“The pressure on German industry reflects two distinct things:  the technological catch up of Chinese industry across a range of sectors critical to the German economy, and the end of China’s property bubble, which led to a reorientation of China’s economy back toward exports.

Technological catch up has been a long-standing Chinese policy goal. And in the automotive sector, Chinese industrial policies worked in some deep sense – the transition from internal combustion engine cars to battery electric vehicles and plug in hybrids provided an opportunity for China’s “indigenous” auto companies to leapfrog the incumbent firms, be they German, Japanese or American. China now has the capacity to produce 50 to 55 million modern cars in on track to exports over 10 million cars this year after automotive export growth accelerated. With the domestic market down 5 million cars this thanks to lost incentives and ongoing investment in new EV capacity, this export wave won’t end on its own.

Yes, these are incredible numbers – Germany makes something like 4 million cars a year.  China now makes somewhere over 30 million a year and could make another 20 million or so.

And China’s structural position in the battery industry is if anything even stronger than its position in the automotive industry – Chinese battery firms define the technological frontier for mass market batteries, and have the capacity to supply all global demand and then some.

The transition from internal combustion engine cars to battery electric vehicles and plug in hybrids provided an opportunity for China’s “indigenous” auto companies to leapfrog the incumbent firms, be they German, Japanese or American.

This same broad story applies across a range of sectors. China now produces high quality machinery at an attractive price. China’s chemical industry – which benefits from cheap capital and significant local government support – can more than meet China’s own domestic demand.

But there is a second factor at play, more macroeconomic than sectoral.

For the ten years after the global financial crisis Chinas property boom absorbed most of China’s expanding output at home. That boom has turned into a bust. And China hasn’t either proactively cleaned up the financial legacy of the burst bubble or taken strong policy steps to support household demand. As a result, China’s domestic economy has struggled over the last five years – and not primarily because of the legacy of COVID. The downturn in the property sector has subtracted something like five percentage points from China’s growth. I don’t think it is entirely an accident that net exports have added a cumulative six percentage points to China’s growth over the same period. Without a replacement for the demand that used to come from building out China’s cities, China has pivoted back to exports. A weak currency is of course in part a consequence of the housing crisis – but it is also a policy choice that has boosted exports. In many ways Xi has preferred relying on external demand for China’s expanding manufacturing base to finding new domestic growth engines.”

How should the measures of a defensive trade policy by the European Union be designed to robustly handle the China shock 2.0, as you and Sander Tordoir call it in your study?

“There is no sign that China is going to change of its own accord, unfortunately. Without policy action from China’s trading partners, President Xi seems happy to rely on a growing trade surplus to make up for the demand that China isn’t generating at home. China’s exports are now growing faster than global trade – squeezing other manufacturing powers across the board. And setting semiconductors and gold aside, Chinese imports have hardly grown at all over the past five years. That puts Europe – and Germany specifically – in a difficult position. China is a strong industrial competitor now, but not much of a market. Trade has become one way; Europe’s exports to China are falling while Europe’s imports keep rising.

I think though that the needed components for an effective European response to the second China shock are starting to be put in place.

One component of this is steps to insulate key parts of the European economy from the industrial distortions now coming out of China.  Put simply, without tariffs, much of Europe’s auto industry could disappear in the next few years – with European demand flowing to China on a far bigger scale than Chinese demand ever flowed to Europe. In 2026 European imports of Chinese cars will exceed European exports to China by a factor of 10. That isn’t sustainable.  The safeguards that the Commission is now working on are a sensible response – in autos, but also in other sectors where China’s excess capacity and undervalued currency threaten permanent damage to Europe’s industrial base.

Europe needs tools to support its own or friendly production in sectors where China now has a chokehold over inputs critical to Europe’s industry and defense.

Another component is a policy to reduce existing dependencies on China in strategic sectors. Europe needs tools to support its own or friendly production in sectors where China now has a chokehold over inputs critical to Europe’s industry and defense. Rare earths, including the heavy rare earths that aren’t important by volume but that are needed in certain defense applications, other minerals vital to advanced industrial production like gallium and permanent magnets are an obvious case. But I would include the chemical precursors to key life saving medicines and active pharmaceutical ingredients here, too. The diversification instrument now under consideration is a useful step – but there also needs to be a pool of money, likely at the European level, to make strategic investments in sectors where the return is more strategic than economic. Economic defense has a price.

Finally, Europe – ideally with help from the United States and others – needs to find ways to bring effective pressure to bear on China to change its growth model. China has been getting about half of its real growth from exports the last two years, and 2026 will be similar if the impact of the surge in China’s gold imports is removed from the data. China has already got a ton of its growth over the last five years from an expanding surplus – and it is too big an economy to be able to grow through exports without putting a ton of pressure on its trading partners. This means pressing China to allow a stronger Renminbi – I believe there is compelling evidence that the Renminbi is undervalued by 30 percent, which explains why European production has so much trouble competing with Chinese production. And in order to sustain a stronger Renminbi, China needs to strengthen its domestic drivers of growth. Put differently, China can no longer put its current savings of forty percent of GDP at work at home – and it needs to be clear that exporting those savings through an ever-rising trade surplus cannot substitute for needed reforms to raise domestic consumption.”

How do you assess the potential of a transatlantic alignment between the United States and the EU to follow a policy of derisking from China?

“I have been struck my how similarly most people in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Rome and Washington, DC see the economic challenge posed by China’s current growth model. There is a common desire to resist further deindustrialization and limit and then reverse supply chain dependencies on China that can be weaponized. There is no real sense that anyone can grow through exporting to China. That is a significant shift from five or ten years ago.

But America’s current President doesn’t really believe in building enduring economic alliances, and believes that his bilateral deal making with China will deliver better results for the American people than forging a common transatlantic response to the very real challenges China’s current growth model poses to all the G-7 economies. I think that is a mistake – but Trump isn’t likely to change. He incorrectly thinks trade with Canada is tilted against the United States – and really does believe that Europe isn’t a better trade partner for the United States than China. Put differently, he is more inclined to raise than lower tariffs on Europe, and hasn’t shown any real sustained interest in building a coalition to limit China’s ability to weaponize supply and pressure China to pivot away from its export driven growth model.

President Trump is more inclined to raise than lower tariffs on Europe, and hasn’t shown any real sustained interest in building a coalition to limit China’s ability to weaponize supply.

I hope that will change over the next year. The traditional U.S. argument that Europe isn’t willing to take real action against China looks dated. Chancellor Merz has done far more than President Trump to draw attention to the negative spillovers from China’s undervalued currency. Europe has moved, and the U.S. hasn’t responded. There should be a united G-7 critique against China’s currency policies next year; China really is using state control over the banks and the PBOC’s central role in the market to block appreciation pressure from China’s rising trade surplus. But I don’t think Berlin or Brussels can count on Trump’s help on this or other issues. Europe needs to be ready to act on its own.

Over time, I do think the shared understanding of the challenge posed by China’s growth model should allow for more alignment on policy across the Atlantic. If the U.S. and Europe end up adopting similar tariffs on China that should allow for the restoration of relatively open trade across the Atlantic in a number of sectors where the U.S. now has substantial tariffs. And there are obvious gains from coordinating policies to reduce existing dependence on Chinese supply. But such a renewed economic alliance may need to wait a couple of years.”

Brad W. Setser is Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Together with Sander Tordoir he has published the widely read trade paper “China shock 2.0: The cost of Germany’s complacency” for the Centre for European Reform.

Der Beitrag “Xi has preferred relying on external demand for China’s expanding manufacturing base” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What does a three-year-old AI start-up have in common with a family business that has survived for centuries? More than I would have expected. During Atlantik-Bruecke’s delegation trip to Milan, I had the opportunity to moderate the roundtable “Lombardy in Transition – Family Business, Innovation and the Future of German-Italian Cooperation.” My two guests represented very different worlds: Martina Domenicali, Co-Founder and CRO of the Milan-based AI company Lexroom, and Professor Josip Kotlar of Politecnico di Milano, whose research focuses on strategy, innovation, succession and family business.

We talked about venture capital and family capital, speed and patience, risk and responsibility – and about the difficult question of how companies manage change without losing what made them successful in the first place. When European start-ups begin to scale Martina’s story is remarkable. At 27, she has helped build Lexroom into one of Europe’s rapidly growing legal AI companies. The company has raised more than $75 million in funding. One part of our conversation stayed with me. In the early stages, capital can still be quite local. Entrepreneurs, investors and family offices in regions such as Lombardy are willing to back new ideas.

Transatlantic investment is an enormous asset

But once the amounts become larger and serious international scaling begins, US venture-capital funds become increasingly important. Lexroom itself is a good example: its $50 million Series B was led by Left Lane Capital, an investment firm headquartered in New York. There is nothing wrong with American capital. Transatlantic investment is an enormous asset. But it does raise an uncomfortable European question: Why are we still not better at mobilising our own capital when our most promising companies start to scale? Starting companies is one thing. Financing them all the way into global companies is another.

“A company does not survive for 400 or 500 years by doing the same thing forever.”

2 500 years – and still changing Professor Kotlar brought almost the opposite perspective. We discussed companies such as Acetaia Giusti, whose history reaches back to 1605, and Beretta, which celebrates 500 years of documented history in 2026. At first sight, they could hardly be further removed from a venture-backed AI company. But their longevity is not the result of avoiding change. A company does not survive for 400 or 500 years by doing the same thing forever. It survives by changing repeatedly without losing its identity. And this becomes particularly difficult during succession.

I know that tension from my own family business, Bornemann Gewindetechnik GmbH & Co. KG, a third-generation German manufacturer specialising in customised threaded spindles and power-transmission threads. Bornemann Gewindetechnik is not 400 years old – we have been around for just over 60. But the basic conflict is familiar. The generation that has spent decades building a company naturally wants to protect it. It knows what can go wrong and has a strong sense of responsibility for what has been created. The next generation sees something else: technologies not yet adopted, investments not yet made, markets not yet entered. I experienced this myself during our succession.

How to convince Karl-Heinz to digitalise his manufacturing company

Years ago, I described this conflict through a fictional German SME owner I called “Karl-Heinz“: a successful, experienced entrepreneur who simply did not see why he should digitalise a manufacturing company that was already working perfectly well. The point was not that Karl-Heinz was wrong. Quite the opposite. If you have spent decades building something successfully, caution is rational. The challenge is to combine that experience with the willingness of the next generation to question what already works. My original article, “So überzeugen wir jeden Karl-Heinz – Digitalisierung bei KMUs”, explores this tension in more detail.

Two forms of capital for change This led me to perhaps the most interesting thought from our discussion. We normally treat venture capital and business succession as completely separate subjects. Perhaps we should not. Venture capital puts money and responsibility into the hands of people who want to build something new. Successful succession puts ownership, capital and responsibility into the hands of a new generation that may need to transform something that already exists. Both are, in a sense, capital for change.

“Europe needs more capital for young companies that want to scale.But we also need to make it easier to finance succession.”

Europe needs more capital for young companies that want to scale. But we also need to make it easier to finance succession, ownership transitions and investment in established SMEs. Because there is enormous innovative potential inside companies that already have customers, employees, technology, production capabilities and access to global markets. Sometimes the missing ingredient is not another technology. It is the willingness – and the ownership structure – to use it.

Why Lombardy matters

Lombardy was a particularly interesting place for this discussion. Milan combines finance, technology and entrepreneurship with one of Europe’s strongest industrial regions and a dense network of specialised and family-owned companies. For German SMEs, Northern Italy is also not simply an export market. It is already part of our industrial value chains. At Bornemann Gewindetechnik, for example, we source some of our steel from suppliers in Northern Italy.

The wider Atlantik-Bruecke programme in Milan therefore went well beyond family business and start-ups. Discussions with business and political leaders, including at Generali, addressed financial markets, industrial competitiveness, supply chains and the question of how Germany and Italy can strengthen Europe’s economic position in a changing transatlantic environment.

For me, the trip left one central question: Are we creating the conditions for the next generation of European entrepreneurs – whether they are founding a company or taking over a 60-, 100- or 500-year-old one – to move fast enough? Europe has no shortage of ideas. Nor does it lack remarkable companies. But we can become much better at getting capital and responsibility into the hands of people prepared to change them. That would be a good place to start.

About the author:
Moritz von Soden is Managing Director and third-generation owner of Bornemann Gewindetechnik GmbH & Co. KG, a German family business specialising in custom precision lead screws, including trapezoidal and ACME threads, for demanding applications in offshore, energy, medical technology and defence. He is also a member of the SME Advisory Council of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs.

Disclaimer: This article was written with the help of AI.

Der Beitrag Milan taught us a lot about entrepreneurship erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The second main development regarding the US trade policy is that the government wants to use legal regulations based on different acts. “Now the administration uses section 301 tariffs based on forced labor as unfair trade practice to justify this step”, Harrell said. Importers of European Union (EU) goods, for example, pay tariffs of 10 percent. In his view, this measure is consistent with the Turnberry agreement between the EU and the United States, which caps tariffs on European products at 15 percent. Elaborating on forced labor as pretext, Harell stressed: “President Trump has lawyers who work very hard to come up with theories how to implement a baseline tariff of 10 or 15 percent”. According to the former Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness at the White House, there is nothing US trade partners can do to prevent tariffs of 10 or 15 percent. At the same time, USTR is conducting an investigation into trading partners’ industrial overcapacity that could also lead to section 301 tariffs.

Thirdly, the United States’ trade conflict with Canada is getting a lot of attention by the US government. Harrell calls this a “trade war against Canada” in which President Trump had announced tariffs of 50 percent that are in force now. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney then announced retaliatory tariffs. Over the past couple of months, the US has tried to renegotiate its free trade agreement with Mexico and Canada (USMCA). “Trump is much happier with how the negotiations are going with Mexico,” Harrell said. “In contrast, he has felt that the negotiations are not going well with Canada”. Despite long-standing issues with Canada over dairy products and aircraft he is “reasonably optimistic” that Canada and the US will manage to get through this conflict and renegotiate the USMCA.

For Harrell, the disadvantages of the trade policy in President Trump’s second term are clear. “The overwhelming majority of economists say the US consumers are paying for the tariffs. Moreover, the tariffs have not contributed to an increasing manufacturing base,” he said. Looking at the sectors which are most affected by the US tariffs, Harrell highlighted steel, aluminum, and cars. Especially the automotive industry is highly important for the United States and its trade partners. “The US, the EU, Japan, and South Korea should agree on effectively zero tariffs for cars,” Harrell recommended. The policy solution for American industries should involve partners and allies. He worried that the US, while protecting its markets in sectors such as semiconductors, drones, and robots and trying to de-risk from China, is falling behind on the quality and speed of innovation: “Look at how fast China is gaining market shares in cars. We have to move at Chinese speed”.

