Donald Trump is actually not through social networks. It is through television and the newspaper.

What did you take away from the 2016 election campaign for your own campaign right now?

It is a recognition that people are angry. You have to understand and value the perspectives of people who have been stagnating economically. I hold the believe that in the United States Democrats have failed recently, because our leaders are segregated from the working class. We have to reconnect ourselves to the working class in a way that we have not done for many years.

In your book “The Industries of the Future” you outline the thesis that digital competencies like programming languages are the key when it comes to reintegrating vulnerable populations into the work force. Could you give us three priorities that a future German government must tackle to ensure that particularly vulnerable populations are not left behind?

The first priority is an issue of access. You have to ensure universal access to high speed low cost broadband. The second priority is skills training in all schools, not just the elite schools in wealthy communities. Computer code is the alphabet that much of the future will be written in. It is not about everybody becoming a computer scientist but making sure that people are fluent in the alphabet of the future is very important. And the third priority is a focus on gender. Too often women are underrepresented in technical fields including computer science. It is worth it making an extra effort to ensure that the interest of women is sustained particularly after young girls enter adulthood when their engagement on technology tends to wane.

You are currently running for Governor of Maryland. Can you give us an example from your own constituency how you are trying to bring these three priorities together?

It is hard work. But for somebody who is running for office the most important thing is to remember: You only have one mouth but you have two ears. So instead of just going into the room and talking ceaselessly, you should really seek to understand the perspective of people. What I found is that you can disagree with somebody but if you understand why they think what they do, you can find common ground. Becoming a good listener will make you a better talker. When I use social media and Facebook in particular, I ask people why they think something instead of arguing with them. And instead of responding and telling people they are wrong I would put a series of facts in front of them – in a way that is not meant to humiliate them but in a way which is trying to bring them to the truth of a matter.

Alec Ross was interviewed by Kirsten Rulf, a Fellow for Artificial Intelligence, its Ethics and Governance at the Harvard Law School.

Listen to the Transatlantic Call:

Der Beitrag Alec Ross: “Name and Shame the Purveyors of Propaganda” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The ambassador stressed that the connection to Europe and Germany is particularly important now. He reaffirmed his intention to contribute to making European-Canadian cooperation a success for both sides. Ambassador Dion hopes for good cooperation with Germany in particular because of Germany’s influence on international relations. Friedrich Merz, Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke, emphasized the strong connection between Atlantik-Brücke and Canada. European-Canadian cooperation is an important part of the transatlantic relationship, not least because of the shared values. With the European-Canadian free trade agreement CETA, the partners had taken an important step towards actively shaping globalisation.

The subsequent discussion focused on the integration of immigrants and the opportunities and risks of free trade. The ambassador explained how Canada deals with xenophobia and the population’s concerns about immigration. The government aims to reduce social inequality through taxation and to strengthen families. Integration of immigrants into Canadian society is a key issue. This is achieved without levelling cultural differences. The importance of the free trade agreement CETA was repeatedly underlined by lunch participants. The ambassador was optimistic that he would be able to work well with the new government coalition in Germany on free trade issues as well.

Link to the Interview with Ambassador Dion

Der Beitrag “A bridge across the Atlantic, not a wall” – Welcome for the Canadian Ambassador erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In addition to the question of how the established parties should deal with the new situation, the group also discussed the strong east-west divide that had become evident in the election. On average, AfD had received more than twice as many shares in the east of Germany than in the West (with some exceptions). Precisely for this reason, more emphasis must be placed on international exchange in the new Länder. In addition, a strong, content-driven debate should be initiated in the east in particular. The participants saw reasons for the success of the AfD in many Germans’ fear of the effects of large scale on society. Another reason that was discussed was the  political constellation of the grand coalition. The positions of the CDU/CSU and SPD were difficult to distinguish for the voters. The SPD’s decision to join the opposition, announced the evening before, was discussed critically. Edelgard Bulmahn, who had no longer been a candidate for the Bundestag, also stressed the need for a new generation in the political landscape.

Finally, Ms Bulmahn raised a political issue which she considered to be particularly urgent. The former Federal Minister of Education and Research underlined the necessity for more future-oriented thinking – investments in education and science were indispensable for this.

The discussion was moderated by Sarah Kelly from Deutsche Welle.

Der Beitrag Discussion of the Election Results with the Vice President of the Bundestag erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Friedbert Pflüger started off the discussion by giving an overview on current geopolitical implications arising through the low oil price.

Michael Schmidt was the next in line to speak. From an oil industry point of view he stressed that the oil price has always been subject to natural fluctuations of the market. The current low price, he said, is mainly caused by the United States’ increase in shale oil and gas production, which does not only result in a short-term oversupply but also in a substantial extension of the “Oil Age”. “The USA will not let themselves be driven out of their beneficial position,” Schmidt added. He also pointed out how the growing global need for energy, especially in emerging countries, will render a decreasing demand and the reduction of oil production highly unlikely. In his opinion, one cannot afford to discriminate against any form of energy, no matter if from a fossil or a renewable origin.

Peter Fischer offered his foreign policy point of view and brought attention to the importance of oil exports in political conflicts. The economic sanctions on Russia and Iran have only been so successful due to the low oil price, he said. Fischer also mentioned that the ongoing oil production in Saudi Arabia and the United States has disclosed those countries’ high dependence on their oil resources. Moreover, he noticed the fact that a new political environment has been developing in terms of climate change which has been benefitting the development of renewables. These new energy politics, however, were not influenced by the low oil price, but constitute a specific challenge for the global energy sector. While Fischer considered the low oil price a “stimulus package” for Germany and the EU, he also acknowledged the problematic economic consequences the current price situation has on oil export-dependent countries, such as Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria.

Ralf Fücks laid emphasis on the consequences the oil price and -production has been exerting on the global energy transition. He sees industrial nations under an increasing pressure to act. Business as usual in the field of energy policy is no longer tenable, he remarked. Fücks added that energy security and independence of the European Union are only to be achieved by closer energy related networking among its member states. The EU would therefore have to open up towards innovative opportunities for renewable energy production. He stressed that in light of the development towards a situation of “peak demand” instead of “peak oil”, the connection of energy consumption and economic growth has begun to dissolve.

The largest debate issue of the evening was in how far future energy supply will rely on further oil production. While Peter Fischer and Ralf Fücks held on to their view that demand for fossil based energy will decrease, both Michael Schmidt and Friedbert Pflüger stated that a peak demand will only be reached when the oil sources run dry in a few decades. There was broad consensus on approving a political energy union within the European Union. To different extents, the discussants agreed on the increasing role of renewable energy sources for confronting climate change as effectively as possible and for ensuring a secure energy supply.

In the following Q and A session the planning uncertainties of small and medium sized companies, caused by the high volatility of the oil price as well as in-transparent energy politics, were discussed.

Der Beitrag Panel Discussion “Geopolitics of Falling Oil Prices” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The discussion focused heavily on the definition of hybrid warfare, the challenges that it poses, and how to effectively combat it. The first challenge that the experts faced and extensively discussed was the question of how to define hybrid warfare. The initial observation made by the experts is that it is important to emphasize the combination of conventional warfare and the intensive utilization of cyberspace. The latter can come in the form of propaganda used to support armed conflicts; for example, it can be utilized in social media and other platforms or even take the form of a cyber attack. Just several weeks ago, the internal network of the German Bundestag was subject to a digital attack by anonymous hackers. In an effort to describe the current situation, the participants put forth the thesis that hybrid warfare does not necessarily equate to war; however, it is also not symptomatic of peace. Another defining element of hybrid warfare that the experts identified is the fact that it is difficult to identify specific actors and aggressors. An additional cornerstone of hybrid warfare is that intimidation tactics are utilized to pressure companies and organizations with the overarching goal of gaining leverage to influence the actions of governments. The discussion group also emphasized that the technical components of speed and diversity enabled by cyber networks are key ingredients of hybrid warfare.