Here you can watch the full webinar:

Der Beitrag “There is nothing US trade partners can do to prevent tariffs of 10 or 15 percent” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

I arrived at the New Bridge Program carrying a familiar American question:  Is Germany prepared to assume greater responsibility for Europe’s defense?

As a U.S. Army veteran and former military and veteran liaison in the United States Senate, I have seen security policy from both the institutional and human sides. I understand why Americans expect capable allies to share the responsibility of deterrence. But after discussions in Washington, Brussels, Berlin, and Frankfurt (Oder), I returned with a more complicated and more urgent understanding of the challenge. The question is no longer simply whether Germany and Europe will spend more. It is whether those investments can be translated quickly enough into military capability, industrial readiness, technological innovation, and lasting public support.

Our conversations about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the future of transatlantic security made clear that Europe’s security environment has fundamentally changed. At NATO Headquarters, we examined how the Alliance’s strategic priorities are being put into practice and how Germany operates within a consensus-based institution of 32 sovereign democracies. In Berlin, our discussions explored how changes in U.S. foreign policy are influencing German and European calculations, as well as how industrial, energy, and innovation policy increasingly intersect with national security. These exchanges challenged me to look beyond defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. Spending commitments are indispensable, but budgets do not deter adversaries on their own. Deterrence requires forces that can deploy, equipment that can be sustained, supply chains that can withstand disruption, and an industrial base capable of producing at the speed and scale a crisis demands. That distinction has only become more relevant since our fellowship. NATO Allies have committed to investing 5 percent of GDP in defense and defense-related requirements by 2035. At the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Allies announced more than $50 billion in new procurements and committed to expanding collective manufacturing capacity and accelerating innovation. These are significant steps, but 2035 cannot become permission to postpone what Europe needs now. The threat is immediate. Ukraine cannot wait years for promised support, and NATO cannot afford procurement and production timelines built for a more predictable era.

Europe possesses extraordinary scientific expertise, advanced manufacturing, and a growing defense-technology sector.

The challenge is connecting those strengths to operational requirements at the speed of the threat.

Ukraine has demonstrated the importance of drones, artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, resilient communications, and the rapid adaptation of civilian technology for military use. NATO must create more accessible pathways for start-ups and nontraditional suppliers, accelerate testing and procurement, and give established manufacturers the predictable, long-term demand required to expand production. Readiness five years from now will matter little if aggression succeeds in the meantime. This urgency also requires sustained financial and military support for Ukraine. That support is not charity; it is an investment in the principle that borders in Europe cannot be changed by force. If Russia is allowed to benefit from violating Ukraine’s sovereignty, the consequences will extend far beyond Ukraine. Other states will reasonably question whether international commitments can protect them, or whether only possessing their own nuclear weapons can guarantee their survival.

[related] That is a path Europe and the world must avoid. The answer is not a cascade of new national nuclear arsenals. It is credible collective defense: strong conventional capabilities, reliable alliance commitments, and unmistakable political resolve. NATO must demonstrate that no country will be permitted to redraw European borders through invasion while ensuring that deterrence prevents escalation rather than accelerates it. Our visit to Frankfurt (Oder), on Germany’s border with Poland, added another dimension to this lesson. In Washington and Brussels, security is often discussed through strategies, institutions, and spending targets. In Frankfurt (Oder), conversations about local government, journalism, business, and regional identity illustrated that alliances ultimately depend on the confidence of the communities they protect. Defense investments must therefore be accompanied by an honest public explanation of why they are necessary and how they contribute to security, economic resilience, and democratic stability.

Germany’s history understandably shapes how it approaches military power. The New Bridge Program helped me appreciate that historical restraint while recognizing that responsibility takes different forms in different eras. Today, responsibility requires Germany to help ensure that Europe can defend itself, support Ukraine, and deter further aggression. It also requires the United States to treat stronger European capacity as an investment in our shared security, not a retreat from American leadership.

The transatlantic debate has moved beyond whether Europe must do more. The task now is turning resources into readiness before the next crisis tests our promises. That will require political courage, faster institutions, sustained support for Ukraine, a revitalized defense industrial base, and an innovation ecosystem capable of moving at unprecedented speed. The future of the Alliance will be determined not by the commitments its members announce for the next decade, but by the capabilities and the resolve they build together now.

Der Beitrag Beyond Burden-Sharing: The Urgency of Transatlantic Readiness erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Anas El Yousfi

Spend some time in Germany and you will meet a country that is visibly and functionally multicultural. More than a quarter of Germany’s residents now have a migration background, and in 2024 the country naturalized nearly 292,000 new citizens, the most since it began keeping records. Then read the headlines from the same country: fast-track citizenship abolished, family reunification suspended for many migrants, border control turned into the government’s defining issue. I grew up multiculturally, with family from all over the world, so questions of migration and belonging have never been abstract to me. Maybe that is why, traveling through Washington, Brussels, and Berlin this spring with the Atlantik-Brücke New Bridge Program, I felt like I was watching two Germanys describe themselves at once. The society has already become something its politics has not yet agreed to be, and the space between them is where nearly every conversation we had seemed to end up.

A roundtable on migration and integration at DeZIM (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research) in Berlin gave that gap a history. We met with researchers who study integration and with a representative of the Turkish German community, whose story begins in 1961, when Turkish workers were recruited to help rebuild the postwar economy. Sixty-five years later there are fourth-generation Turkish Germans, yet for most of that time integration was treated as a test migrants had to pass rather than a process the whole society took part in. Germany did not officially describe itself as a country of immigration until this century, long after it had become one in practice.

“Which parts of the past a country chooses to remember says a great deal about who it considers its own.”

A walking tour of Berlin’s colonial history extended that theme further back in time. Germany’s memory culture is rightly admired. The Stolpersteine, small brass plaques set into the sidewalk in front of the homes of people deported and murdered by the Nazis, are impossible to walk past without pausing. But the tour also covered histories that receive far less attention, including Black Germans persecuted under Nazi rule and the colonial-era crimes Germany has only recently begun to confront. It formally acknowledged the genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples in Namibia only in 2021. Our tour ended at a subway station recently renamed for Anton Wilhelm Amo, an African-born philosopher who taught at German universities in the eighteenth century, after decades of public campaigning against the colonial-era name it replaced. Which parts of the past a country chooses to remember says a great deal about who it considers its own.

That question followed me personally as well. When I introduced myself in Germany, people would sometimes ask where I was really from. The question was never hostile, and I understood the curiosity behind it. But Turkish Germans hear the same question in their own country, in their own language, three generations in. Living in a country and being counted as fully part of it are not the same thing, and that small question marks the distance between them.

That distance is now the central fight in German politics. We took a regional train east to Frankfurt an der Oder, a small city on the Polish border, where we met local officials and journalists who described how their region is changing. Eastern Germany is where the far right performs best, often in places where relatively few migrants actually live, which suggests the anxiety has less to do with actual neighbors than with a story about national identity under threat. A panel on democracy and participation raised the other side of the same issue: whether people with migration histories can move from being the subject of policy debates to taking part in them. The far right’s answer is a permanent no. Germany’s democratic future depends on a better one.

As an American, none of this felt entirely foreign, just a bit different. The United States calls itself a nation of immigrants and debates constantly over what that means, and Germany is telling itself a more hesitant version of the same story. What I took home was less a verdict than a sense of direction. Multicultural Germany is not a proposal that can still be voted down. It already exists, at record scale. The real question is how long its politics takes to catch up with its people. I’ll be watching for Germany’s answer, because in the United States, we’re still working on our own.

Anas El Yousfi is a technologist working at the intersection of data, technology, and society. Raised Moroccan-American in New York with family across Western Europe and beyond, he grew up immersed in the questions that define the transatlantic relationship, with a deep interest in geopolitics and how AI and emerging technologies are reshaping governance and public life on both sides of the Atlantic. He’s a 2026 fellow of the New Bridge Program.

The New Bridge Program 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 Energy (BMWE), and by the Joachim Herz Foundation.

Der Beitrag “Multicultural Germany is not a proposal” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Canada plays an important role at this year’s World Cup, as the country, together with the United States and Mexico, is taking on the role of host of the tournament. As the venue for several matches, Canada is at the heart of this international event. In an interview with the Canadian Ambassador to Germany, Vera Alexander, we spoke about sports diplomacy as well as the mood in Canada ahead of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Der Beitrag „There is already a Hype in Canada about the World Cup“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The briefing paper by David Bosold and David G. Haglund examines the “special relationship” between Canada and Germany through the lens of “strategic culture,” using the symbols of middle power and linchpin as analytical anchors. The authors compare the landmark speeches by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney at Davos (January 2026) and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz at the Munich Security Conference (February 2026), arguing that media coverage has glossed over a crucial divergence: Carney declared a definitive “rupture” with the old transatlantic order and called for broad middle-power solidarity, while Merz urged allies to “repair and revive transatlantic trust” within an explicitly Western, values-based framework.

The paper then turns to Canada’s pending submarine procurement decision — German/Norwegian TKMS 212CD versus South Korean Hanwha Ocean — framing it as a strategic litmus test. The authors argue this choice should not be read as a revival of Pierre Trudeau’s failed “Third Option” trade-diversification strategy, nor should it be driven primarily by economic offsets. Instead, they contend that NATO interoperability, Arctic sovereignty, and transatlantic alliance cohesion must take precedence, making the German/Norwegian bid the strategically superior choice.

Read the full paper here: A different kind of linchpin

Der Beitrag Canada, Germany, and the Future of the Western Alliance erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The focus was on how financial markets, technology, and supply chains are holding their own amid the geopolitical pressures of our time. Key topics included the role of global financial capital in the tension between profit, security, and political stability, as well as the booming defense sector: Where does the line between commercial technology and military power lie in the age of dual-use applications?

Other panels examined the transatlantic AI model, the future of the financial system in the digital age, the geopolitical significance of the semiconductor industry, and the new industrial policies of the major powers. The event concluded with a debate on the resilience of global supply chains.

Our sincere thanks goes to Deutsche Bank, which was an outstanding host of the conference.

Der Beitrag Semiconductors, High Tech, Trade Power: The German-American Partnership Seeks New Answers 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..

This year’s New Bridge Program Alumni conference brought together 50 Alumni from the United States and Germany in New Orleans, Louisiana. In this video, New Bridge Alumni Samantha Williams, Anoja Perinpanathan and Lange Luntao share how the program has influenced their professional lives and personal development and what insights they gained from the alumni conference specifically.

The New Bridge Program is a fully funded transatlantic fellowship program for young professionals that aims to reflect the diversity of society and enrich transatlantic relations through different perspectives and expertise.  It 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 Energy (BMWE), and by the Joachim Herz Foundation.

Der Beitrag „The New Bridge Program literally changed my life“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We were delighted to welcome the following speakers:

• Rushan Abbas, Uyghur American activist and Chairwoman, Campaign for the Uyghurs
• Masih Alinejad, Iranian women’s rights activist and President & Co-Founder, World Liberty Congress
• Leopoldo Lopez, Venezuelan opposition leader and Secretary General & Co-Founder, World Liberty Congress
• Daniel Rothschild, Director of the Center for Civics, Education, and Opportunity, Ronald Reagan Institute
• Florian Hauer, State Secretary for Federal, European and International Affairs, Senate Chancellery of Berlin

Read Daniel Rothschild’s keynote speech here:

Three months after Natan Sharansky was freed from the gulag in 1986, he paid a visit to President Reagan at the White House. The president had long advocated with the Soviet leadership for the release of Sharansky, as well as other refuseniks and religious minorities held captive within the Soviet Union. Somewhat to President Reagan’s surprise, he learned that Sharansky and other dissidents in Soviet prisons knew in real time about his 1983 speech where he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and “the focus of evil in the modern world.” Soviet news agencies reported on the speech in a way designed to inflame public tensions against the United States and rally public opinion to the side of the regime. A jailer gave Sharansky a copy of the edition of Pravda with the coverage on the front page. It had the opposite of the intended effect.

[related] “By tapping on walls and talking through toilets,” Sharansky later recalled, “Word of Reagan’s ‘provocation’ quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth.” Reagan was thrilled to learn this. The evening of their meeting, he wrote in his diary: “Met with Anatoly Sharansky. It was fascinating to hear the story of his imprisonment by the Soviets. “I learned that I’m a hero in the Soviet Gulag. The prisoners read the attacks on me in TASS and Pravda and learn what I’m saying about the Soviets and they like me.” President Reagan knew that words mattered. He knew that presidential rhetoric mattered. He knew that moral clarity mattered. He knew that what a president says—or does not say—doesn’t just move markets: It could move the world to freedom.

Another president, Theodore Roosevelt, famously referred to the presidency as a “bully pulpit,” a venue to use rhetoric to advance an agenda and a view of the world. President Reagan knew that the power of the presidency, especially in the age of mass media and global telecommunications, was not merely found in the powers granted the office by the U.S. Constitution. And so he used that power, that bully pulpit, to advance the cause of freedom around the globe. It was that moral clarity that led to the Brandenburg Gate speech, and what historian William Inboden calls “the most famous four words of the Cold War.”

In writing that address, the speechwriting personnel in the White House and the leadership at the State Department came to an impasse: the diplomats wanted a reserved message, and the speechwriters wanted a broadside against the Soviets. Diplomats dismissed early drafts as “sentimental fluff” with too much “good-guys versus bad-guys.” Drafts flew back and forth up until shortly before the president left for Berlin. President Reagan settled the dispute by telling his team, “That passage about tearing down the wall. That’s what I want to say to the people on the other side.”

The President knew how this message would land. In the car on the way to the Brandenburg Gate, he told his deputy chief of staff, “The boys at State are going to kill me. But it’s the right thing to do.” President Reagan knew his audience wasn’t just the crowd assembled to hear him speak. He had been told that the speech would be broadcast and, depending on if weather conditions were favorable to signal propagation, might be heard as far east as Moscow.

“Tear down this wall” was more than a mere rhetorical flourish. It was a statement of American policy: that America would not seek peace with totalitarianism, America would seek its end.