Exemplary conflict in Ukraine
The participants classified the phenomenon as a legitimate threat that is currently manifesting itself in social networks with the implication that it has the capacity to affect society as a whole. Traditional forms of media, including newspapers and television networks, are vulnerable to be used as instruments of propaganda. Large volumes of letters to the editor and audience reactions are additional methods of attack on the media. More integrated strategies are necessary to combat these forms of attacks. Furthermore, to effectively combat hybrid challenges the approaches must constantly be evaluated for their financial viability. The experts agreed that the current situation in Ukraine exemplifies this form of conflict; however, they were divided on whether or not the terrorist activity of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria fits the mold. In the preliminary summary, the experts identified that in hybrid warfare, aggressors exploit various avenues – the military, communication, and economic means – with the objective of creating instability and uncertainty.

The fact that boundaries between domestic and foreign security are not always distinct was also extensively discussed. In this context, it is necessary to approach hybrid warfare with a holistic, 360-degree strategy that addresses both domestic and foreign issues in addition to the areas that they overlap. The experts compared the current issue with the disruptive changes that digitalization has brought upon the economy. At the onset of the digital age, many companies questioned whether or not their business models were still viable or if partnerships within the industry, divesting business, or further acquisitions made more sense in light of digitalization.

All elements are vulnerable to threats
The experts emphasized the comprehensive, integrated methods of hybrid warfare, and extrapolated five ways for German security policy to approach and combat them. Virtually all elements of politics and economics are vulnerable to these threats. The largest task is finding a way to integrate these fields in such a way that provides adequate protection against weaknesses and has the capacity to overcome vulnerabilities. It is imperative to react to these threats swiftly and with a high degree of flexibility. The five areas where the Bundeswehr can take action include: early identification of crises through collecting and accurately analyzing relevant data, increasing resilience of critical infrastructure, improving strategic communication, cooperating with the EU and NATO, and lastly employing defense-policy as a tool for deterrence.

The participants in the discussion also noted that aggressors have the ability to execute their attacks quicker and with more ease relative to the traditional conflicts of the twentieth century. This is largely a result of the fact that digital interconnectivity leads to internal unmanageability and increased vulnerability externally which poses more difficult challenges for defense policy than ever before. Adequately addressing these challenges will require consideration for how to optimize and reform the German security apparatus. The idea of creating an institution focused on maintaining a constant overview of the field of hybrid warfare was also discussed. This poses the difficult question of how the German Defense Ministry will approach these challenges and create and implement individual, future-oriented strategies. The group of experts spoke in favor sharing the experiences of the centrally organized defense policy’s management with the USA, France, Great Britain, and Finland.

The democratic values of Western and European countries do not make it possible for them to respond to hybrid threats with the same means that the aggressors employ in their attacks. The experts view the Bundeswehr as an instrument to ensure preventative national security. In terms of the organization of the military, the process of reorienting and restructuring is still ongoing. The specialists concluded that the emergence of hybrid warfare and the operations of non-governmental actors will make it increasingly difficult for the Bundeswehr to anticipate patterns of attack; therefore, making early, preemptive discussions like this one indispensable to addressing future challenges.

Der Beitrag In Search of the German Bundeswehr of the Future erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The current German budget plan for defense policy forecasts that the expenditures will grow by 538.8 million Euros or 1.7 percent up from 32.4354 billion Euros in 2014 to 32.9742 billion Euros in the current year; however, a more nuanced look at the budget reveals that not all of the budget line items are uniformly growing. The operational costs, including personnel expenses and material expenses, will increase by 289.9 million Euros or 1.5 percent. In contrast, armament-intensive expenses in the form of research, development, testing, and military procurements will decrease by 532.7 million Euros – a decrease of 9.6 percent. Further investment expenditures for military facilities including NATO infrastructure in addition to the acquisition of IT devices are expected to decline by 35.5 million Euros or 3.3 percent. Lastly, expenditures on pensions are expected to grow by 339.4 million Euros or 6.6 percent.
Defense budgets have been steadily declining

A comparison of European countries shows that, on the whole, domestic defense budgets are on a downward trajectory. According to a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, expenditures in 2014 were, on average, eight percent lower than in 2010. The Center for Security Studies at the ETH Zürich identified the following distinct and divergent developments: when employing the US-Dollar exchange rate as a control and constant, they observed that the defense spending increased in Great Britain and fell in France between 1990 and 2011. The British defense budget increased from 54.298 billion US-Dollars in 1990 to 57.875 billion US-Dollars in 2011. On the other hand, France’s defense budget decreased from 65.774 billion US-Dollars at the end of the Cold War to 58.244 billion US-Dollars in 2011.

The experts agreed that the shift from conventional warfare to hybrid warfare, as a tactic employed by aggressors, also has immediate consequences for the technical and material equipment of the Bundeswehr. The need for modern devices and corresponding technology is rapidly increasing and it is doing so on a more condensed timeline than during the Cold War; therefore, there is increased pressure on political decision-makers in Germany and in the rest of Europe to handle the growing demands for financial resources necessary for evolving security policy in a manner that is both sustainable and responsible. The thesis, that new challenges in the acquisition of military equipment can be faced effectively and efficiently with the help of a jointly-shared European financing scheme, was highlighted by the experts as an applicable and important part of the solution.

On the path towards Pooling and Sharing
For this reason, it is critical for countries to be willing to sacrifice a degree of national sovereignty in the defense sector. If the Europeanized form of financing is successful, it is possible that the Bundeswehr and the other European armed forces will regain the same capacity to respond to threats that they possessed back in 1989. In the meantime, national defense policy path dependencies have manifested themselves in the fields of planning, acquisition, and structure that have stymied pan-European military-industrial solutions. The dominant European-based defense industry is globalizing and, at the same time, third-party suppliers abroad are attempting to enter and compete in the European market; these trends threaten to fragment the defense sector in Europe. The experts in the discussion recommended impeding this trend through policy and implementing the concept of Pooling and Sharing as a tool against it. In sum, it is important for the EU and European NATO states to work together to create new European and transatlantic defense resources and to share these resources with one another. The benefits lie in improved coordination of defense technology, compatible armies, and in the case of emergency, a higher degree of operational capability and strength resulting from newly-achieved economies of scale.
The fundamental acknowledgement that purely domestic solutions to security policy are no longer possible and that a higher degree of flexibility is necessary has long been part of the discourse on this topic. To this end, the experts have identified some positive developments that include the joint path taken in the development of the NATO Spearhead Force and cooperation with the Netherlands, whose 11th air brigade has been supporting the Rapid Forces Division of the Bundeswehr since June of 2014. Furthermore, one of the eight German armed forces brigades is under European control. These examples demonstrate that the EU and NATO member states have begun the process of integration as outlined by the Pooling and Sharing concept. The participants agreed on a substantial argument for a comprehensive financial Europeanization of security and defense policy: while it would not be productive for the White Paper working group to define military emergencies in every imaginable form, it is also important not to exclude any probable critical scenario from the discussions. Against the backdrop of this extensive task, it is clear that in order to respond to attacks adequately, it is necessary to have coordinated, jointly-financed, sophisticated, and diversely-equipped European defense cooperation.

To achieve this goal it is imperative to conduct this discussion in the strategic community and to convey the importance to the general public. The experts emphasized that the debate should center on what kinds of leadership roles are necessary and what responsibility and commitment mean for international security policy in concrete terms. Most importantly, it will be important to discuss what it means to be an active member of NATO. The political decision-makers will not attract the public with the maxim „leadership from the center“, because this claim is too vaguely formulated and implies that Germany will retreat from responsibilities and rely on US security guarantees on European soil. Those responsible should make abundantly clear that the EU and NATO have a serious security problem on their periphery; furthermore, European states should develop collective legitimacy and solidarity to operate as a counterpart to the transatlantic defense alliance. Indeed, the crisis in Ukraine poses an inevitable problem for the western allies as well, because threats to security are ever-growing and should not be underestimated in economic or technical scope.

Der Beitrag European Defense Cooperation after Post-Cold War Peace Dividends erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

At the event in Berlin, she emphasized the importance of careful, far-sighted planning and international cooperation in managing migration and refugee flows. Closing the borders and building higher walls would only play into the hands of human traffickers. Napolitano underlined that Germany is currently taking on a courageous leadership role in handling the crisis and that it has chosen the right path by relying on a longer range, multinational approach. She also sees the refugee crisis as a test for the institutions of the European Union. It remains to be seen whether the structures of the EU will be sufficient to arrive at a unified response.