Reagan knew from Sharansky that his speeches were heard in the gulags. And he knew that he would be speaking not just to those in front of the wall, but those behind it in the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and even the USSR itself. “Tear down this wall” was more than a mere rhetorical flourish. It was a statement of American policy: that America would not seek peace with totalitarianism, America would seek its end. Within three years, the wall that President Reagan called “as ugly as the idea behind it” had been torn down.

Today, Western societies, including the United States, are beset with a new moral relativism that denies the universalism of human freedom. This view, long associated primarily with the politics of the left, today infects parties and people of both the left and the right. Unfortunately, too many so-called leaders treat relativism as a sophisticated position, or suggest that certainty about moral claims implies certitude about strategic or tactical considerations. They imply, or even directly claim, that moral clarity implies strategic naiveté. When presented with political imprisonment, hostage taking, and ethnic or gender repression, they equivocate.

President Reagan shows that one can have a strong moral compass—a clear sense of right and wrong—but not deny the shades of gray in the world. Throughout his presidency, he faced many questions where there was significant moral and strategic nuance. But he never lost sight of the fact of good and evil in the world—and he never lost the ability to call out the latter for what it was.

Let me close on a note of optimism. As President Reagan predicted in his 1982 address to the British Parliament, Marxism-Leninism today lies “on the ash-heap of history” along with other “tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.” And as these totalitarian “isms” have fallen one by one, there have been no new all-encompassing competing worldviews to take their place. Most of today’s “new bad ideas” are in fact “old bad ideas.”

Call evil by its name, support dissidents, and speak so the imprisoned can hear.

Communism, Nazism, fascism, and religious totalitarianism still have their redoubts—and if we are honest, they are growing in size. But a quarter of the way into the twenty-first century, there have been no new grand ideological innovations with the power to intoxicate. Our charge is to reclaim the moral high ground for freedom—and to use it: call evil by its name, support dissidents, and speak so the imprisoned can hear.

As Peter Robinson, the author of those famous four words, noted in his back-and-forth with the State Department, it was not enough for the president to say, “One day, this ugly wall will disappear.” The Berlin Wall wouldn’t just fall on its own. It had to be torn down. It was. And it was helped in that process by an American president willing to say to his Soviet counterpart, “Öffnen Sie dieses Tor! Reißen Sie diese Mauer nieder!”

For a glimpse into the event, watch Leopoldo López impassioned speech:

Der Beitrag Move the world towards freedom erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We were happy to welcome two renowned political scientists, Prof. Dr. Nicole Deitelhoff, Professor of International Re­lations and Theories of Global Order at Goethe University Frankfurt and Executive Director & Head of Research Department at PRIF – Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, and Prof. Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School, to discuss the continuities between armed conflicts in the 20th and early 21st century and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Watch the full webinar to gain insight into how a lack of reliable information in war zones can hinder successful peace processes, the relationship between European heads of state and Donald Trump regarding diplomacy, and why a change in leadership is often necessary to end a war.

Der Beitrag “At least a third of all armed conflicts end without any settlement“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Following the event, he emphasized in a video interview with Atlantik-Brücke the need for increased defense spending – specifically 5% of GDP or 3.5% for military investments – in order to meet the requirements of modern warfare, especially in the areas of cyber and space, which will be central to the future. In the past, the focus was on land, air, and sea forces, Badia said, but today cyber and space operations are crucial for dominance, which is why significant financial resources are needed for holistic capability development.

Despite the differing national interests of the 32 NATO member states, Badia emphasizes the alliance’s shared values. He describes how consensus-based decision-making is based on the search for alternatives, so that a rejection (“no”) often leads to an “alternative yes.” Over his 41-year career, the security policy landscape has changed constantly – from the Cold War to German reunification and out-of-area operations to new threat scenarios. Nevertheless, the community of values of the “free Western alliance” has always remained capable of action.

Badia is optimistic that, despite tensions between national sovereignty and common alliance interests, actions will always be taken in the interests of the West and that NATO plus its 35 partners stand on a stable, value-based foundation.

Der Beitrag “You have to concentrate on cyber today” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Antonia Howaldt and Jason Drouyor​​​ 

Setting the stage for collaboration

After a warm welcome by Julia Friedlander, CEO of the Atlantik-Brücke and her team Tobias Luthe, Head of the Young Leaders Program & Deputy Director of Programs, Louise Lüdke, Program Manager and Franka Ellman, Director of Programs and Transatlantic Partnerships, the conference opened with remarks from Prof. Dr. Michael Hüther, Director and Member of the Presidium of the German Economic Institute and Deputy Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke e.V. He addressed the evolving balance of hard and soft power, the strategic ambiguity of the Trump administration, the exhaustion of globalization, and the farewell to the post–Cold War international security and trade orders. He also spoke about the role of China, Germany’s Zeitenwende, and how debt brake reform enables increased defense investments, strengthening Germany and the EU as more independent allies. Prof. Hüther highlighted the tensions globalization has created, with both winners and those left behind fueling political polarization—as seen in the rise of AfD voters in Germany and Trump supporters in rural America.

Managing these tensions while preserving democratic self-determination remains, he emphasized, a central challenge of our time.

On the first full day, participants engaged in scenario sessions, envisioning best- and worst-case futures for Germany and the United States in 2030. With a realistic eye toward economics, politics, security, technology, society, and the environment, these sessions provided a valuable framework for understanding what is at stake in the years ahead and for identifying opportunities that could be seized through cooperation and innovation.

This year’s conference also brought back several Young Leaders alumni as guest speakers to engage with pressing questions of our time. Karsten Uhlmann (YL 2003), Managing Director of Frankfurter Brauhaus GmbH and Member of the Board of Atlantik-Brücke, gave a personal account of entrepreneurship and resilience in Eastern Germany in his talk “Beyond Berlin – Founding and Growing Businesses in East Germany.” He shared his story of growing up in communist East Berlin, experiencing the Fall of the Wall, purchasing the German brewery Frankfurter Brauhaus in 2003 with a friend, expanding it, later navigating the challenges of rising energy prices and eventually the global expansion including opening a German brewery in Charlotte, USA. The discussion also addressed the evolving political landscape in Eastern Germany, focusing on the lingering sense of marginalization and incomplete integration decades after reunification.

His reflections underscored how business, politics, and history remain closely intertwined in shaping the opportunities of today. Paula Cipierre (YL 2024), Global Head of Privacy at HCL Tech, shared insights on regulating artificial intelligence, balancing innovation with ethics, and the challenge of establishing global standards. A specific focus was given to delivering a comparative analysis of German/EU and U.S. AI governance approaches, highlighting Germany’s coordination through the EU AI Act and the U.S.’s executive-driven, principle-based strategy. Her analysis highlighted the continuing work that is needed in AI governance in the years ahead. Dr. Max Krahé (YL 2022), Co-Founder and Research Director, together with Dr. Florian Schuster-Johnson, Head of Growth and Budget Lab at Dezernat Zukunft, also visited to outline Germany’s economic and fiscal Zeitenwende, exploring both opportunities and trade-offs. Discussions across these sessions encouraged participants to critically assess how transatlantic cooperation can respond to shifting geopolitical and technological realities.

The program also offered opportunities to engage directly with experts shaping Germany’s political and security landscape. In a session on “Germany’s Army in Transition: Planning, Progress, and Pressure,” Colonel Karsten Struß, Head of the Strategic Management Division at the Bundeswehr, shared insights into the modernization of Germany’s armed forces, the pressures of adapting to new security realities, and the challenges of balancing planning with implementation. Complementing this, Claudia Kade, Head of the Politics Department at Die WELT, provided her commentary on the first 100 days of the new coalition and discussed the impact of algorithmic news consumption, as well as its role in shaping media reporting.

From policy debates to cultural immersion

Beyond the Schloss, participants traveled to Berlin for a series of immersive visits that blended policy dialogue with cultural exchange.

[related] At the Edge East Side Tower, Antonia Bruhn, Senior Public Policy Manager DACH, Amazon Web Services (AWS), provided an overview on cloud computing in the age of (digital) sovereignty and its geopolitical implications. Clemens John, Public Policy Manager for Digital & Devices, delivered a briefing on broadband expansion through Project Kuiper, Amazon’s low-earth-orbit satellite broadband network, designed to provide fast and affordable broadband connectivity to underserved communities worldwide. Afra Gloria Müller, Corporate Affairs Manager, reported on Amazon’s current local community engagement programs in Berlin and DACH region, including KiezLab, offering free working space to the local Berlin community. These discussions at Amazon underscored how global enterprises can contribute locally while addressing international challenges in connectivity and data governance.

Siemtje Möller (YL 2018), Member of the Bundestag (SPD), Deputy Parliamentary Group Leader, and former Parliamentary State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Defense under Chancellor Scholz 2021-2025, highlighted the challenges Germany faces in closing the gap between political ambition and defense preparedness, the difficult trade-offs required to strengthen capabilities, and the implications for transatlantic security cooperation. A Young Leader herself, she has also shared memories on the 2018 YL Conference, where she chaired a group session with Julia Friendlander on Western defense (or German defense). The following visit to the Bundestag provided both historical perspectives and contemporary insights about the Reichstag building, the structure of Germany’s coalition-based parliamentary system, and how the Bundestag is shaping Germany’s leadership role in Europe.

When visiting the Federal Chancellery, we deepened our understanding of the Chancellor’s pivotal role in guiding national policy and strengthening transatlantic cooperation. This visit included a discussion on the transatlantic relationship and European Policy with Jacob Schrot (YL 2022), Chief of Staff to the Chancellor, and Ole Funke, Group Lead at the Federal Chancellery. They provided their insights into Germany’s priorities within the EU and the importance of aligning European and transatlantic strategies.

Their remarks emphasized the need for strong coordination in addressing shared geopolitical challenges and underscored the role of the Chancellery in shaping Germany’s contribution to European leadership and transatlantic unity.

The cultural immersion culminated in a visit with Christian Awe, Artist and Painter, and a discussion on the Berlin art scene in his Berlin studio. His monumental painting Encounter, located in the heart of Berlin beside the Holocaust Memorial, offered a striking example of the exhaustive planning and vision required to realize such a large-scale project while preserving its balance of abstraction and photorealism. For participants, the artwork underscored how the intersection of art, history, and public space can serve as a catalyst for dialogue. In this context, cultural exchange was highlighted as a vital force in strengthening democratic resilience and deepening the bonds of transatlantic cooperation.

Collaborative outcomes

In seven different World Café sessions, participants engaged in small groups to discuss current transatlantic challenges, ranging from an Oxford debate-style to an informal “ask-me-anything” format. Topics included:

• Fakes, Hacks, and Influence – Cyber Threats and the Fight for Narrative Control
• From Growth to Geopolitics – How Venture Capital Is Being Redefined in a Fragmented World
• Decoupling or Interdependence – Competing with China in a Tech-Driven World
• Deterrence by Design – Building Credible Western Defense Capabilities for Modern Conflicts
• Rebuilding Trust – How to Lead within Integrity, Accountability, and Vision
• Beyond the Pitch – Operating, Scaling, and Thriving as a Young Company
• Power Shift – How to Lead the Global Energy Transition

The World Café sessions served as a springboard for sharing ideas that would later support the participants’ efforts in their respective working groups.

Throughout the week, working groups served as incubators for actionable ideas to strengthen and modernize the transatlantic partnership. Rather than treating defense, technology, trade, and regional alliances as isolated challenges, the groups approached them as interconnected pieces of a broader strategic framework. Participants left with insightful takeaways:

• AI Crossroads: Innovations, Ethics & Global Governance in a World of Strategic Rivalry – ​Participants discussed the regulation of cross-cutting AI risks, emphasizing the need for standardized safety norms and effective mechanisms to address ethical, security, and misuse concerns. The group considered various approaches, including leveraging existing international forums, establishing a new multi-stakeholder body similar to the IAEA model in the nuclear sector, or pursuing international agreements akin to the Paris Call in climate policy. The overarching goal was to advance AI governance in a way that promotes both international collaboration and innovation.
• Hard Power, New Realities: NATO, Ukraine, and the Future of Collective Western Defense – Participants worked to craft innovative policy recommendations to strengthen transatlantic security, including proposals for a greater transatlantic alignment on addressing security challenges posed by China, an increased leadership role for Europe when working towards a sustainable peace in Ukraine, and innovative financing mechanisms to support European rearmament.
• The New Politics of Trade: Supply Chains, Sovereignty & Global Power Shifts – The working group identified challenges in international trade and economics, focusing on how transatlantic partners could expand their cooperation to address them. Key topics included security risks, externalities related to the rise of non-market economies and practices, as well as the domestic socio-economic impact of trade policy. Participants concluded that further escalation of trade barriers seemed the most likely scenario in the near term. Still, they highlighted the need for deliberate and strategic efforts to ensure free and open trade principles remain a leading objective in the newly evolving trade environment.
• A Strategic Partnership? Evolving the Transatlantic Bond Beyond Nostalgia – The group focused on opportunities to modernize the historic transatlantic alliance to one that appeals to both the historic shared values and today’s transactional interests. The group proposed Germany and the United States establish a bilateral vocational apprenticeship program, a commercial shipbuilding repair and recycling scheme, and an energy resiliency initiative for German investment to support U.S. energy diversification.

By outlining concrete initiatives—complete with implementation strategies, resource planning, and stakeholder engagement—the working groups demonstrated how coordinated action can amplify collective strength, enhance adaptability, and promote leadership across borders.

A very special fireside collaborative session was hosted towards the end of the program to discuss leadership qualities and what it meant to be a leader. Four young leaders of the group shared their personal reflections and experiences with leadership. Having met and seen so many Atlantik Brücke Young Leaders alumni in leadership positions, this discussion took on a whole new meaning as the 2025 program came to a close.

A lasting impact

The conference concluded with reflections on key takeaways and a farewell dinner at Neuhardenberg Airport. The week reinforced the value of embracing diverse perspectives, challenging assumptions, and translating dialogue into actionable initiatives. Participants departed with strengthened transatlantic bonds, renewed commitment to shared democratic values, a new network and friendships, and the belief that leadership is defined not just by the ability to navigate change—but to lead it.

Der Beitrag “Bridging Leadership Across Borders” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Gerd Braune, Ottawa

“We miss you,” says Maggie Hassan, Democratic U.S. Senator from New Hampshire. “We miss you all.” She’s addressing the Canadians who, these days, are doing everything they can to express their disapproval of the United States, from boycotting American products in supermarkets to avoiding cross-border trips for shopping or vacations. New Hampshire is one of the northeastern border states feeling the strain of the animosity between the once closely allied neighbors. Hassan says she knows that the current “instability in our relationship” has led many Canadians to cancel trips to popular tourist destinations in the U.S. “But we hope you’ll come back,” she adds.

There’s little talk of friendship and trust between the U.S. and Canada in the months since Donald Trump’s second inauguration. When Ontario’s conservative Premier Doug Ford ordered that American wine and whiskey be removed from the shelves of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO), the move was met with applause. That sentiment is shared by Sergii, who is browsing the Ontario wine selection at an LCBO store in Ottawa. “We support our local wineries, breweries, and distilleries,” he says. “The shelves are full”—even without U.S. products.

“Geography has made us neighbors, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners.” (John F. Kennedy)

“Geography made us neighbors, history made us friends, economics made us partners”,  that’s how John F. Kennedy described U.S.-Canada relations in his 1961 speech to the Canadian Parliament. That is the past, the last millennium. Trump’s talk of Canada as the 51st U.S. state and his belittling of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who held office until March, by calling him a “governor,” has sparked anger and outrage in Canada. The Intelligencer newsletter of New York magazine notes: “Canadians are angry. Trump achieved what once seemed impossible: our northern neighbors have united against us.”

According to surveys by the polling institute Nanos Research, “pessimism and anger” are the prevailing feelings in Canada toward the U.S. In early July, 34 percent described their feelings toward Americans as “pessimistic,” 24 percent as “angry.” Seventeen percent were indifferent, and just over 21 percent expressed positive feelings such as optimism and satisfaction.

“Especially the talk about Canada as the 51st U.S. state offended Canadians,” says Nik Nanos, Chief Data Scientist at Nanos Research and chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke Canada. There have been disagreements before, such as during President George W. Bush’s administration, but not this level of anger. “No U.S. administration has said such provocative things about Canada,” says Nanos. Trust between the two countries might return someday, “but how long will that take?” Tensions were particularly high in the spring when “a very aggressive Trump” repeatedly attacked Canada with tariffs and threats, and it was unclear who would govern Canada going forward. Since Carney took office, that tension has eased somewhat. To some extent, Canadians have become “desensitized,” according to Nanos. Because “he (Trump) can say one thing today and something else the next day.”

Canada and Europe should strengthen their relations

In any case, Nanos now sees the challenge for Canada and Europe to deepen their relations, and Canada’s opportunity to reduce its dependence on the U.S. Eighty-five percent support lowering trade barriers and connecting Canada’s economy more closely with the EU. “There is a strong mandate to build a stronger relationship with Europe,” says Nanos.

Brian Schmidt, a professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, believes that Canada is shocked by how strongly the U.S. has turned against their country. “They are deliberately trying to damage the Canadian economy.” Canadians see this as a betrayal given the many forms of assistance Canada has provided over the years. Schmidt recalls the Canadian firefighters who helped fight wildfires in the U.S. and the aid given after the terrorist attacks of September 2001. “Canada was always the first to help.” Now, there is “a lot of animosity and anger.”

“The attack with talks of Canada as the 51st U.S. state caught us completely off guard“

The attack with talks of Canada as the 51st U.S. state and the belittling of the Prime Minister as a governor “caught us completely off guard.” Given the size difference between the economies, there is an “asymmetric relationship” between the U.S. and Canada. “Trump sees our vulnerability.” Schmidt sees the U.S. on a path toward “a kind of fascist authoritarian state.”

One person aiming to send a message during these times of Trump’s attacks is the German-born chocolatier Heinrich Stubbe in Ottawa — with chocolate.“Canada is not for sale” is written on dark chocolate bars in white chocolate, as is “Elbows up.” “I had to do something,” he says. The slogans supporting Canada resonate with everyone. “These are statements that anyone who loves Canada can identify with.”He offers the political chocolate in the official languages English and French, as well as in German, Spanish, and  Mandarin. Stubbe plans to keep this sweet culinary tribute to Canada in his product range until Trump is “gone.”

Gerd Braune has been living in Canada’s capital, Ottawa, since 1997 to report on the vast country in North America. Braune studied political science and law in Trier and then worked for the news agency AP as a correspondent for Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate, and from 1992 to 1997 as a news editor at the Frankfurter Rundschau.

Der Beitrag Canada’s new perspective on the US erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Anahita Thoms, Partner and Head of Germany’s International Trade Practice at Baker McKenzie, was newly elected to the Executive Board and will serve as Treasurer for the next three years. We are also pleased to announce the re-election of our CEO, Julia Friedlander.

The members confirmed the Atlantik-Brücke Executive Board in office and also elected the extended board.

The following board members were confirmed in office:

• Metin Hakverdi, Member of the German Bundestag (SPD) and Coordinator of Transatlantic Cooperation for the Federal Government
• Tina Hassel, Head of ARD Studio Brussels
• Ben Hodges, Lieutenant General (ret.), U.S. Army; Senior Advisor, FBH Geostrat Consulting GmbH
• Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, Ambassador, Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Moscow
• James von Moltke, Member of the Executive Board, Chief Financial Officer, Deutsche Bank AG
• Omid Nouripour, Member of the German Bundestag (Alliance 90/The Greens), Vice President of the German Bundestag
• Friederike von Tiesenhausen, Global Head of Public Affairs, Bloomberg LP
• Karsten Uhlmann, Managing Director, Frankfurter Brauhaus
• Dr. Nagila Warburg, Board Member, Warburg Archive Foundation

Newly appointed to the extended board were:

• Dr. David M. Deißner, Managing Director, Foundation for Family Businesses and Politics
• Stefan Dräger, Chairman of the Executive Board, Drägerwerk AG & Co. KGaA
• Dr. Emily Haber, Ambassador (ret.), Federal Foreign Office
• Dr. Nils Krause, Partner, International Co-Head of Corporate Legal Products and Innovation, DLA Piper LLP
• Cecilie Rohwedder, Reporter and Contributor, The Wall Street Journal
• Katja Schremmer, Head of Corporate Equity and Debt Solutions Germany, BNP Paribas S.A.
• Stefan Wölfle, Senior Vice President Programs & Services, Airbus SE

The following board members did not stand for re-election:

• Kai Diekmann, Storymachine, Berlin
• Prof. Dr. Andreas Dombret, former Executive Board Member of Deutsche Bundesbank; Oliver Wyman, Frankfurt am Main
• Angelika Gifford, Meta, Munich
• Wolfgang Ischinger, Munich Security Conference Foundation, Berlin
• Eveline Metzen, Deutsche Bank, Berlin
• Ute Wolf, Chief Financial Officer, Evonik Industries AG, Essenn

The audit of Atlantik-Brücke’s finances will continue to be carried out by Nurten Erdogan, Chief Financial Officer & Member of the Management Board, ING-DiBa AG, and Dr. Joachim von Schorlemer, Senior Advisor, Teneo Germany GmbH, and Advisor to the Executive Board, ING-DiBa AG. Both were confirmed in office by the members’ meeting.

Following the members’ meeting, Atlantik-Brücke’s annual summer reception took place – this year, for the first time, in the courtyard of the new office at Palais Eger. Members took the opportunity to reconnect in person and engage in lively conversations that continued into the late evening.

Der Beitrag Changes in the Executive Board – Atlantik-Brücke Aligns for the Future erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

[related]From my perspective, the relationship between Canada under Mark Carney and the USA under Donald Trump was a central focus of many discussions during the 2025 Atlantik-Brücke conference. The conference focused mostly on the zero-sum trade war happening in the recent months. The second panel, per example, began by addressing the economic and trade instability originating from Washington as a complex challenge for the new Carney administration. This new paradigm of trade instability requires a new structure from the ground up, which presents an opportunity to improve Canada’s trade outlook through diversification.

On the bright side, diversifying trade partners requires the removal of internal barriers, which will be positive for Canada in the long run. Furthermore, these unprecedented times call for moving beyond assumed cooperation and instead embracing active multilateralism in trade.

Economic security cannot depend on overreliance on the US, which – even under normal circumstances – may lead to stagnation. Navigating current uncertainties will be complex for the new Prime Minister Carney, particularly due to Canada’s geographic limitations – being surrounded by oceans isolates the country from world markets. Nevertheless, increased mobility and stronger safety nets can create better opportunities and enhance competitiveness in trade.

“Trade conflicts have transformed into a broader struggle for democratic values”

Another important element of this new relationship is the need for democratic stability in the face of rising populism. The fifth panel of the conference examined the outcomes of the elections in Germany and Canada and presented the emerging political landscapes. The first statement focused on Canada, emphasizing that the country was not divided. This bold assertion highlighted aspects of balance rather than numerical outcomes. At this point, no one had questioned the election results, which projected a sense of unity in contrast to the political instability seen in the 2020 US-election. The main idea that emerged out of this entailed that the new government under Carney needs to keep this unity going. A member of the panel speculated that the first year of this new government will be crucial because the honeymoon might end in disaster if the concerns of most Canadians are not meant against the US threats.

In conclusion, the political instability in the relationship between Canada under Mark Carney and the USA under Donald Trump has transformed trade conflicts into a broader struggle for democratic values. Guidance and renewal will be required from the new Prime Minister to address the challenges ahead.

Benjamin Sauvé is currently doing his PhD at McGill University, where he also works as a Course Lecturer, and is a board member of the German Association of Montreal. He took part in the German-Canadian Conference 2025 as part of Atlantik-Brücke’s and Atlantik-Brücke Canada’s Young Atlantiks Cohort.

Der Beitrag „Carney needs to keep this unity going“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Alyssa Lukpat, Khadidah Stone and Kevin McPherson

In a time of rising geopolitical tension, the 2025 New Bridge Program gave ten emerging American leaders the chance to explore transatlantic partnerships. Over 10 days in May, the fellows visited Washington, D.C., Brussels, Berlin, and Hamburg to meet with European policy makers, civic leaders, students, and business experts. They gained a deeper understanding of how shared democratic values are tested and sustained across borders.

This year’s cohort was diverse in discipline and in identity. Representing spheres including politics, healthcare, technology, media, and sustainability, the fellows were united by a desire to build transatlantic bridges.

The Evolving Transatlantic Relationship

Multiple speakers expressed concerns over the shifting relationship between Europe and the U.S. under President Trump. They discussed how the president’s attempts to isolate the U.S. are pushing Europe to invest more in NATO, climate work and its other trading partners. This was clearest at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where the cohort met with Nina Šoljan, head of NATO affairs and security policy. She underscored how NATO’s strength lies not just in military readiness but in its ability to adapt to political uncertainty.

“It was powerful to witness the deep dedication to maintaining a peaceful and stable Europe firsthand.”

[related]“With so many military and political shifts happening in the region, it was powerful to witness firsthand the deep dedication from the staff and its members to maintaining a peaceful and stable Europe,” said fellow Eddie Taveras, a political strategist.

The group further discussed transatlantic unity at the European Parliament, where Member Michael Bloss challenged the fellows to consider what long-term collaboration between democracies requires – especially on climate, digital regulation, and migration. At the Bundestag in Berlin, Parliamentarian Metin Hakverdi emphasized the enduring importance of coalition-building and civic engagement in countering political polarization.

For many fellows, these meetings offered a striking contrast to the American legislative environment. “One of the biggest takeaways for me is the role that compromise plays in Germany’s political system,” said Mae Abdelrahman, chief of staff at a workforce development nonprofit. “Seeing how a government could be structured around collaboration and consensus gave me a new appreciation for what’s possible—even if it’s not always easy”.

Germany’s Dark Past Informs Its Future

Another cornerstone of the program was Germany’s relationship with its history. From an academic briefing at Georgetown University to poignant visits to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the German Historical Institute, and Berlin’s public memorials, the fellows saw firsthand how Germany makes an effort to remember its darker days. The country designed its democratic system to prevent authoritarianism and safeguard minority rights.

“There’s a collective intentionality to German democracy – rooted in memory, but focused on accountability.”

“It was meaningful to see all the ways Germany’s systems and customs are a response to the past,” Mae reflected. “There’s a collective intentionality to their democracy that feels different – rooted in memory, but focused on accountability.”

Jason Posley, a public-health advocate from St. Louis, said he would take these lessons back to the marginalized communities he works with. “Germany shows a lot of respect for its history, even the hard parts,” he said. “Knowing the history behind the issues we’re trying to solve helps us get to the root of the problem, not just the surface.”

Many fellows discussed their belief that Germany has overcorrected itself since the war. For example, the group had long discussions about the benefits and downsides of Germany not collecting race data from citizens, a practice that was exploited in the Holocaust.

Walking through the Berlin Wall Memorial, the Brandenburg Gate, and the Reichstag dome, the cohort witnessed how architecture and public space can become tools of civic education. These were reminders that democracy requires visibility, participation, and constant reflection.

Innovation Rooted in People

The fellows engaged deeply with German models of innovation in education, health, and climate. In Hamburg, the fellows attended a workshop to meet young professionals who entered vocational training and forgoed additional schooling. The mentoring and scholarship network Schotstek and the Joachim Herz Stiftung hosted a workshop to highlight how Germany’s dual-education system blends academic instruction with on-the-job experience. “The students shared how their training prepared them for multiple futures – not just one career path,” Mae said. “It made me think about how we can design more flexible, empowering models of education in the U.S.”

“In the U.S., we often celebrate speed of innovation, sometimes at the cost of patient trust or transparency.”

Technology and healthcare were central themes as well. At a roundtable at Microsoft Berlin and a three-hour dinner conversation with Shireen Saxena of AI healthcare company Ada Health, they shared conversations about artificial intelligence and Germany’s strict data-privacy laws. “We discussed how Germany’s strong data protection policies influence what’s possible with AI in healthcare,” noted fellow Kevin McPherson, a machine learning engineer. “In the U.S., we often celebrate speed of innovation, sometimes at the cost of patient trust or transparency. It was eye-opening to see the trade-offs more clearly.”

At Adelphi, a sustainability think tank, the group explored Germany’s clean energy transition and the role that transatlantic cooperation plays in driving innovation. They learned about how climate leaders are translating high-level policy into tangible efforts, from port logistics to carbon targets, reinforcing the notion that global problems demand shared solutions.

Lasting Impressions and Common Purpose

What set the New Bridge Program apart wasn’t just access to institutions, but the collective learning. Through shared meals, long airplane rides, and cultural immersion, the fellows found in one another wellsprings of insight, humor, and solidarity. They pushed each other to think harder, speak up, and reflect deeper.