Prof. Dr. Friedbert Pflüger, Director of the European Centre for Energy and Resource Security at King’s College London, moderated the discussion.

Der Beitrag Janet Napolitano on the Refugee Crisis erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Link to the White Paper on the Ministry of Defense (the paper is available in English)

Der Beitrag Roundtable zum Weißbuch with Staatssekretärin Dr. Katrin Suder erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Link to Minister von der Leyens Speech (in German)

Atlantik-Brücke would like to thank Roland Berger for the kind support.

Der Beitrag Speech by German Federal Minister of Defense von der Leyen erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag “Enhancing International Collaboration among Global Financial Markets” with Rodge Cohen and Martin Blessing erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On March 3, close to 80 members and Young Leaders Alumni came to the Frankfurter Wertpapierbörse (Old Stock Exchange) in order to attend a speech and panel discussion on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Deutsche Börse AG and Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft Köln acted as cooperation partners for the event.

The event was opened from an American perspective with speeches by Jeffrey Tessler, CEO of the Clearstream Holding AG and board member of Deutsche Börse AG, and Kathryn H. Ruemmler, Partner at Latham & Watkins LLP and former Counsel to President Barack Obama.

In his statement, Jeffrey Tessler stressed how the projected trade agreement could bring stability to growing global insecurities. According to Tessler, TTIP has the potential to fundamentally strengthen the transatlantic relationship, even beyond trade. The many ailing economies of European countries could also benefit from this economic impulse. However, he continued, the doubts of consumers about the treaty should not be ignored.

Kathryn Ruemmler, Former Counsel to President Obama, reported on the TTIP debate in the United States. She said the government was backing TTIP and believed the treaty could strengthen both the American economy – especially small and medium sized businesses – as well as the transatlantic relationship. In order to pass TTIP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP, the President has to be granted Fast Track Promotion Authority, which would allow him to negotiate treaties that Congress could only ratify or reject as a package. The Republican majority in Congress as well as the deep divide between Democrats and Republicans might be a possible pitfall, Ruemmler pointed out. Even though the Republicans do not oppose the two treaties in general, they might want to prevent it merely because it is an initiative of the Obama Administration. She continued by remarking that TTIP is not as much discussed in the United States as it is in Germany. Opposing voices are rare. American unions, who are generally skeptical of international trade agreements, are very open towards TTIP – not least due to the strict rules on occupational safety in Europe. The arbitration courts are the most criticized point of the negotiations since opponents feared them being used to indirectly undermine the sovereignty of the state, she added.

After the key notes, Professor Dr. Michael Hüther, Director and member of the executive board of Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft Köln e.V. and Dr. Simone Peter, federal chairwoman of the German Green Party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, engaged in a panel discussion. The discussion was moderated by Sven Afhüppe, chief editor of the German economics newspaper Handelsblatt.

Dr. Peter emphasized that TTIP would bring more risks than benefits from the Green Party’s point of view. While she welcomed reduction of trade barriers, she stressed that it would be inacceptable for the treaty to ecological and social standards could neither be questioned, nor lowered. The danger of this scenario lies in the arbitration clause of the treaty, she continued to say. In her opinion, the fear of high financial sanctions could prevent countries from establishing environmental or occupational regulations. She also criticized the lack of transparency of the negotiations. Dr. Peter spoke out for a suspension of the negotiations until all reservations from the public would have been dispelled.

Professor Hüther pointed out the distinct advantages of the treaty. The United States and Europe already shared a strong joint economic collaboration – now it is necessary to ban further obstacles for trade and investment in order to not risk falling behind the Asian competitors and for further promoting economic success on both sides. Suspending the negotiations would waste important time and endanger the treaty as a whole. Hüther added that he did not share the doubts of Simone Peter. High standards, he stressed, are implemented on both sides of the Atlantic, giving no ground for fears regarding a downward spiral for consumers and employees. He stressed that Germany already had agreements with many countries and that arbitration courts play a big role within these treaties and are not limiting state sovereignty.

The topics that were discussed with the audience included the role of arbitration courts and the opportunities TTIP offers in the area of renewable energy.

Der Beitrag “TTIP: A Historic Opportunity for the Transatlantic Partnership?” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Link to the speech of Prof. Dr. Andreas Dombret (German)

Der Beitrag Andreas Dombret on European Integration erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Link to Prof. Dr. Dombret’s speech

Der Beitrag “Opt in or opt out?” – Lecture by Prof. Dr. Andreas Dombret erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The Defense Minister, who is himself a Young Leader Alumnus of Atlantik-Brücke e.V., remains positive about the future of the German-American partnership. He cites the development of NATO over the past decades, a clear success story in his eyes, as a reason for the optimism. Guttenberg notes, however, that the European Union’s collective security policy and its cooperation with NATO need to be markedly improved.

Friedrich Merz, the Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke e.V., thanked the Minister for his remarks. For Merz, Guttenberg’s link between a security/foreign policy perspective and economic points attest to a realistic perception of the situation, one that does justice to the multifaceted nature of the transatlantic relationship.

Der Beitrag XXII Arthur Burns Memorial Lecture erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

»Link to the American Council on Germany’s detailes conference report

»Link to the Opening Speech by Ambassador Dr. Peter Wittig

Der Beitrag German-American Conference 2016 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

From a German perspective, the integration of the topic started off with a focus on the recent process of drafting a new white paper which outlines the basis for the security and defense policy of the German government for the next ten years. A central element of the strategy is embedding German security and defense strategy into multinational cooperation – especially into NATO. From NATO’s point of view, the defense against hybrid warfare plays an increasingly important role.

The central topics of the debate were two major challenges for NATO: the crisis in Ukraine and the relationship with Russia as well as the imminent threat by the terrorist group “Islamic State” (ISIS), which primarily operates from Syria and Iraq. With its attacks in Paris, ISIS has now also hit Europe. The participants emphasized that a possible cooperation of the Western alliance with Russia against ISIS in Syria does not change the evaluation of Russia’s role in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Russia’s breech of international law when it annexed Crimea and its violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty cannot be tolerated. As a consequence, NATO has increased its bilateral and multilateral exercise maneuvers ever since the summit in Wales. NATO has also initiated more than 40 projects for the collective defense in the eastern regions of the alliance and strengthened its infrastructure, especially to reassure its Baltic partners. NATO aims to further enhance the transparency of its strategy to communicate its actions and the defensive character of the alliance more clearly to the public.

With regards to the fight against ISIS, the need for a political solution was emphasized. Financial sources of the terrorists need to be cut off and political leadership in the Middle East and moderate Islamic clerics need to be strengthened and supported. The possibilities for military support are very limited. Such an approach should includethe European Union and civil society organizations, as well. The cooperation between NATO and the EU in Kosovo was given as an example. In light of the Paris attacks, it was debated which options the Lisbon treaty offers and which consequences may arise: Article 42.7, which may cause a declaration of the EU mutual defense clause, or the solidarity clause of Article 188r, which calls for the support of EU member states hit by a terrorist attack.
Further topics that were discussed included the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw and NATO enlargement.
Matthias Naß, international correspondent at DIE ZEIT, moderated the discussion.

Der Beitrag Between the Conflict in Ukraine and the Threat of ISIS erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Among the guest speakers were Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, MEP (ALDE), Jonathan Parish, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Defence Policy and Planning, Dr. Jamie Shea, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, Dr. Peter Boehm, Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada, Helga Schmid, Deputy Secretary General & Political Director, European External Action Service, and Kerry Buck, Political Director and Assistant Deputy Minister, International Security and Political Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada.

The conference was hosted by Alan Bowman, Deputy Head of Mission, Mission of Canada to the European Union, Ambassador Reinhard Silberberg, Permanent Representative of the German Republic to the European Union, Michael Hinterdobler, Head of the Bavarian Mission to the European Union, Ambassador Martin Erdmann, Permanent Representative of Germany to NATO, and Dr. Marc Jan Eumann, State Secretary for Federal Affairs, Europe and Media of North Rhine-Westphalia.