Fellow Eddie Taveras summed it up best: “What I’ll take back with me is a deeper understanding of how history, culture, and politics shape national identity–and how that identity influences a country’s place in the world. From witnessing the commitment at NATO to engaging in tough but necessary conversations about race, equity, and partnership, I leave with a sharper lens on how transatlantic relations can evolve”.

In the end, the 2025 New Bridge cohort left Europe with more than just stamps in their passports. They gained a richer view of what democracy looks like in practice and developed a renewed sense of purpose about building transatlantic bridges that can withstand the storms ahead.

For more insights into the trip, watch these interviews with our fellows:

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 “I leave with a sharper lens on how transatlantic relations can evolve” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The day began with a private tour of Deutsche Bahn’s ICE Maintenance Facility in Berlin-Rummelsburg, a key operational hub in the company’s high-speed railway system. We explored current transformations in mobility and discussed the future of rail transport in Germany, before heading into the maintenance hall for a unique look at day-to-day operations.

Next, the group visited the economic think tank Dezernat Zukunft – Institute for Macrofinance. Our Young Leader Alumnus Max Krahé, Co-Founder & Research Director, and Florian Schuster-Johnson, Head of the Growth & Budget Lab, introduced us to their innovative work here in Berlin and led a thought-provoking discussion on the future of Germany’s economy.

We concluded the day at Axel Springer SE with insights into the company’s digital strategy and a tour of the BILDnewsroom – still Germany’s largest daily newspaper. The evening culminated in a wonderful dinner and stunning views from the exclusive Journalisten-Club in the heart of city, offering alumni the chance to reconnect and deepen transatlantic ties across industries and generations.

Der Beitrag Young Leaders Alumni Day 2025 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Read the paper here: Briefing Paper No 7 – Climate Neutrality and Regional Development

The paper discusses the importance of developing strong and innovative policies to address the climate crisis and to promote a transition toward a new, sustainable economic and social model. It emphasizes that climate policy must be a top political priority. However, it highlights a commonly overlooked issue: the regional impact of climate action. Different regions within countries are affected in varying ways, depending on their industries, economic structures, and social conditions. This regional variation adds complexity to the implementation of climate policies. Germany and Canada serve as key examples, where regional dynamics introduce additional challenges to achieving climate neutrality. At least on the surface, both governments appear to recognize that considering the regional perspective is essential for the success of their climate strategies. This paper aims to deepen the understanding of the regional dimension of climate policy.

What are the key values of the German-Canadian Conference and why is this exchange so important?

Find out more about German-Canadian relations in an exclusive video interview with Michael Hüther:

Der Beitrag „Climate change requires a political response“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

During the week of April 12, the world’s financial community gathered in Washington DC for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The G20, currently chaired by South Africa, held meetings at the fringes, as did the International Institute of Finance (the global association of commercial financial institutions) and other private and public sector participants.

[related]As one would expect, the recent moves by the US administration and their impact on financial markets very much dominated all discussions. Political, economic and financial uncertainty has skyrocketed. Financial markets took a significant hit, with stocks, the US dollar and US Treasuries down in parallel – which is quite different to previous episodes of financial stress when the US dollar and US Treasuries benefited from their safe haven status.

While financial markets have improved somewhat after President Trump announced the temporary suspension of “reciprocal tariffs” there is still plenty of substantial uncertainty on what the future will hold. Not only is the 10% “baseline tariff” still in place: The situation with China, one of the most important trading partners of the United States, has escalated further. And there is no clarity on the way forward on the reciprocal tariffs, although there is increasing optimism – also after country officials used the occasion of their presence in DC to meet with US officials – that some settlement may be possible.

“The US dollar is the world’s reserve currency”

The long-term implications are even less clear. Recent moves have put into doubt the future role of the United States on the global stage. This does not only pertain to trade or security, but also to the US‘s role in the global financial system. Today, the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and US Treasuries are the world’s reserve assets. The US Administration has reaffirmed its intention to keep it that way. But while one would think that the “exorbitant privilege” of being able to have US debt financed by others in its own currency would be the envy of everyone, there are important voices within the Trump administration that see this as a burden that contributes to an artificially overvalued currency that is seen as undermining US competitiveness.

Recent capital flows from the US to Europe could be interpreted as evidence for a loss of trust in the United States. Still, market participants point at the long overdue rotation away from an overvalued US stock market towards other regions, now merely triggered by uncertainty. But the economic outlook has worsened markedly, and the IMF’s global growth forecasts have been cut accordingly. However, the IMF still expects the US to grow faster (1.8% in 2025 and 1.7% in 2026, down from 2.8% in 2024) than the eurozone (0.8%; 1.2%) and especially Germany (0.0%; 0.9%). This should be no surprise as the long-standing economic issues Europe is facing – such as low productivity growth and lack of innovation in key industries – largely remain unaddressed. The jury may still be out on which side carries what share of the tariff burden. What is already clear, however, is that there is no winner of the turmoil and any future rebalancing of the world economy.

Finally, the week in Washington saw intense discussions on the shape of future global cooperation and international institutions. The current U.S. administration is known to be skeptical of the current set-up and is openly discussing a withdrawal from the very institutions that have historically been used to enhance U.S. influence on the global stage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reaffirmed support for the IMF, but stressed the importance of the fund focusing on its core mandate of helping countries in financial distress.

He made clear that the expansion of its work into development funding (ESG, gender, etc.), which took place  over recent years and which has continuously been criticized even by the IMF’s own staff, does not get further support of its largest shareholder. Mr. Bessent also emphasized that U.S. participation in regulatory coordination (Basel Committee, Financial Stability Board) and the transposition of international standards into the US rulebook will be more targeted. He left open the question of what this means for the Basel standards on banking regulation, given that the administration is considering relaxing certain rules. All this means that banking regulation may once again become a matter of competitiveness, with potentially increasing risks to financial stability.

“All public institutions sit at the cornerstone of trust”

My personal 4 main takeaways from the meetings in Washington are as follows:

• Uncertainty is far higher than usual, as is unpredictability of policies. All public institutions sit at the cornerstone of trust, and the US authorities are no exception.
• While it is clear that tariffs will have a negative impact on growth, the impact on inflation is far from clear.
• The US dollar is still a safe haven, but the longer the tariff conflict continues, the more incentives there will be for alternative mechanisms (e.g. the digital euro) to be established. At the same time, we are witnessing a slowly developing sovereign debt crisis in the United States.
• The world has taken the US policy stance of the past for granted for too long a time, but this may not at all be warranted in the future.

No doubt: Recent developments will leave a significant mark on the global economy. How deep, pronounced and persistent this mark will be depends on the next actions of the US administration and its main trading partners. There is still a window of muted optimism, but this window is closing fast.

Prof. Dr. Andreas Dombret is a former Board Member of the Deutsche Bundesbank and former Supervisory Board Member of the ECB. He is a Member of the Board of the Atlantik-Brücke as well.

Der Beitrag „There is no winner of the turmoil“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Great news: The Atlantik-Brücke is on Instagram! 🎈

We finally jumped on the bandwagon and created an Insta account. Our handle is atlantik_bruecke. We will post behind-the-scenes content, interviews with European and American experts as well as insights from our various events and conferences. We also want to put the spotlight on our programs by accompanying our study trips to Europe, the US and Canada and reporting from our alumni reunions.

Our Instagram complements our existing social media presence on LinkedIn and Bluesky, offering more spontaneous content and more transparency about our work. We also want to offer a place for exchange and an opportunity for our members and alumni to stay in touch and get engaged.

We invite you to follow us and like our content! We’re looking forward to your input and your feedback!
See you on Insta 📸

Der Beitrag Find us on Instagram erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

We are honored to introduce: 

Mae Abdelrahman is the Chief of Staff at The Collective Blueprint, a workforce development nonprofit with a mission to increase socioeconomic mobility by building pathways to thriving careers. In her role, she leads strategic operations to support organizational growth and systemic change. Mae began her career in education as a Teach For America corps member, earning a master’s degree in teaching while teaching in K-12 classrooms. Later, she worked in higher education as a Harvard Business School Leadership Fellow at The Juilliard School, focusing on strategy in the Offices of the President and COO. Mae also has experience in finance, having worked as an underwriter and private equity investor, where she developed her firm’s education investment thesis. Mae holds an MBA from Harvard Business School, graduating as a Baker Scholar in the top 5% of her class, and a BA in Economics modified with Arabic from Dartmouth College. As a Sudanese American, she brings a unique perspective on global education and economic systems to the New Bridge Program.

Marianne Boules is the Founder and CEO of Boules Consulting, where she empowers mission-driven organizations through strategic planning, public policy expertise, and social impact innovation. With both her bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Public Policy—graduating top of her class and earning a full graduate scholarship—Marianne has built a career helping governments, corporations, and nonprofits design impactful, sustainable solutions. Her firm has secured over $85 million in funding for clients working in economic development, climate resilience, and workforce innovation. Known for her ability to bridge the gap between public policy and private action, Marianne is deeply committed to “helping the helper.” Her work centers on creating meaningful change by aligning strategy with purpose, and she is a sought-after speaker, advocate, and collaborator in the fight for a resilient future.

Alyssa Lukpat is a breaking news reporter at The Wall Street Journal in New York. She covers the biggest stories of the day and enjoys writing about politics, elections and law. She has covered campus protests, the 2024 election and changes under the Trump administration. Originally from California, Alyssa studied journalism at Northeastern University and received a student Emmy award for her reporting in Panama. She earned a master’s degree in data journalism at Columbia Journalism School. Her first job was at The New York Times, where she spent a year reporting breaking news. She previously had stints covering metro news at The Boston Globe and The News & Observer. In her free time, she enjoys doing community theater, watching reality TV and going to spin and Pilates classes.

Kevin McPherson is a senior machine learning engineer and technology founder focused on building AI systems that promote transparency, security, and social good. He currently leads the development of AI-driven compliance tools at Schellman and co-founded Philanthrobotics, an initiative recognized in the Chronicle of Philanthropy for its role in democratizing open grants data. Kevin previously spearheaded machine learning efforts at Trustpage (acquired by Vanta), launching LLM-based products with multimillion-dollar ARR impact. He brings experience across mental health tech, public-sector research, and startup environments, with a track record that spans the NIH to Silicon Valley. A former NIH UGSP and Venture for America Fellow, Kevin is passionate about interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly at the intersection of technology, storytelling, and justice.

Sarah Nesbit is a dynamic social impact leader dedicated to advancing equity, sustainability, and community empowerment. She currently serves as a thought leader on the External Affairs team at Capital One, where she evaluates initiatives with a lens toward social responsibility. Sarah is a 2023 GreenBiz 30 Under 30 honoree, a 2024 U.S. Black Chambers Power 50 Under 40 honoree, and Co-Founder of BlackOak Collective, a growing network providing free professional development resources to a community of 500+ Black environmental professionals. Her experience spans policy analysis for elected officials in congressional leadership, political organizing, climate storytelling, and corporate philanthropy at JPMorgan Chase. She holds a BA in Political Science from the College of Charleston and a dual MM/MSc in Business Management and Global Luxury Management from NC State and the Skema Business School of Paris. Outside of work, Sarah has a strong interest in sustainable fashion and is an active eco-creative advocate for responsible innovation within the personal luxury industry. A native of Columbia, SC and rooted in her family’s Gullah-Geechee heritage, She is passionate about creating systems that center people, planet, and purpose across industries.

Jason Posley is a passionate advocate for health equity, dedicated to addressing systemic disparities and improving outcomes for underserved communities. With a Master of Health Administration (MHA) from Webster University and a Health Science degree from Maryville University, he has four years of experience working with rural and disparate populations. Jason currently serves as Project Manager of Infant/Maternal Health Initiatives for BJC Healthcare’s Community Health Improvement Team, where he focuses on integrating doulas into clinical care, developing community partnerships, and shaping hospital policies to improve maternal and infant health outcomes. He also holds a Certificate in Neighborhood Leadership from MU Extension and serves as a Board Member for Habitat for Humanity Saint Louis and Gateway Equity Institute, working to advance community development and health equity on a broader scale.

Khadidah Stone is a native of Montgomery, Alabama. Her journey began at age 14 when she championed her father’s cause, unjustly sentenced to sixty years for selling marijuana. Through relentless advocacy, she secured his release in 2016, igniting a lifelong commitment to justice. Her extensive background spans nonprofit, advocacy, and political spheres, with impactful roles at the Alabama House of Representatives, Feminist Majority Foundation, Black Future’s Lab and more. Currently she is the Director of Network Capacity for a civic engagement coalition, Alabama Forward. Outside her advocacy, Khadidah enjoys reading, gardening, hosting her podcast, and cherishing moments with family and friends, embodying James Baldwin’s wisdom: “Ignorance allied with power is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.

Nabeela Syed represents Illinois’ 51st District in the State House, becoming the youngest woman elected and the first Muslim and South Asian woman in the legislature. She has championed key issues, including property tax relief, gun safety, and healthcare affordability. Nabeela passed a law to prevent price gouging of off-patent and generic drugs, ensured paid time off for organ donors, reduced barriers for mental health professionals to obtain licenses, and increased transparency from utility companies. She serves as Vice-Chairperson of the Health Care Availability & Access Committee and is serving her second term in the Illinois State House.

Eddie Taveras is a political strategist specializing in coalition-building, public engagement, strategic communications, and legislative advocacy. He employs data-driven methods, microtargeting, and geotargeting to influence decision-makers and drive policy impact. His work has secured national media placements in Bloomberg, Axios, The Wall Street Journal, Univision, POLITICO, and more. Eddie has managed multimillion-dollar voter mobilization and advocacy campaigns, helping pass four state laws and allocate $1.6 million in grants. He played a key role in NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ 2021 Transition immigration committee and serves as the executive officer and board member of the New York Immigration Coalition. With expertise in cross-sector collaboration, he has led bilingual media efforts across digital, print, and radio.