The German-Canadian Conference is carried out in cooperation with the Atlantik-Bruecke Canada.

Der Beitrag German Canadian Conference 2015 “Foreign and Security Policy” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The most pressing issue on the table right now for Germany is the outcome of the elections. What has been the feedback in Canada to the German election results?

Canada was really comfortable with the two front runners. The Prime Minister has a strong relationship with Frau Merkel and a good relationship also with Mr. Schulz. The relationship between Canada and Germany is so positive. We work shoulder to shoulder around the world. German has been supportive of the free trade agreement between Canada and the EU. Frau Merkel now needs to find a coalition government, and the parties that she will negotiate with are also completely acceptable for Canada. From that point of view, we are very pleased that the winner is a friend of Canada.

One of the big issues here in Germany in the election was the relative success of the right-wing AfD. Many pundits have commented that this was due to fear of the current big wave of immigration. Canada is very successful at integrating immigrants into society. Are there are any lessons that Germany could learn from Canada?

We are always pleased to share our experience with our friends. Prime Minister Trudeau is convinced that diversity is a fact. Our population is aging. The work force is coming from other continents. And then, inclusion must be the choice. Because if there is no inclusion,  there will be xenophobia and populism and that is not a good, not the right path. That being said, we are not here to lecture anyone. If you want to see how we do it – in a completely different context –, why Canada is strong not despite but because of its diversity, we are happy to share all the experience we have. In Europe and especially in Germany there is a lot of curiosity about the way we deal with these issues. It is a core part of Canadian identity. There is no need to copy our Canadian experience exactly in Germany or elsewhere. But maybe the Canadian case can be a source of more optimism about the capacity to integrate people from all over the world.

You mentioned the trade agreement between Canada and the EU, which has just provisionally come into effect a few days ago. Especially in Germany, there have been many critics of the agreement. Many people are worried that it might hurt consumers. What words of reassurance would you offer these critics?

We are not at all going to have a race to the bottom regarding workers’ rights, food safety, the environment. To the contrary, the agreement is very strong on that. The ability of the government to regulate and of parliament to legislate for the common good is protected. In fact, we will show our populations in Germany, in Europe, in Canada, and in the world, that we should never choose between trade and progress. We should bring them together and that is what we have done through CETA. And now that the tariffs are gone, now that we have the implementation of the agreement, I am convinced that many people will see that the sky is still blue and they did not need to be so nervous about it. We work together, confident in the new opportunities that this market has to offer. Canada for Europe and Europe for Canada.

Let us shift focus to your neighbor to the south. Since the new U.S. administration has come into office, the tone has become somewhat confrontational; old alliances are not relied upon as much as they used to. What does this mean for Canada and for the European-Canadian relationship?

One of Canada’s roles in the world is to encourage our American friends to work within the multilateral institutions of the world and not try to isolate themselves or try to rule the world without allies. While cultivating a strong relationship with President Trump, Prime Minister Trudeau makes sure to point out that multilateralism is the way to go. Our national interest is linked to the interest of other countries. The countries of the European Union are among them. Canada is strongly supporting the integration of European countries in the European Union and we are making this point frequently with the president of the United States and his entourage. We have a lot of support in American society. It’s the same with trade. Protectionism is not the solution and we are making this point very clear. The fact that we have a strong support here in Europe with Angela Merkel and the other leaders is a great help.

As Ambassador to Germany and Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe, what is at the top of your agenda?

Our priority is to make sure that the free trade agreement will be a success, to create jobs in Canada and in Europe and to show the world that yes, we need to trade and we need to be open to progressive policies and to sustainable solutions for the environment. We should not miss this opportunity. The environment, cultural policies, social policies, the social framework, all of this will be enhanced.

When you speak to friends in Canada these days, is there anything about Berlin that you find so remarkable that you always point it out to them?

What I find remarkable is that I have failed to meet one person, only one, who is unhappy to be in Berlin. Berlin is a city where you have all the advantages and none of the inconveniences of a big city. You have the arts, you have the beauty, you have the parks, but you don’t have a cost of living that is prohibitive, the traffic is still relatively acceptable and people are not as stressed as you see in the other big cities in the developed world. I think it is fantastic to be in Berlin.

Der Beitrag “Working shoulder to shoulder” – Interview with Canadian Ambassador Stéphane Dion erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag Young Leaders Conference in Santa Cruz and Silicon Valley erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag German-American Young Leaders Conference 2016 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Just months into his young presidency, it is clear that Europe cannot presume an even keel, firm alliance, or historically-shared interests with the United States of Donald Trump. The West, as long understood, is in hiatus. Europe must act accordingly.

The presumption of a steady, stabilizing US posture in foreign policy undeniably ended in May 2017 during the President’s first trip abroad, where he scolded and physically bullied allies in Europe, praised autocrats, and trivialized the Holocaust. That first trip underlined that he – not the presumed “adults in the room,” his National Security Advisor, Defense Secretary or even Secretary of State – would make the final call in foreign policy matters. Rex Tillerson seems adrift and far out of ear-shot of the President in critical foreign policy matters. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has been dressed-down numerous times in front of colleagues. While the Secretary of Defense has fared better, General Mattis’ statements are regularly undercut by the White House.

This remains a hard pill for European leaders to swallow. For months, they attempted to assuage their own nervous publics that the long arc of American commitment to European security and prosperity could not be so easily diverted by one man. But, as the President wiped references to Article V from his prepared script at NATO, it became obvious his advisors will not serve in the stabilizing roles European leaders imagined. As North Korea provokes, cyber attacks destabilize market flows and sands shift in the Middle East, and as an erratic American President grows restless with a domestic agenda that is slow to advance, we are entering a dangerous phase in international politics.

As global leaders gather in Hamburg for the G-20 Summit – a meeting that by design contradicts a Trumpian world-view – European leaders are duty-bound to shoulder additional responsibility for the global economic and security architecture. Their public agrees: On average 72% of Europeans questioned for the latest Pew Research Center poll does not trust President Trump to “do the right thing.”

Time is of the essence: European leaders must pursue a range of parallel policy avenues, focusing on what might lie ahead.

First, they must (and have already begun to) consolidate the gains of European integration, particularly in intelligence-sharing, security and economic defense matters. External pressures from Russia and the US are forcing these moves – but they were long overdue. This means expanding cyber-capacities to secure markets and people; deepening the Framework Nations Concept in NATO and yes, committing to 2% GDP spending – over the course of 10 years agreed upon in Wales. All in. And it means making uncharacteristically rapid advances on stabilizing the Eurozone.

Second, European leaders must triangulate: The EU-Japan trade deal is one such move. Further careful engagement with China is another. Europe has interests, it’s time the Union articulated them clearly and underlined its intentions to act on them.

Third, they must co-opt and extract value: Where overlap exists between the President’s domestically-focused agenda, European leaders must lean in. But they should craft artful deals, and ‘grow the pie’ in the process. The President wants to borrow labor market strategies, manufacturing and entrepreneurship strategies from European countries to revitalize the American heartland? Let there be trade-offs for that type of knowledge-sharing.

Fourth, they must collaborate: America’s military might, economic heft and cultural influence dictates that isolation is not an option. Re-upping commitments in the international institutional architecture, upholding strong diplomatic ties with the Trump administration are the standard elements. More importantly, European leaders must retain their holistic view of the United States as one of the most vibrant democracies in the world. Partnering with cities, states, civil society – creating networks and linkages and functioning systems to support these – as mapped out in the priorities of the 2017 G-20 agenda is the right, the only way to develop anticipatory responses to the inter-connected, transnational challenges of the 21st century.

It’s time to brace and deepen European security effectiveness and integration and to prepare European citizens for these shifts in global responsibility with honesty and openness. It is an opportunity for Europeans to forge their own “shining city on a hill,” while the world’s historic guarantor of global order is on hiatus.

Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook is the founding Executive Director of the Future of Diplomacy Projectat the Harvard Kennedy School and was a 2012 Atlantik-Brücke Young Leader. She will serve as an expert commentator for ARD-Television during the G-20 Summit in Hamburg in early July 2017.