William Wilkinson is the Senior Tribal Policy & Government Relations Advisor at CK Tribal Consulting, where he advances sovereignty, equity, and strategic growth through expertise in government innovation, economic development, and intergovernmental affairs. He previously served as a political appointee in the Biden-Harris Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy, where he helped accelerate the clean energy transition, strengthen climate resilience, and drive innovation through cross-sector collaboration and policy leadership. Will’s work sits at the intersection of law, policy, and technology, with a focus on inclusive governance, regulatory reform, and systems-level change. He has been featured at Google’s Product Inclusion and Equity Summit, named a 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival Fellow, participated in the Tribal Leadership Executive Program at Harvard Business School, and is an alum of the Udall Foundation. Will holds an MS in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University and a BS in Business Administration from Haskell Indian Nations University

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 2025 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On January 20, 2025, the new administration issued a flurry of executive orders. Among them, Unleashing American Energy put an immediate pause on funding provided by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA).  I had recently secured a Department of Energy (DOE) grant with IRA funds to install electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at locations identified as critical by our residents living in underserved and Disadvantaged Communities (DAC). Given the grant’s emphasis on including diverse voices in transportation planning, I received the following message:

Recipients and subrecipients [of DOE funding] must cease any activities, including contracted activities, and stop incurring costs associated with DEI… Costs incurred after the date of this letter will not be reimbursed.

[related]That week, we had a number of focus group sessions scheduled to identify what clean transportation solutions would work for our neighborhoods. We were put in the position of deciding whether we’d cancel those sessions or pay for the cost of holding them ourselves. Given the preparation we’d done and the commitments we’d made to the community, we decided to eat the cost and hold them anyway.

“The flurry of orders is creating a sense of uncertainty and instability.”

Unfortunately, these sorts of decisions are being held everywhere. During the Biden administration, many of us were tasked with securing as much federal funding as we could in order to advance renewable energy and community commitments. With the federal funding freeze, all of that work is now possibly all for naught. Even beyond specific grants, the flurry of orders is creating a sense of uncertainty and instability. This translates into a chilling effect on projects. California remains committed to our ambitious climate goals, but if our state faces a deficit due to the withholding of federal funding, many of the state budget allocations designed for such projects are unexpectedly in jeopardy.

This particular DOE grant was later granted permission to move forward, only to be paused again later. This choppy stop-and-go movement is not only frustrating for staff but it actually increases costs and timelines as staff navigate these confusing and sometimes contradictory directions. While we remain committed to building a sustainable future, the road ahead just got much more difficult.

Alexandra McGee is the Vice President of Strategic Initiatives at MCE, California’s first Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) program. As an Atlantik-Brücke New Bridge fellow, she speaks on the importance of democratizing the just transition to a clean energy economy and the strength of local efforts to combat our shared global concerns. 

Der Beitrag “The road ahead just got much more difficult” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Our CEO Julia Friedlander was a guest at the Munich Economic Debates of the ifo Institute for Economic Research in Munich on March 24th. She spoke about the tension between US President Trump’s tariff policy and economic sanctions in the interest of national security.

By Julia Friedlander

Democrats and Republicans find little common cause, but both parties have one idea in common: economic statecraft. From sanctions to export controls to investment screening, the toolkit soared to new heights under the first Trump administration and continued into the Biden years, mostly targeting China. Europe was a free-rider, but ultimately a likeminded party to be brought on-side when facing Beijing—friendshoring was the explicit goal, whether by nudge or by force. Now, Donald Trump is taking matters lightyears further – and using tariffs not as trade remedies, but as a form of sanction-like coercion, against the world.  And in doing so, instead of building a ring of fire around China, America risks forcing one against itself

Sanctions vs. Tariffs

When the president announces tariffs on Mexico and Canada because of drug flows and immigration, and then turns around and threatens BRICS countries with tariffs because they are “de-dollarizing” he is reaching far beyond trade platitudes – he is seeking concessions or revenue or both. Two week before the implementation of “reciprocal tariffs,” no one seems to know what he means, or stranger yet, he doesn’t seem to know what he means, either. For decades, politicians of all persuasions have threatened financial sanctions on many things and people in a “don’t-do-this…or” format—from small-fry Balkan agitators to entire nations, so Trump-ist modalities are not as unfamiliar in American policy vernacular as many believe. But sanctions and tariffs are apples and pears—mostly because physical things and money (now rarely a physical thing) move about the world differently. And America will ultimately be ill-suited for a standoff based on the latter.

[related]I have always argued that unprecedented measures against Russia beginning in February 2022 risked crossing the boundary between economic penalty and economic war. The sanctions—and particularly the blocking of sovereign assets—could have shattered the Russian economy or sent it into uncharted economic survivalism. The US and its partners acted with such resolve that the actions of 2022 tested whether sanctions could steer the course of live military conflict or sever a major global economy from its financial lifelines.

While the Russian economy has undoubtedly suffered and the government reaches further into emergency economic measures, western policies forced Moscow towards a new form of creative resilience. It has done so through the worst set of bedfellows including Iran and North Korea. But more importantly, it has elevated a broad set of third parties, close partners of the US such as India and the United Arab Emirates, who are happy to generate trade diversion tactics and alternative patterns of trade settlement to their benefit. Russia’s war economy cannot churn forever: it is massively inflationary, but Putin’s military has more capacity than it did before the war.

Still, the massive sanctions escalation on Russia was worth risking. For all its complications, the collective G7 showed it was willing to deliver the heavy hammer. The move was a strategic success because it surprised Putin – and President Xi – while the risks to Western markets were low—and especially low for the United States.

But that rationale does not apply to China, or to trade barriers more broadly deployed as a form of coercion in the US national interest. Building economic resilience requires prioritizing trade challenges, building alliances and offering incentives to emerging markets and industrial competitors alike. The sarcastic quip at the US Treasury has always been: don’t sanction everything at once so you have something left to sanction. That is, choose your targets wisely.

In the new administration, prudence may not advise the tariff onslaught, and the risks of a backlash are real. Donald Trump and a subset of his economic team seek a wide swath of tariffs on the world, as well as steeper investment controls on China. They are pursuing a theory—hence untested in the modern era—that the purchasing capacity and consumer market of the world’s biggest economy have amassed enough leverage to force a reindustrialization of the country, and to charge a premium for those seeking to buy US debt, effectively reducing what the US currently owes the world in interest. However, even before the shots have been fired, countries have quickly begun to question: just how indispensable is the US market—and for how long?

Sanctions are first and foremost the territory of financial markets, where the dollar governs all major global transactions. Trade flows and settlement are another matter —who moves what and where is a murkier target for US tariffs than financial flows are for the US dollar. With global supply chains morphing in the aftermath of the pandemic, new sudden jolts to the trading system will lead to fragmentation, higher costs for US consumers, and question the business models of many of the US’ most globally competitive companies. Trump and some advisors are starting to argue that a short recession is a necessary sacrifice for the longterm structural gain for industry, while other advisors look like they’ve been losing sleep. Leaving voter interests and the price of eggs aside, how long can this “economic detox” last before it becomes a structural loss? Or how long will the country hold out politically for this experiment to bear fruit?

Someone Else’s Trade Rules Now

From an eagle-eye view, creative thinking is welcome. Global trade rules are not working properly, and tariffs can have their usefulness. Both parties in Washington acknowledge that WTO rules do not suit the 21^stcentury economy due to the rise of digital trade and because China has so glaringly abused its developing country status to the detriment of advanced industrials. Most parties in Europe agree but are not as eager to flaunt the rules in return, nor were they ever of the opinion that blocking the appointment of judges to the appellate body has ever helped.

But it is not only China poised to limit our range of motion. Miniature trade arrangements between emerging economies and developing regions are cropping up through a web of bilateral and trilateral ad-hoc arrangements. While this behavior, in time, might help force new international trade rules, right now it looks like growing economies around the world are carving out new advantages while the heavyweights who drew up the rules revisit their own history.

At the G20 in Brazil—a group heralded by the United States to navigate through the global financial crisis— the summit’s hosts avoided hot-button foreign policy issues such the Gaza War to account for country positions that starkly differ from those of the United States. Almost in parallel, Peru christened a Chinese-owned megaport on the heels of the APEC summit, which could bypass US trade routes entirely—no wonder Trump forced a US hedge fund into the ownership structure of the Panama Canal. Now, the US administration will not show up to South Africa’s meeting of the Group—citing mistreatment of white South Africans. That may sound like a gripe of Elon Musk, but to many others it sounds like the cry of a sore loser. No, the G20 isn’t just there to solve Western problems anymore, so it’s not worth showing up if it’s not our show.

Since the second half of the Obama Administration, Washington has tried various tactics to cope with the relative loss of economic power. With post-NAFTA globalization taking hold, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, the disaster of the Iraq War and neoconservative nation-building in Afghanistan—we witnessed an empire in overreach. Such empires have to pay it forward to maintain their status—and the US was ready to contribute the largest share of the UN, NATO, and recognize the developing country status of the WTO. But the US was also ill-prepared for the world that it propped up to begin asserting itself. Overestimating the staying power of Western economic advantage, we overlooked trade basics, that open markets create an overall increase of welfare for all participants, but also a convergence of wealth. There are of course easily parallels to be found in Germany’s expanded trade and investment relationship with China.

Unwinding the Unique American Problem

Given the predatory behavior by China, and to a much lesser extent, imbalances with the European Union and in the Western Hemisphere, there is understandable bipartisan consensus to address the disadvantages felt by the American workforce. There is nothing wrong with selective protectionism—every country has it—but it is worth understanding that these moves are risky business. Despite its market power, energy independence, and consumer base, the United States can still become an outsider. When countries try to work around US sanctions (and they do so all the time in very creative ways), we call it evasion. When countries work around the US market, it’s called trade diversification.

The core problem with accelerating a tariff standoff with the world all at once is that the US economy generates 25% of global GDP. This may come across as a massive point of leverage- or an indication of how intertwined the economic health is with the world. Cheerleading China’s economic slowdown as a chit for team America, which the Biden Administration often did to demonstrate that its chosen policies were working and Chinese GDP would never overtake the US, is misguided. Global GDP is not a zero-sum game.

Increasing barriers to entry will force some firms to reshore intermediate production to the United States, but also incentivize many to reduce their footprint in producing US exports. Discussions have already begun in earnest among traditional allies and competitors how to ringfence their trade flows around the United States. New York functions as the global financial center not only because of the depth of its capital markets but because of trade financing. And if there’s any comparative advantage the United States has over others for the foreseeable future, it is our broad and deep marketplace.

It is true that the US also pays a price for protecting the world’s reserve currency. The capital markets contribute a predominantly large share of GDP compared to our closest partners, and our rising debt is financed by cheap interest rates. That sounds very advantageous at first. However, other countries have bought this debt to underpin their own export markets. At this point, Germany has always been a thorn in the side.

Because no one has provided a sufficient answer to address America’s entrenched vulnerabilities, creative, fringe theories gain traction. Combine the calculations of a few brainiac economists no one use to listen to, Musk’s penchant for creative destruction, Vance’s millennial-generation populism, and Trump’s ability to give concessions to his negotiating partners and call it his own victory, and here we are today.

Friendshoring without America

The evidence of diversification away from the United States is still anecdotal because it is still so fresh, but it is also happening fast. Canada is poised to join the EU’s new military funding mechanisms and call off its orders of F-35 fighter jets, right at the time when tariffs will damage American aerospace manufacturing. Chief economists at European banks are full of bright ideas how to leverage Germany’s massive spending bazooka to create new credit markets for European investment, and already have colorful graphs showing investment flows moving to Europe to avoid US whiplash and “buy European” before valuations rise higher. It is mid-March. Two months ago, I spoke at a conference in New York where I was met with skeptical glances when I encouraged investors not to ride off Germany entirely.

Again, tariffs can be a necessary measure, even when there are potential drawbacks. The debate last year over Germany’s refusal to back EU tariffs against Chinese electric vehicles felt like gazing into the funhouse mirrors at a carnival—every time you see an odd new reflection of yourself and you’re not sure which one is the real you. Was allowing China to flood the market with cheap electric cars worth the bet on a dwindling number of luxury diesels going in the other direction? It was the dregs of mercantilism. Two months later, deficit spending, defense, and industrial policy are clearly back, and at just the right time for industry. Biden’s justification for the Inflation Reduction Act had a three-pronged message: create jobs, accelerate the energy transition, and compete with China. Germany just passed its own version, and the prongs are: defend Europe from Russia, save German factories, and compete with the United States.

For the Biden crew, every policy was about friend-shoring, near-shoring, or ally-shoring. The tool of choice was export controls, which relied heavily on the participation of likeminded partners to be successful, despite the size of the America market. Admittedly, no one knew how “small” the “yard” would remain or how “high” the “fence” was to become. If the semiconductor industry was the core, high-end technology and dual use goods radiated out like a weird sun. The result was not to delay China where it might really matter, in artificial intelligence; the result was DeepSeek, so it’s fair game to say this wasn’t a watertight strategy.

For the Trump administration, round two, it’s not clear that it matters what goods are sold to the United States and what for, only that there is too much of them. This is a weakness. Once you are in dodgeball territory, friendshoring around the United States can be successful every time investment is diverted or prices rise. Everything becomes a Mexican avocado.

Conclusion

The tenor of political debate has become rough and frankly hard to listen to. I tell my team repeatedly that the louder a leader screams or threatens, the less power he or she will have. One rarely yells out of a position of strength, but out of a feeling of perceived loss. I’m not only talking about America, of course.

Trade relations between the US and the EU are going to get worse before they get better. I was part of the team that designed the meeting between Trump and Jean-Claude Juncker in July 2018 that led to a trade truce, and the European “price for peace” was low. A few months later Germany received a reprieve from automobile tariffs, also by not giving all that much. That’s the Trump surrounded by a more traditional set of advisors. Now we will see trade deficits, taxation and technology regulation thrown into one bucket and a taste for further escalation. But escalation creates vulnerabilities, and the global trading environment is not America-centric, is a free-for-all, global market mudpit. As an American, I see the problems with the status-quo with clear eyes and will hear out any theory that addresses entrenched structural problems in our economy. But as a European (or soon to be, at least) I see how disruption has given Europe much to gain.

Der Beitrag Economics of a Global Market Mudpit erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Our distinguished speakers, Bradley Bowman, Senior Director, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Dr. Avner Golov, Vice President Research & Alliances, MIND Israel, and Dr. Bente Scheller, Head of the Middle East and North Africa Division, Heinrich Böll Foundation, discussed the latest developments in the conflict and the future of Gaza. The conversation was moderated by Jakob Flemming, Program Manager, Atlantik-Brücke.

Watch the key statements from our speakers on the question: Is President Trump’s proposal for Gaza’s reconstruction helpful, and who should take leadership in Gaza once Hamas is removed from power?