Der Beitrag “Time to brace” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Donald Trump is returning to Europe twice in July, with stops in Poland, Germany, and France.  After the conspicuous disaster of his first trip to Europe at the end of May, the press is fairly quivering with excitement at the possibilities for mischief and mayhem surrounding America’s volatile commander-in-chief.

And, if experience is any guide, Trump will probably deliver. He could easily do for the Polish-German relations what he did for Saudi-Qatar relations on his last trip to the Persian Gulf. He could go into snit because of the protests against his visit. Or maybe he could just tweet out some insult about Angela Merkel’s look. It is all possible.

But it is also all a distraction. Because regardless of whom Trump insults or whom he flatters on this particular trip, serious questions about the Trump administration should persist for all of Europe. Five endless months into his tenure, a few points about his presidency have already become abundantly clear to reasonably attentive European observers:

• Trump is more of a clown than an ideologue — he is basically uninterested in most aspects of policy and in any case incapable of carrying through complex policy initiatives such as health care or immigration.
• He is more of a bully than a savvy negotiator – he has backed down or given up on almost everything so far including declaring China a currency manipulator, dumping the Iran deal, and getting Mexico to pay for the wall. Like most bullies, he gives up easily when actually challenged.
• He is more of an egotist than a strategist. He values symbolic “quick win” actions like bombing Syria that make him look decisive more than he cares for consistency or coherence. His policy therefore changes at the speed of a tweet.

All of this means that the essence of Trump’s policy is its incoherence and unpredictability. Nonetheless, in Europe, many policymakers have a certain complacency about his presidency. They note that the nastier elements of his campaign rhetoric — the hostility toward NATO, the indifference to the European Union, and the support for populist forces in Europe — have largely disappeared.

To their relief, Trump has put into place a foreign policy team that fits well within the bounds of normal Republican parameters. Beneath the daily tumult of Trump-induced chaos, people like Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley are working assiduously to reassure allies and to fashion a foreign policy that, while distinct from that of former U.S. President Barack Obama, is hardly revolutionary.

In stark opposition to candidate Trump, his administration’s foreign policy seeks to continue American leadership in the world, and indeed signals greater involvement in the Middle East and a greater willingness overall to commit American power to regional stability around the world.

This is not ideal from the perspective of many Europeans who remember the travails of the Bush administration, but it is quite familiar. It does not represent a collapse of world order. All the Europeans need to do is appeal to Trump’s ego at ceremonial occasions, be especially nice to Ivanka, and then do the serious business with the grownups in the next room. This is the emerging Trump management strategy around the world, from Japan to Saudi Arabia to Germany. People are gaining confidence in it.

This confidence is an illusion. Trump’s (lack of) character traits have already sunk his domestic agenda and even endangered his presidency. To the extent that Trump’s foreign policy has worked at all so far, it is because he has not been very interested or involved.

Yet American presidencies have a certain trajectory. They begin with a president committed to a domestic agenda — health care, immigration, taxes, etc. Usually within a year or two, they confront the fact that presidential power is very limited on domestic issues, and the U.S. Congress is a gridlocked mess. Looking to remain relevant and proactive, the president naturally turns to an area where he has greater power to take decisive action. Unfortunately for Europe and the world, that area is foreign policy.

As in domestic policy, the coherence of the Trump administration’s foreign policy will not survive the intervention of the president. The office of the presidency is central to U.S. foreign policy — Trump can with an errant tweet or an impulsive missile strike undo months or years of careful planning.

And he might at any time. On a host of issues, the president is not on the same page as his national security team. On Russia, particularly, he seems completely at odds with his team’s own policy, even as Russia-related scandals engulf his administration. It is folly to believe that the United States and Europe can construct a long-term transatlantic policy to deal with a growing Russian challenge while the president divulges top-secret intelligence to the Russians in the Oval Office.

European complacency risks tying Europe’s fate to an unstable and unpredictable U.S. president. European policymakers hope that he will listen to his team, live up to their promises, and not destroy the NATO alliance or the European Union in a fit of pique. They would be wiser to hedge against his predictable unpredictability and seek their own means of securing their position in the world. This means developing a European defense capability and a European policy on Russia that doesn’t depend on the United States and its mercurial president.

Jeremy Shapiro is Research Director at ECFR. Previously he was a fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy and the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings, where he edited the Foreign Policy program’s blog Order from Chaos. Prior to Brookings, he was a member of the U.S. State Department’s policy planning staff, where he advised the secretary of state on U.S. policy in North Africa and the Levant. He was also the senior advisor to Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon, providing strategic guidance on a wide variety of U.S.-European foreign policy issues.

An earlier version of this article was published under the title “Trump and Europe: The NASCAR Summit?” on ECFR’s website.

Der Beitrag “Predictable Unpredictability” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Mr. Wenger, you are originally from Germany, went to the US to study computer science, founded a company and now you are an investor. Is it still necessary today to cross the Atlantic or can someone follow the same path in Germany as well?

Albert Wenger: I think one of the advantages of the internet is that you can build great companies all over the world. New businesses are started every day in Germany – such as Clue – as well as in China, Japan, or Korea. The notion that you have to be in the US to do so is an outdated one. In some respects being in the US may even be a disadvantage, especially when you consider how expensive San Francisco/Silicon Valley has become.

Mr. Raffauf, what is your view as a German startup founder in Germany?

Hans Raffauf: There were many moments when we thought about moving our business to the States. At the beginning, we also considered founding in the US, but ended up deciding against it because we wanted to raise our children here. As Albert already said: although there is less access to capital here, you also need less because the cost of living is lower. In terms of talent, I do still see a considerable difference between Germany and the large clusters in the US – Silicon Valley, of course, but also increasingly New York City. At the same time, we are seeing more and more Americans who move to Europe, especially with the current political situation. We currently have seven Americans on our team, most of whom moved to Germany for us. A critical mass has formed here, which is growing because it has created a certain magnetic pull.

Mr. Wenger, when you started your studies, could you have dreamed of today’s significant technological advances with far-reaching societal implications or did you imagine we would see even more radical changes?

Albert Wenger: I received my first computer around thirty-five years ago – an Apple 2. Already back then I was fascinated by topics such as artificial intelligence. So it was naturally quite disappointing that progress in this area was slow for years. But we’re talking about exponential curves. The developments over the last ten, especially the last five years, have been more dramatic than I ever would have imagined. Entrepreneurs and investors now see that the future will be radically different, but unfortunately most politicians have yet to realize this.

Saving American jobs was one of the central elements of Donald Trump’s election campaign. He talked a lot about jobs that had moved overseas. Yet many experts argue that a far greater number of jobs are lost due to digitalization and automation. What is your assessment?

Albert Wenger: I think that technology had a dual effect: some jobs were replaced as a direct result of technological progress, but technological change also enabled the relocation of activities. “Digital offshoring” only become possible when data could easily be sent to, say, Bangalore. These two trends operated in tandem. The promise to bring back jobs using the methods Donald Trump is proposing will lead us back to the past. In the US, the solar industry already creates far more jobs than the coal industry, yet Trump still insists that we have to send people back into the mines. This is totally backward-looking and fundamentally underestimates the effect that the extreme acceleration of the digital transformation will have on the labor market.

You have frequently commented on how societies could look where more and more work is done by machines and you are a proponent of an unconditional basic income. Do you think this is a realistic model, especially in the US?

Albert Wenger: The basic income movement today is present in Europe, Asia, as well as in the US. If there is one positive thing we can say about Trump’s victory, it is that business as usual will no longer suffice. So far, our approach has been to just tweak the interest rate a little bit or pass yet another job creation program, expecting that this would solve all of our problems. The election showed that people no longer buy into this. They did not believe that Hillary Clinton’s program of ‘more of the same’ with some fine-tuning would be enough. In my view, this has created space for more radical ideas. One of these more radical ideas is the basic income. I believe that the technological advances that we see today – be they self-driving trucks or computer programs that replace lawyers or doctors – show that automation is no longer limited to blue-collar labor. As a result, there is a growing interest in alternatives to the current system and Trump’s policy proposals, and society is more open than ever before to talk about completely new ideas.