To watch the full webinar, which took place on March 11, 2025, view the video below:

Der Beitrag “The demolition of Hamas must be the first phase of Gaza’s future“ 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..

It was not easy for us to say goodbye to the Magnus-Haus. But after an intensive search in Berlin’s challenging real estate market, we are convinced that we have found a worthy location for our work in Palais Eger. The location close to the government district ensures proximity to political players, while the good connections make it easier for our members and guests to visit.

It was particularly important to us that our association, which is steeped in tradition, remains anchored in historical rooms in the future – with an atmosphere that promotes debates and encounters at eye level. The Palais Eger offers precisely this setting: prestigious, charged with history, yet modern enough to appropriately accompany current discourse.

Our team is looking forward to the new working space, the new neighborhood – and above all to the exchange on site. We cordially invite all members to visit us at Palais Eger and join us in shaping this new phase.

New address:
Palais Eger
Tempelhofer Ufer 11
10963 Berlin

Der Beitrag Palais Eger: A new place for exchange and debate erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

After the exclusive presentation, Richard Edelman was available to answer further questions. Looking ahead to the next German government, he said:

 The key for the next german government is to deliver specifically for individuals.

Lesen Sie mehr zum Edelman Trust Barometer here.

Der Beitrag „We need to give people back a sense of optimism“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

When Donald Trump is inaugurated as the 47^th President of the United States on Monday, he will be entering the White House as the US national debt nears record levels, and as a leader committed to an economic programme that could increase debt by another $7.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

[related]The next President has also repeatedly committed himself “without question” to maintaining the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world.

The task of reconciling these seemingly conflicting objectives will fall to Scott Bessent, the man Trump has appointed as his new Secretary of the Treasury.

The US is not alone among advanced economies in seeing rising levels of public spending and debt. The political consensus on both the Left and Right in many countries has shifted towards bigger government and, remarkably in the US, many Republicans even outdo Democrats when it comes to fiscal laxity.

Yields have risen on fears about inflation and widening fiscal deficits

Until recently, financial markets have shown precious little concern about the escalating US debt load. However, that has been changing and market participants are beginning to worry. Ten-year bond yields in the US Treasury market moved up and volatility increased before the US election and yields have risen further since on fears about inflation and widening fiscal deficits.

In a recent survey of CFA Institute members, which includes the cream of the investment analysis community, nearly 80 per cent of its more than 4,000 respondents said that US government debt levels, and reliance on unfunded spending were not sustainable.

Nor do they hold out hope of the US changing its spots. Three-fifths of the analyst community believe that the US lacks the political will to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio. A similar proportion expect the US to start losing its reserve currency status within the next 5 to 15 years.

The US has the privilege of serving, almost unchallenged, as the world’s reserve currency. More than half of world trade is still conducted in dollars and other countries need to hold US dollar reserves to pay for imports, weather economic shocks, and reassure creditors that they can service their foreign currency debts. When it comes to foreign exchange transactions, the US enjoys a virtual stranglehold, with the US dollar on the side of nearly 9 in 10 global forex transactions.

How long will the “exorbitant privilege of the US dollar” persist?

Reserve currency status allows the US to borrow in its own currency without the constraints that normally apply in financial markets. It is an economic advantage that no other country in the world enjoys, conferring on the US what a former French President described as the “exorbitant privilege of the US dollar”.

In recent years, it has allowed the US government to get away with undisciplined budgetary shenanigans and deficit spending on a massive scale because of its near unlimited ability to borrow to fund its fiscal and budgetary wish list.

Even though US debt is now at levels which are unprecedented in modern peace time, and the Congressional Budget Office projects that on current trends debt would reach a staggering 172 percent of GDP by 2054, recent US leaders have remained remarkably unfazed. Debt servicing costs exceeded $1 trillion in 2023, more than the US defence budget but there has been no attempt to curb this fiscal excess. Instead, massive deficit spending remained the only game in town.

Despite increased borrowing costs, there is no immediate indication that investors doubt the US government’s ability to borrow to fund this spending and rising interest payments. This may seem counterintuitive but there is currently no real alternative for international investors. The US government bond market is the largest and most liquid in the world and Treasury securities remain the safe haven for liquidity, repayment and safe keeping of the vast cash reserves circulating in global commerce.

Reserve currency status is a distinct global advantage that comes with a global responsibility

However, the dollar’s pre-eminence may not last forever. Authoritarian states are increasing looking for alternatives to reduce their dependence on the dollar and more and more questions are being asked about whether the US has the political will and determination to address its fiscal incontinence. Reserve currency status is a distinct global advantage, but it comes with a global responsibility to use the privilege judiciously in order to preserve trust in the dollar-based global financial system.

When confidence in businesses or institutions cracks, it invariably happens slowly at first and then suddenly. We may be but a few errant policy moves or geopolitical missteps away from undermining trust and creating broad and lasting disruption across the entire financial world.

In recent decades, when the US had both a stronger fiscal position and a more disciplined approach to borrowing, the dollar-based system successfully weathered several market crises. It withstood the dot.com crash, the global financial crisis, a pandemic cash bailout and regional bank disruptions. As a result, US financial buffers have been severely depleted.

The incoming Treasury Secretary has made clear his concerns about national debt and his own commitment to preserving the dollar’s reserve currency status through a combination of growth, higher oil production and cutting government spending. He is also committed to the Trump tax cuts, deregulation and tariffs.

It remains to be seen just how successful Scott Bessent is at achieving all these goals. What is clear is that now is the time to stop stretching the fiscal rubber-band and demonstrate concrete steps toward fiscal responsibility.

As a former Republican chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Herb Stein, once observed about unconstrained deficit spending: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

Der Beitrag Why the US deficit matters erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The New Bridge Program is more than just an opportunity; it’s a transformative journey that reshapes how young professionals view the connections between Germany and the United States. As a fully funded fellowship, the program creates a space for emerging leaders to engage with history, culture, and critical conversations around global challenges.

This video was created to offer a glimpse into the New Bridge Fellowship by following our most recent American cohort. Comprising 10 fellows from different states and diverse career backgrounds—including journalists, elected officials, and activists—this cohort exemplifies the program’s mission to amplify underrepresented voices in transatlantic relations.

For many participants, like Darrin Camilleri, who shares his experience in the video, the program offers a deeply transformative educational journey. As they walk through Berlin, history comes to life—moving beyond the pages of textbooks. Iconic landmarks like Checkpoint Charlie, the Brandenburg Gate, and the German Parliament offer a tangible connection to the shared histories of the transatlantic community. Fellows don’t merely visit these sites—they engage in meaningful conversations with high-ranking officials and parliamentarians, enriching their understanding of both historical events and modern-day politics.

Yet, the New Bridge Program isn’t just about looking back; it’s about forging a future together. As Alex Schyllander reflects in the video, the program offers more than learning from speakers and mentors—it’s a unique opportunity to learn and grow alongside peers. The bonds formed here promise to extend beyond borders and endure well into the future. These lifelong connections are a testament to the program’s ability to inspire collaboration and understanding across continents.

In their travels, fellows explored shared challenges and discovered that differences, although present, are not insurmountable. By collaborating and exchanging perspectives, they strengthen the ties that unite the transatlantic community in addressing today’s global challenges.

Are you interested in becoming a fellow? Find more information on the requirements of participation here.

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 A Glimpse into the New Bridge to Germany Program erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

General Hodges, President-elect Trump has regularly criticized NATO, especially when it comes to the financial imbalance of the national defense budgets in the USA and in Europe. How will the U.S. commitment to the alliance alter under the new Trump administration and what would this mean for NATO’s credibility? 

It’s not helpful that the incoming President creates doubt and uncertainty about US’s commitment to NATO and Europe. But my sense is that he won’t actually pull out of NATO or turn his back on NATO because enough of the GOP leadership in Congress understand how important it is for US security and prosperity and I think President Trump will as well. But he’ll continue to be harsh and demanding in his interactions with some Allies, especially since he believes he’s the one who forced many countries to increase spending.

How will the new NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and the new U.S. President get along? 

I think Secretary General Rutte will do very well. He’s already demonstrated a strong, savvy understanding of Mr Trump and his visit to Mar a Lago was a good example. But he’ll be tested throughout, especially if nations like Germany continue to fall short. And a divergence on how to deal with Ukraine and Russia could be a source of friction.

How may Trump’s cabinet picks, Marco Rubio for Secretary of State and Mike Waltz for National Security Advisor, affect the incoming administration’s commitment to the transatlantic alliance? 

The good news is that both Rubio and Waltz are pro-NATO and Russia hawks. But will they be able to achieve policy successes if others who influence Mr Trump disagree, for example, DJT Jr, Elon Musk, etc?

Trump has already announced to once again leave the Paris Climate Agreement. Which value will alliances in general, treaties, Western and rules-based institutions have, if the United States pulls this democratic international framework into question? 

I think most nations and agencies are already expecting it and should be adapting, preparing for it.

Would Germany, the United Kingdom, France and other major European countries be able and willing to tremendously increase their military support for Ukraine, if the new Trump administration decided to stop supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia? 

They certainly have the economic power to do it…but I haven’t seen that they have the political will to do this. But I would expect that countries like Poland, Italy, Finland and the Baltic countries will do this…they do have the political will…because they are not confused about the threat from Russia. The center of gravity of resistance to Russia is shifting to the East.

Which political approach will the new U.S. government most probably follow in Israel’s war against Hamas, Hezbollah, Huthis and other proxies from Iran in the Middle East? 

I don’t know yet…signals from Trump about not getting involved in the post-Assad Syria are not encouraging. But clearly we should try to influence what happens there…no Russian or Chinese influence, no export of terrorism, and return of Syrian refugees to Syria. We should strengthen our relationship with our NATO Ally, Turkey. And of course I expect a Trump Administration to be very close to the Netanyahu government in Israel.

Since America’s pivot to Asia the Indo-Pacific has become the most important world region for the USA from a geopolitical and geostrategic standpoint. What U.S. strategy for China do you expect in the next four years with regard to the rising tensions surrounding Taiwan? 

This is not clear…there is a divide even in the GOP about how to do this. A successful deterrence of China will require military as well as economic and diplomatic strength, all of which requires collaboration with Allies, including our European allies. But the best way to deter China now is for them to see that we are willing to do whatever it takes to help Ukraine stop Russia. I fear that China sees that we in the West don’t have the political Will to defeat Russia and so they are emboldened to do what they want to challenge the international rules based order in the IndoPacific region.

Frederick Benjamin “Ben” Hodges III is a retired United States Army officer who served as the commanding general of United States Army Europe. He has been a Senior Advisor to Human Rights First since June 2022 and also serves as NATO’s Senior Mentor for Logistics. He previously held the Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis. He retired from the U.S. Army in January 2018, is a board member of Atlantik-Brücke, and lives with his wife in Frankfurt, Germany.

Der Beitrag “A successful deterrence of China requires collaboration“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Video Credits: David Rosario Dro Photo & Video – Lead Photographer & Lead Videographer

At the end of October, we had the pleasure of bringing together over 50 New Bridge alumni from across Germany and the U.S. in vibrant Miami to deepen our transatlantic bonds and explore solutions to today’s global challenges. This is their report.

By Silas Burris, Omaima Afzaal, Raze Baziani, Innokenty Burshteyn, and Nicholas Courtney

Day 1: New Bridge Program Arrives in Miami

In true Miami fashion, our first evening began at a vibrant bar by the harbor, with the shimmering city skyline in the backdrop. After dozens of warm greetings and introductions, New Bridge alumni listened to opening remarks from German Consul General Christofer Burger. His speech emphasized the importance of community, thanking us for our role as ambassadors of German-American friendship. “You are actually doing my job,” he said, acknowledging our commitment as a bridge between cultures and urging us to carry these values back to our communities. “We need you to share this message—that we’re stronger together and that together, we can be a force for good.”

Anoja Perinpanathan, from the newest German cohort, shared her experience:

“It feels like our fellowship just ended, yet here we are together again in Miami. I’m thrilled to meet everyone, especially during this exciting time leading up to the U.S. elections—it’s such a unique chance to connect with American fellows.”

The evening continued with stimulating perspectives from special guests, including representatives from Germany’s Federal Foreign Office and one of our panelists for the next day, Evelyn Pérez-Verdía. It was a successful start and sparked inspiration for the days to come.

Day 2: Transatlantic Dialogue and Exploration

Saturday morning’s program began with a land acknowledgement from New Bridge alumna Cheyenne Kippenberger—a citizen of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, Chilean American advocate for Indigenous people, and a former Miss Indian World. Cheyenne grounded us with her words as she recognized the original stewards of what is now Florida and educated the group about the unique aspects of tribal governments.

It wouldn’t be a New Bridge event without addressing the biggest topic on many of our minds: the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. New Bridge alumni Joseph Langner and Steven Sainz moderated a discussion on the global implications and key issues shaping the election, featuring four experts on local and international politics. Moises Benhabib, Senior Director at Juvare Federal and Defense and Board Member at Miami’s World Affairs Council, weighed in on how a potential Harris presidency would reinvigorate the U.S.A.’s participation in international alliances such as the Paris Agreement and UNRWA, while a Trump presidency would place much greater focus on implementing trade tariffs. Dr. Markus Thiel, a professor of political and international relations at Florida International University, remarked that Europe will face challenges regardless of the result and will likely face pressure to provide more of their own security funding for NATO. The speakers frequently brought up the issue of disinformation and the risk it poses to democracy. Evelyn Pérez-Verdía, Founder of We Are Más, underscored that threat, characterizing disinformation as “digital, global, and borderless,” while Hon. Anna Hochkammer, a councilmember of the Village of Pinecrest, Florida, emphasized that disinformation affects constituents at even the most local levels—and that micro issues are often what voters care about the most. New Bridge alumni brought critical questions from both sides of the Atlantic for the panel and expressed appreciation for the professional, fact-based dialogue the panelists brought forth.

The alumni body continued to engage in transatlantic discussions regarding four critical global issues: security, trade, climate, and technology. These were moderated by New Bridge alumni and included subject matter experts who both challenged and engaged critical discussion across two consecutive panel sessions.