Bill Gates recently proposed taxing robots to finance such as model. What do you think of this suggestion?

Albert Wenger: He proposed that because the alternative would be to tax people like Bill Gates. I think taxing technologies slows the process of making these technologies widely usable. If we had taxed tractors, then more people would have had to work in the agricultural sector longer. Similarly, a tax on robots would delay the use of robots in fields where we would all like to see them be used. Then there is the question: What exactly counts as a robot? Must it have arms? What about an algorithm or computer program that replaces human labor? Should Microsoft Word be taxed? This is a dumb idea from an otherwise very smart man. In my opinion we should rather tax things that we know are bad for the world, like carbon dioxide emissions. On top of that, I think we need some form of tax on money or wealth because digitalization has turned normal distributions into so-called “power laws”. In other words, today’s winners get much more than in the past, we see ever more extreme outliers and also more monopolies. Here money is piling up that can help finance the basic income.

Der Beitrag “Society is more open than ever before for completely new ideas” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In his inaugural speech, President Donald Trump emphasized that he does not want to dwell on the past. He only wants to look ahead now. And he feels committed to the welfare of his country above all: “America first”. During his first days in office, President Trump showed what he means by this.

We know and do not question that any government is committed to the welfare of its own country, first and foremost. But peace and freedom throughout the world are also dependent on large and small nations taking responsibility beyond their own borders. Looking ahead only takes you in the right direction if experiences from the past are heeded and tried and trusted institutions, which were established on the basis of these experiences, are not casually abandoned. It is with great worry that we witness the political developments on either side of the Atlantic.

The first half of the twentieth century was characterized by war, destruction, genocide and unfettered barbarity. After two world wars, responsible politicians in America and Europe were able to create a new political order, which has given us a unique period of peace and freedom lasting over seven decades. President Truman, who laid the foundations for Germany’s reconstruction with the signing of the Marshall Plan, saw the historic turning point here. Following the “era of national suspicion, economic hostility and isolationism”, a new age of “mutual cooperation, to increase the prosperity of people throughout the world” was called to life.

This political order is still characterized by common values and the conviction that a reliable partnership between nations and communities of states is only possible when the rules of our coexistence, which we have established through democratic processes, are complied with, when existing institutions of international cooperation such as the United Nations, NATO and the European Union, are respected and when discussions and negotiations regarding their ongoing development are shaped by mutual respect and understanding.

This is exactly why bankers Eric M. Warburg and Gotthard Freiherr von Falkenhausen, entrepreneur and politician Erik Blumenfeld, journalists Marion Graefin Doenhoff and Ernst Friedlaender and entrepreneur Hans Karl von Borries founded Atlantik-Bruecke 65 years ago. They were convinced that open discussions and meetings would overcome the mistrust between the young Federal Republic of Germany and America, leading to trusting cooperation. Since then Atlantik-Bruecke has brought together thousands of Germans and Americans, and their exchange of ideas and knowledge has led to new mindsets and initiatives on both sides of the Atlantic and close personal friendships. In Atlantik-Bruecke, people of different political and professional experiences, of all skin colors and ways of life are linked by the conviction that the transatlantic partnership is and will remain a prerequisite for peace on our continents in the future.

We are not ignoring the fact that following the changes in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, new answers and new forms of international cooperation are urgently needed. We know and also regret that the European Union is not currently meeting these challenges. Nationalism, isolationism and protectionism are, however, the wrong answers.

In our countries we are confronted with new types of conflict and new risks to our domestic and international security. Both America and Europe are threatened by terrorism in the same way. We must respond to this firmly and consistently. The quality of our open, free societies, however, will reveal itself in the respect and protection with which we treat our basic values and liberal principles in the face of these threats. With all the differences there are between Europe and America, this is the common foundation on which we stand and from which we are able to act. Only together can Europe and America continue to ensure freedom, democracy and human rights in the future. If doubts about this premise continue to grow, this will be very damaging for Europe and America.

Ultimately, open societies and open markets belong together. We cannot overlook the fact that global development over recent decades has not only brought benefits. The United States and the EU must jointly set a good example in order to halt the dramatic effects of climate change. We must ask ourselves how we can guarantee that everyone benefits from globalization. Here too, however, nationalism, isolationism and protectionism are the wrong answers. The increase in wealth over recent decades has been greatest where borders are open and there is a climate of respect, a willingness to take responsibility and social equality. So at Atlantik-Bruecke we are not only committed to free trade, but above all continuing to uphold our joint values including freedom of expression, religious freedom, freedom of the press and academic freedom.

America and Europe must not only turn inwards. Governments and parliaments, institutions of civil society and not least the economy on both sides of the Atlantic now have an obligation and responsibility to work closely in partnership in the face of big international challenges and threats.

The Executive Board of Atlantik-Bruecke:
Friedrich Merz, Chairman
Dr. h.c. Edelgard Bulmahn MdB, Vice Chairman
Professor Dr. Burkhard Schwenker, Vice Chairman
Professor Dr. Andreas Dombret, Treasurer
Dr. David Deissner, Executive Director

Der Beitrag America and Europe can only succeed together – An appeal for transatlantic cooperation by Atlantik-Bruecke erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

For nearly a quarter of a century Robin Maynard has worked at the Carrier plant in Indianapolis, Indiana, building furnaces and creating a middle-class life for himself and his family.

Indeed, Mr. Maynard’s hourly salary of $24 was enough to put his two eldest children through college, and he had high hopes of sending his youngest daughter, now in high school, to Indiana University to study medicine.

But his plan – and that middle-class lifestyle – was put in jeopardy last February when Carrier decided to close the Indianapolis factory and move production to a plant in Mexico.

Not long after Carrier’s announcement, however, Donald Trump decided to make the Indianapolis factory and its 1,400 workers Exhibit A in his argument that the country’s free trade policies weren’t benefitting ordinary workers like Mr. Maynard. At the same time, Mr. Trump threatened to impose tariffs of 35 percent or more on American companies that moved production to other countries, and then shipped their products back home.

At campaign stops throughout the country and during the presidential debates with Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump repeatedly cited the story of Carrier, and promised that if elected president, he’d call the head of the company and demand it keep those 1,400 jobs in the United States.

Thanks to blue-collar supporters like Mr. Maynard in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Mr. Trump shocked the political establishment and won the White House on Nov. 8.

So when he took to Twitter on Thanksgiving Day in the United States, and hinted that he was close to a deal with Carrier to keep the Indianapolis factory open, Mr. Maynard was feeling especially grateful.

“I’m ready for him to come,” said Mr. Maynard, shortly before Mr. Trump visited the plant on Dec. 1 to announce that nearly 1,000 jobs would stay in Indiana.  “Now I can put my daughter through college without having to look for another job.”

For Carrier, and its corporate parent, United Technologies, the math was simple: it takes workers at its plant in Monterrey, Mexico an entire day to earn what Mr. Maynard makes in one hour. Taking advantage of lower-cost labor and moving out of Indiana translates to a savings of roughly $65 million annually for the company.

And like many big companies, United Technologies is under pressure from investors to grow earnings by 10 to 20 percent annually – while the economy is only growing by 2 percent – so savings like that is hard to pass up.

But in states like Indiana, where only 15 percent of adults have a college degree, the loss of these manufacturing jobs means the loss of a middle class lifestyle.

The typical manufacturing worker in the state earns $59,000 a year, about $20,000 a year more than the typical service job in stores, restaurants and medical centers.

And for less credentialed workers, that margin is the difference between having a shot at a middle-class life, including owning a home and sending children to college, and having to struggle to make ends meet.

Mr. Maynard is very fortunate that the factory will now stay open – sending his daughter to college at Indiana University will cost $20,000 a year, even though it is public and he is a resident of the state.

While loans and scholarships can reduce that bill, there’s no way he could afford to send his daughter there if he earned $15 an hour. That equals just over $30,000 a year – before taxes.  With his Carrier salary of about $55,000 a year, on the other hand, college is within reach for his daughter.

“These are truly irreplaceable jobs,” said Scott Paul, president of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, an advocacy group. “A manufacturing job is one of the only ladders to fulfilling the American dream for a worker without a college degree.”

In the popular imagination, the Indianapolis factory where 1,400 Carrier workers build furnaces and fan coils looks like a scene out of movies “The Deer Hunter” or “Norma Rae.” Blue-collar guys walking through the plant gate, lunch pail in hand, or women barely getting by after years on the line.

But the reality at the Carrier plant that Mr. Trump visited is very different. About half the workers are African-American, making it a much more diverse workplace than many white-collar settings. Women account for a substantial portion of the work force as well.

“A manufacturing worker who loses their job at Carrier will be resigned to facing a lower standard of living and leaner retirement years,” Mr. Paul said.

Another veteran Carrier worker, Paul Roell, sees plenty of help wanted signs at warehouses of companies like Amazon every morning when he drives to work at the factory.

The problem is that they typically pay $13 to $15 an hour – compared to the $23.83 he makes per hour at Carrier.  “I guess I could work two full-time shifts a day,” he joked.

Mr. Trump’s promise to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States, even if it means tariffs on imported products, was a key reason why Mr. Roell and his wife supported him enthusiastically. So when Mr. Trump was declared the winner shortly before 3 a.m. on Nov. 9, Mr. Roell and his wife exchanged high-fives.

But no matter his rhetoric – or his tweets – Mr. Trump will have a hard time reversing the long slide in manufacturing jobs in the United States. Some of that is due to factories relocating to places where labor is cheaper, like Mexico and China. In other cases, jobs are lost to automation, when robots take the place of workers.

Between 2000 and 2016, the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has fallen from 17.3 million to 12.3 million.  And even with the pressure from Mr. Trump, at least 400 Carrier workers will still lose their jobs in Indianapolis, as some production will still move to Mexico next year.

What is more, another 700 jobs at a United Technologies sister plant in Huntington, Indiana, a two hour drive from Indianapolis, are also set to move to Mexico.

“Carrier is special because it happened at the right time and the right place and it gained a high profile,” Mr. Paul said.  “But obviously, Donald Trump and Mike Pence can’t intervene every time a plant closes.”

Nelson D. Schwartz has covered economics for The New York Times since 2012. Prior to that, he wrote about Wall Street and banking for the Times, and also served as European Economic Correspondent in Paris from 2008 to 2010. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago, and worked for a decade at Fortune Magazine before the joining the Times in 2007. He is based in New York. You can find his articles for the New York Times »here.

Der Beitrag For Blue Collar Workers in the United States, Donald Trump’s Victory is Personal erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Forty-seven participants with diverse professional backgrounds from Germany and the United States met with high-level guest speakers, exchanged views and shared their expertise in working groups, and enjoyed manifold networking opportunities. One highlight of the conference was a trip to Washington, DC, with stops at the White House, the U.S. Senate, the Brookings Institution, and the German Embassy. Throughout the week, working groups led by the Young Leaders themselves addressed a range of topics from the realm of foreign and security policy as well as economic policy. One session was devoted to the field of digital entrepreneurship and innovation, and a lively Fishbowl discussion revolved around the state of transatlantic relations. The conference concluded with a visit to the U.S. Marine Corps Base in Quantico, Virginia, marking yet another highlight of the week.

Among the many guest speakers were Dr. Charles Kupchan, Senior Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council, U.S. Senator Christopher Murphy; Professor Peter Neumann, Director of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at King’s College London; Elmar Theveßen, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of ZDF German TV; and James Townsend, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy at the Pentagon.

By the time they bid each other farewell, the 2015 Young Leaders had formed friendships and built new ties across the Atlantic.

Der Beitrag 37th German-American Young Leaders Conference erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Tel Abyad sits on the Syrian-Turkish border along one of the main highways south from Turkey to Raqqa, the Syrian city that ISIS has declared as its capital. As such, the city served as an important entry point for foreign fighters and supplies destined for Raqqa and service with ISIS. By taking the city and continuing their push south toward Raqqa this week, the Kurdish YPG and their FSA allies have cut this important supply line and dealt a blow to ISIS. In addition, the threat to Raqqa has most likely forced ISIS to divert forces from elsewhere in order to bolster its capital’s defenses, relieving the pressure on other areas that are resisting ISIS advances. But Turkish officials in Ankara have not welcomed these positive developments in the campaign against ISIS as they should.

Fear underscores Turkish reaction to Kurdish success

Instead of applauding the blow to ISIS, Turkish officials have reacted with alarm, fearing the creation of a permanent, autonomous Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. Turkey, a NATO ally, has long feared such an outcome, which its leaders believe could foment separatism among Turkey’s own Kurdish population. The Turkish state has struggled for 30 years to stamp out an intermittent separatist insurgency in mostly Kurdish southeastern Turkey led by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which Turkey, the United States, and the European Union label a terrorist organization. The PKK has upheld a unilateral ceasefire for the past three years and appears open to a peaceful solution offered by the Turkish state. But officials in Ankara still fear that the Syrian Kurdish enclave—governed by the Democratic Union Party, or PYD, a sister organization to the PKK and the political party closest to the YPG forces that took Tel Abyad—could offer encouragement and sanctuary to the PKK should the group reopen hostilities in Turkey.

These fears underpin the hostile reaction of Turkish officials to the YPG’s gains against ISIS. Two weeks ago, when the advance on Tel Abyad began, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned that “The West, which is hitting Arabs and Turkmen of Tel Abyad from the air, is sadly settling the PYD and PKK terror organizations in their places.” Several days later, President Erdoğan added that the YPG’s seizure of Tel Abyad “could lead to the creation of a structure [independent state] that threatens our borders.” U.S. support for the Kurds, including coordinated air strikes and shared intelligence, has contributed to tension between Washington and Ankara, part of a wider disagreement over what course to pursue in Syria.

Five reasons Turkey should welcome Kurdish progress against ISIS

Despite the historical animosity between Ankara and the Kurdish groups that are active in Syria today and the reactions of Erdoğan and other Turkish leaders, the gains achieved by Syrian Kurdish fighters and their allies against ISIS are good for Turkey’s security. Turkey should welcome these developments for five reasons.

1. It strengthens the Turkey-Syria border
The YPG and its allies have pushed ISIS back from long stretches of the Turkish border, which enhances Turkish security by making it more difficult for ISIS operatives to infiltrate southern Turkey. Turkey has been criticized in some quarters for failing to crack down on the flow of foreign fighters and logistical support to ISIS across its southern border, including public criticism from President Obama two weeks ago. But it is a long, porous border with many towns straddling the divide and long-standing family and trade ties; this makes it very difficult to patrol, let along seal off. Turkey has therefore been—and remains—very vulnerable to possible cross-border attacks from ISIS should the group turn against Turkey. The YPG gains will insulate against this vulnerability, to some extent, and should be welcomed in Ankara.

2. It weakens ISIS
Almost anything that weakens ISIS is good for regional security and good for Turkey. The YPG is one of the few groups that effectively resisted and pushed back ISIS, with the help of its Arab and Assyrian allies and coalition airstrikes. This effectiveness is enhanced because YPG fighters have now successfully cut ISIS’ primary supply line to its capital, hampering its efforts to recruit fighters and resupply and forcing the group to shift forces from other fronts. ISIS forces are vulnerable to coalition air strikes when executing such redeployments, particularly if the group tries to move heavy weaponry or armored vehicles to the new front. ISIS will have to either accept YPG gains or face battle on terrain chosen by the Kurdish group and the coalition, in the open, away from civilian populations, and where they are most vulnerable to aerial attacks.

3. It supports moderates
The YPG and its Arab and Assyrian allies represent a relatively moderate array of forces that reject the violent Salafist ideology that motivates so many armed actors in Syria. While information is difficult to verify, it seems the PYD and YPG have avoided widespread abuse of civilians, so common elsewhere in Syria, and have sought to design a new social contract and legal system. The groups allowed Human Rights Watch to investigate the cantons under their control and pledged to address serious concerns of arbitrary detention and abuse raised by the monitoring group. The YPG’s cooperation with Assyrian Christians, Arab tribes, and the Euphrates Volcano—an FSA-linked rebel group—during the Tel Abyad campaign is encouraging. While the YPG and the PYD should continue to reach out across ethnic and sectarian lines and can certainly do more to include non-PYD voices in the administration of the Syrian Kurdish cantons, they are making the best of a bad situation amid a chaotic and bloody sectarian war.

4. The Syrian PYD does not seek an independent state
The Turkish government overestimates the potential for an independent Kurdish state on its border. Syrian PYD leaders have repeatedly said that they do not seek an independent state and that they support the territorial integrity of Syria and consider themselves Syrian. A PYD official repeated this assertion this week, saying “We have no plan to take a part of Syria. Indeed, we are part of it and we will fight to maintain an independent, democratic and united Syria with our allies.” The Kurds have declared autonomy in the context of the Syrian war but say that this will not change their commitment to be a part of a future Syria. Kurdish leaders argue they are merely seeking assurances about their status—including more control of local government—in a future, post-Assad Syria. Given the history of anti-Kurdish racism and state repression of Kurdish political participation, including the denial of citizenship, this position is reasonable.

5. Syrian Kurdish autonomy will not undermine negotiations with the PKK
Turkey is misjudging the impact that the Syrian Kurdish struggle is having on its negotiations with the PKK and overall relations with Turkey’s Kurdish minority. Ankara fears that Syrian Kurdish autonomy, alongside Iraqi Kurdish autonomy, could lead Turkish Kurds to demand such status for themselves or, more dramatically, seek to join them in an ethnic Kurdish federation. Such fears are far-fetched and ignore the political and linguistic differences between Kurds, personal and political rivalries and animosity between Iraqi Kurdish leaders and the PKK and PYD, deep energy and economic ties linking the Iraqi Kurds to Baghdad and Ankara, the hostility of regional powers and the United States to such an outcome, and the stated goals of Kurdish leaders on all sides to pursue greater political status within their current national borders. As previously mentioned, the PYD seeks a future within Syria, and the PKK dropped demands for independence years ago. Meanwhile, Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Massoud Barzani has put plans for an independence referendum on hold and pledged that any plan would be peaceful and negotiated with the Iraqi central government.

In fact, Turkey is ignoring several positive effects that the Syrian Kurdish struggle is having on Turkey’s peace talks with the PKK. First, young Kurdish men and women who seek to fight in in the name of Kurdish ethnic nationalism are now drawn to Syria to fight ISIS, rather than targeting the Turkish state. Second, for the first time, the United States has leverage over the PKK and PYD due to its air campaign in support of their fighters—leverage it can use to ensure peace in Turkey. Without U.S. air support and intelligence, the Syrian Kurdish cantons would be very vulnerable to ISIS. This Kurdish reliance on the United States dramatically reduces the odds of the PKK reopening the armed struggle within Turkey: Such a move would lead the United States to immediately cut support for Syrian Kurdish groups linked to the PKK, likely causing a split within the broader Kurdish movement and widespread anger toward the PKK leadership.

But Ankara’s outlook is complicated by two preoccupations of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government in Ankara. Having just lost their outright parliamentary majority, the AKP must now form a coalition government. The most likely partner is the right-wing Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP, which strongly opposes Kurdish autonomy and favors a hard line toward the Syrian Kurdish cantons, making accommodation difficult. The AKP may therefore be ramping up the rhetoric against the Kurds in order to secure a coalition agreement. Second, Turkey’s primary goal in Syria has been to overthrow Assad, which has led Turkey to support quite extreme Islamist rebel groups—many of whom are hostile to the YPG and their allies. Still, on matters of fundamental national importance such as securing the border and combating ISIS, the Turkish government must take a long-term view.

Turkey must adapt to the new security situation

The bottom line is that Turkey must get over its preoccupations and adapt. Overall, U.S. support for Syrian Kurdish fighters and their allies in the fight against ISIS is improving the security situation in northern Syria and alleviating humanitarian suffering. The capture of Tel Abyad and the wider gains of Syrian Kurdish groups and their allies are good for Turkish security and should be welcomed by Ankara. Indeed, a more productive course would be for the United States and Turkey to cooperate to support the Syrian Kurdish cantons against ISIS and provide more substantial humanitarian support. If the United States and Turkey jointly support these groups, the two nations could bring considerable leverage to bear, as Kurdish fighters in Syria do not have deep-pocketed or committed external backers, unlike many Islamist groups and, indeed, the Assad regime. This means the United States and Turkey could use their leverage to force the YPG and the PYD to open up to diverse ethnic and political groups, cooperate more deeply with the moderate Arab FSA groups, and ensure civilian safety in the areas under YPG/PYD control. More importantly, such joint U.S. and Turkish support could improve the lives of ordinary Syrians who are caught up in the maelstrom. And, of course, such cooperation would project unity in the face of the ISIS threat and, perhaps, lay the foundation for a post-war Syria.

Max Hoffman is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress.

Link zum Artikel auf der Website des Center for American Progress

Der Beitrag Turkey Should Welcome Kurdish Gains in Northern Syria erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In two months a bridge will be completed connecting San Diego in Southern California to Tijuana, Mexico. At first sight, this may not seem like a big deal – the most important border inspection post in the world withover 150,000 travelers a day has been located between these two cities for many years. The new overpass, however, is exceptional. The bridge links the United States to a Mexican airport and only pedestrians are granted access to it.

San Diego International Airport is being increasingly crowded in by the surrounding suburban settlements, which makes an expansion of the airport by construction impossible. Nevertheless, the flight traffic in Southern California has increased by over a quarter in the past eight years, mostly towards Asia. Today, 37 percent of global travel takes place in the Pacific region, and in 2031 over half of all trips will be boarded there.

Only a few years ago it would have been unthinkable for a Mexican sister city to help its North American neighbor on the other side of the Rio Grande out of its aeronautic squeeze.

Times have changed. Economic integration throughout North America has progressed significantly through NAFTA and the collective rebalancing to Asia by Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Mexico serves as a crucial link within North America, constituting the most important U.S. trading partner with greater trade capacity than Argentina and Brazil who are home to more than twice as many inhabitants.

The World Bank recently reported that Mexico’s investment conditions were better than those of Italy or Spain – establishing a new company is said to take only nine days. The modernization strategy of the government of Mexican president Enrique Peña Nieto is based on two central pillars that will strengthen these developments: opening the federal energy sector to private investment and augmenting trade in the Pacific region especially through new technology and high-quality manufacturing.

This rapprochement is being accelerated by developments within the United States. Society is becoming more heterogeneous and there will no longer be a white majority in a little over twenty years. Hispanics constitute the largest minority with 17 percent, i.e. more than forty million people.

This number will triple in the next 25 years. In 2050, 110 million Hispanics will be living in the USA with an average age of under 31. Germany, in comparison, will be home to about 69 million inhabitants in 2050, with an average age of about fifty years, of which close to forty percent will be retired.

Already, the economic future of the USA lies in the West. At about 2 trillion US Dollars, the yearly economic output of California (with over 40 percent Hispanics) equals that of Italy or Russia. In Los Angeles and its surrounding area alone this group produces a higher gross national product than that of Switzerland, Argentina, or Taiwan.

This dynamic has a great appeal. The last American census revealed that the majority of the population is shifting from the North East to the South West, with a speed of more than 3 miles a year towards Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and California. That means America is moving away from Europe both in a socio-cultural and a physical sense. An increasing focus on Mexico corresponds with the new population dynamic. This development is occurring within the core of American society, and not at the margins, as is often the case with minority groups and immigrants in Europe. The conflicts of the civil rights era have democratized the United States and have shown that heterogeneity is a strength, not a weakness.

Many Europeans might miss these developments because they are spellbound by the euro crisis. Only few are willing to get involved in the new United States or to pursue more intense interaction and strategic collaboration with the minority groups who will constitute the new elite in a few years. Without these efforts, transatlantic relations will hardly outlast the Pacific Century.

Dr. Michael Werz is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington, D.C.

Link to the detailed biography of Dr. Michael Werz

Der Beitrag The New North America erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..