• The “Trade and Investment” panel was moderated by Khalid Sarsour and Maycaa Hannon, with guest speaker Tobias Borawski, Managing Director of ASTARAS and Florida Chapter Director of the German American Chambers of Commerce. The panel provided an overview of the global trading system and how the U.S. and Germany are experimenting with new ways of trade in response to growing populism, and our economic impact on one another. Borawski then provided an on-the-ground perspective on how new trade policies are shaping business in both countries.
• The “Security: Russia and Ukraine” panel was moderated by Azadê Peşmen and Rita Lieder and featured international relations experts Michael Szanto and Dr. Dina Moulioukova, who helped dissect the intricacies of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Russian identity. The panel explored the geopolitical chessboard, shedding light on the strategic implications of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and its potential to dominate the escalation game.
• The “Climate Corporation: Energy and Sustainability” panel featured University of Miami School of Law, Climate & Environmental law Fellow, Renee Valerie Fajardo, and was moderated by New Bridge alumni Carlos Carrillo and Samantha E. Williams. Discussions varied from global mechanisms of accountability to framing energy independence as a form of security: using the German-Russian relationship as an example of what occurs when a country becomes too energy-dependent on another.
• The “Tech and Innovation” panel delved into the complex and rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence featuring the founder of Hummingbirds AI and the Miami AI Club, Nima Schei, MD. The conversation was moderated by Monoswita Saha and Enver Cetin. The discussion began with an introduction to AI learning and its applications and then shifted to a critical analysis of AI’s potential benefits and risks, with a special emphasis on the ethical implications of its ongoing development.

After soaking up the morning’s thought-provoking panels, we had lunch together before boarding the bus for a lively, captivating tour of Miami. In addition to pointing out iconic architecture and sharing anecdotes about famous residents, the tour delved into the innovative solutions Miami employs to navigate its unique geography, ensuring seamless connectivity across waterways and resilience in the face of its tropical climate. The tour concluded with a spontaneous celebration of Rejoice Jones‘s birthday, as the second level of the bus turned into a stage for an impromptu karaoke session.

Day 3: Everything Alumni

[related]The final day of the reunion opened with an icebreaker led by Esra Güner and Alexandra McGee, who blasted popular American and German songs, pausing at intervals for rapid personal questions, and then resuming the DJ-ing again. In these thirty minutes, we laughed, danced, and got to know people we had not yet spoken to at the reunion.

The New Bridge Alumni Council, chaired by Whitney Terrill, presented the Council Activity Report to us, followed by presentations from Julian Pecora and Prof. Dr. Narku Laing who provided overviews of the German-American Conference in Washington, DC, and the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics in New York City, respectively.

 The final farewell remarks were given by New Bridge Program’s Assistant Program Manager, Hamda Yusef, who shared the joy of being a part of this unique and wonderfully diverse group of leaders around the world. During these final moments Hamda also presented the Program’s first Outstanding Alumni Awards to Rejoice Jones, Alexandra McGee, and Jeff Aguy.

The three days of the reunion flew by but left us invigorated with new perspectives, meaningful connections, and excitement for all the New Bridge opportunities to come.

The NEW BRIDGE PROGRAM 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 Program: Alumni Unite in Miami! erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Julia Friedlander

Good evening. I was delighted to receive the invitation to join the Book Fair this year and would like to thank Handelsblatt for asking me to share a few key theses on American economic policy with you, just three weeks before election day in the United States. For the past 2.5 years, I have served as CEO of the Atlantik-Brücke, a transatlantic policy network that has fostered relations across the Atlantic among politicians, industry representatives and academics for over 70 years. Our organization played a key role in ensuring Germany received the Marshall Plan and accelerated its path into NATO just a few years later. Our task is to find and execute the modern version of this legacy. I am the first American to hold this position, after serving for a decade in the US federal government, in the Central Intelligence Agency, in the Treasury Department and in the White House.

Those following the presidential debate probably see a patchwork of campaign slogans and policy proposals either directly or indirectly related to the state of the economy. Some are more viable than others, but in the end despite all the partisan rancor, both Harris and Trump are circling around the same concepts—what is the role of the state in the economy, and how do we trade with the rest of the world?

Never have voters been so concerned with the country’s identity

Never have voters been so concerned with the country’s identity as an industrialized nation and global market participant. Go to a bar in a rural part of America and ask around—everyone is deliberating the future of the American economy and their own ability to make their way within it. The intense debate among the electorate and political leadership of both parties reflects a new era in the politics of global competition.

Just about every day in Germany I hear some version of the following: the US is “stepping back from the rules-based trade order that it itself designed” or the US is “turning against its own very nature into protectionism.” The US is certainly changing, and I cannot say I personally agree with every choice that my government leadership has made in recent years, but these assertions in Europe reflect a certain myopia with regards to US policy.

When did this criticism begin? In March 2017, I sat in one of the first of thousands of meetings with external guests that I would hold in the following years. This was at the very beginning of the Trump administration, and I came as a civil servant appointed to the National Security Council. A guest from Germany asked me what the transatlantic priorities would be, expecting that I would mention Russia, or perhaps NATO expansion in the Balkans. But after the first cabinet meetings I attended, sitting in the back row, I had a different thesis: I think it will be China. With a quizzical look, the guest said: “You don’t really mean that, Julia?” Today the two of us laugh about that meeting. Six years later, we are dealing with a radically different concept of geoeconomics and a lot of open questions how we secure economic prosperity.

“Tariffs, public investment and various trade barriers have always been cornerstones of our country.”

[related] Has the US taken a brand new path in the Trump and Biden years? Even I felt like I first heard the word industrial policy in 2018. After all, I was inoculated with free market economy at every available opportunity throughout my education. Crucially, my parents, born a few years after the war, were not. A quick trip through American history shows that the fervor of neoliberalism is an exception rather than a rule for the country. At the end of the 19th century, the first anti-trust laws and reams of import/export bans were introduced, largely to compete with Great Britain, but several are still in force today. The New Deal in the 1930s, the war economy of the 1940s, the GI Bill and Great Society in the 1950s and 1960s expanded and continued to redefine the state and its role in the economy and wealth creation. Tariffs, public investment and various trade barriers have always been cornerstones of our country- sometimes irreplaceable assets, sometimes counterproductive, sometimes simply political gamesmanship.

With that in mind, we can view the creation of the WTO as a figment of an era in our shared economic history, not the fulfillment of that history. Just as the Bretton Woods institutions were founded after the destruction of the Second World War to aid indebted countries and establish the backbone of the international monetary system, so too did the neoliberal era seize on a moment of unparalleled economic advantage in the West to lay the groundwork for an open economic trading system that would deliver unmitigated good for working- and middle-class citizens of rich countries. Speaking with counterparts in Germany it appears they elevate the WTO to biblical heights: on the sixth day God created the WTO and on the seventh day he rested. It would be great if that were true—or still true.

Globalization has not “retreated,” it has deepened and grown many new facets

It would also be great, or at least intellectually simpler, to agree with many policymakers who assess that Europe is caught in a “great power conflict” between China and the US. Sure, the “one world, two systems” debate is raging in Washington, but reality is more complicated than two-block confrontation. Accelerated by the pandemic and fragmentation of supply chains, economic dependencies and wealth are more equally distributed. Emerging economies worldwide are looking to profit from this great shake-up and find new comparative advantages for themselves. To understand the turn away from formal trade agreements in the United States, I’m just as interested in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, and Turkey as I am with China.

Globalization has not “retreated,” it has deepened and grown many new facets with many more players who are asking for a seat at the head table. When it comes down to it, the United States and Europe must relearn how to compete in a world that has become much more multilateral than in the days when we so gladly championed multilateralism.

It also seems like we have overlooked or conveniently forgotten some of the foundational economic theory that got us to this point in the first place. Who remembers their first trade theory class? What does Ricardo tell us? That lowering barriers to trade will result in an overall increase in economic welfare but will also serve as an economic equalizer. Wealthy countries will, over time, converge compared with their partners. And that countries will seek comparative advantage and market specialization. It did not occur to the architects of contemporary trade policy that the industrialized world could ever lose its overwhelming wealth and innovation advantage vis-à-vis China.

It took decades for public sentiment to turn against globalization at the ballot box

But that is has happened in the United States, starting in the 1970s. In the years directly following the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, for example, thousands of factories closed. Yet it took decades for public sentiment to turn against globalization at the ballot box, epitomized in the surprise election of Donald Trump in 2016. If this has been happening for forty years, why did it take so long for us to digest the consequences politically? Why were our policymakers not taking notice of deindustrialization? Were they still focused on the net benefit for the US market, as good arrived in the United States at ever more affordable prices, seemingly overnight? Put simply, why did Washington think that cheap televisions made up for the decline in stable employment in manufacturing? Why didn’t the industrial centers of the Midwest balk on Barack Obama the way they ultimately did on Hillary Clinton?

First, the country was preoccupied with cleaning up the global financing crisis. The G20 became the primary global economic player, allowing the US to resolve a banking meltdown in international fora. After all, the financial sector was at fault for house foreclosures and the great recession, not international trade. If anything, globalization was lauded for hauling the American consumption-based economy out of its deepest moment. Deindustrialization was not a focus of the Obama Administration.

What would have been the political response if TikTok and X had existed in 2008, when markets bottomed out?

Second, personal experiences were not shared as easily without social media. The risks of disinformation and spread of hate speech are massive destabilizing factors in our political discourse, but we are really witnessing a great democratization of ideas. The lived reality of the American economy is now a collective public experience. Sixty percent of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. Public debates about the rising costs of groceries and housing are ubiquitous over social media channels, while government press releases can easily go unnoticed. Play a mental game with yourself: what would have been the political response if TikTok and X had existed in 2008, when markets bottomed out. No one could have hidden the sheer panic back then among leadership in New York and Washington from today’s observant public forum. Through the fog of constant information and often irrational discourse online, governments are now held immediately accountable to the economic needs of their electorates.

If for a moment you can set aside all the bad memes and tweets and outrageous things Donald Trump says—his candidacy, as well as the core of Joe Biden’s economic policies, are symptoms of the historical period we now live in. Europe is changing course as well, for very similar reasons. Demand in emerging markets scooped Germany out of crisis in 2012. Now those very markets pose risks to the economic model due to the stark realities of globalized competition. International rules in need of recalibration. Germany talks about tariff policies all the time: on electric vehicles from China, on Brazilian agricultural products, on American steel. But the strength of both Berlin and Brussels will lie in standard-setting, investment and financial reform. That is the new form of rules-based wealth creation. Not an easy path, and no one knows the rules yet.

I hope this is helpful, if sobering, context to help unpack the current economic moment and why our elections look as they do. Thank you for your attention,

Der Beitrag „The world has become much more multilateral“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

After celebrating the Young Leaders Program’s 50th anniversary last year, Atlantik-Brücke was excited to host a full Alumni Day in 2024, designed to strengthen the sense of community and create space for new connections within the network. The day was packed with insightful experiences and discussions, offering a deep dive into the innovative work happening in the Hamburg region.

Our journey began just outside the city at Jungheinrich AG, a key player in the intralogistics sector. Alumni enjoyed an exclusive behind-the-scenes tour of one of their major production facilities in Germany, followed by engaging conversations with board members on topics such as automation, production techniques, sustainable corporate growth, and the evolving global markets.

In the afternoon, the group headed to the Otto Campus in Hamburg to explore the ongoing digital transformation of one of Germany’s iconic brands. Tarek Müller, Co-Founder of AboutYou, and Christian Leybold, Founding Partner at Headline, shared insights into their approaches to digitalization, innovation, and market leadership, sparking lively discussions among the participants.

The day concluded in a wonderful reception at Hapag-Lloyd AG in the heart of Hamburg, where alumni from various generations and sectors seized the opportunity to network. Undoubtedly, the evening’s highlight was a panel featuring three notable alumni – Dr. Edelgard Bulmahn, Dr. Anne-Marie Großmann, and Cihan Sügür – who shared personal stories about their career paths and leadership lessons, setting the stage for continued conversation throughout the evening.

Der Beitrag Deep-Dive into Hamburg’s Innovative Work with Young Leaders Alumni erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The 2024 Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics, held for the first time in the U.S. and on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York City, gathered political and financial leaders alongside private sector executives. This year’s event, hosted by the Atlantic Council and Atlantik-Brücke, focused on three critical sectors – finance, technology, and energy – facilitating high-level dialogue aimed at fostering multilateral solutions and enhancing transatlantic cooperation. A select group of German and American New Bridge alumni attended, sharing their key observations and highlights.

AI Governance: A Transatlantic Imperative

One theme of the forum was the need for a cohesive approach to AI governance between Germany and the United States. The rapid evolution of AI offers significant opportunities but also raises concerns regarding safety, trust, and ethical use.

“Our view is that safety enables trust, which enables adoption, which enables innovation.” Elizabeth Kelly, Director, U.S. Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute

A standout session featured Elizabeth Kelly from the U.S. AI Safety Institute, who emphasized the foundational role of safety in AI development. In her statements, she highlighted the cascading effect that safety measures have on the entire AI ecosystem. Without robust safety protocols, public trust in AI systems could erode, leading to resistance against adoption and stifling innovation. This is particularly relevant in the transatlantic context, where differing regulatory landscapes could lead to fragmented approaches to AI safety and governance.

The issue of misinformation also emerged as a significant concern. With AI’s potential to both inform and mislead, especially in democratic processes like elections, the need for proactive governance and regulation becomes even more urgent. According to recent statistics, 78% of American adults expect abuses of AI systems that will affect the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. This high percentage reflects widespread public concerns about the potential for AI to undermine democratic processes by spreading misinformation or manipulating voter perceptions. The concern is not unfounded; AI-generated content, such as deepfakes and sophisticated language models, can be highly complex and difficult to distinguish from authentic information, making it a powerful tool for those wishing to influence election outcomes illicitly. This underscores the urgency for regulatory action and responsible governance.

The insights from Elizabeth Kelly and the optimism tempered with caution expressed by Adena Friedman, CEO of Nasdaq, highlight the importance of addressing these challenges proactively. The transatlantic relationship between Germany and the U.S. is pivotal in this endeavor. By aligning regulatory approaches, enhancing safety protocols, clearly defining the responsibilities of technology companies, and taking decisive actions to mitigate risks, both nations can lead the way in shaping an AI environment that upholds democratic values and benefits society as a whole—especially during times when the integrity of elections is at stake.

“My favorite part of the Transatlantic Forum was the in-depth discussions on AI governance and the crucial need for aligning regulatory efforts between Germany and the U.S. to promote ethical AI development. Additionally, engaging with leaders focused on integrating technology into real-world solutions, ensuring that innovations effectively address practical challenges, was truly inspiring.” Enver Cetin, New Bridge Alumnus

Navigating Financial Complexity in a Transatlantic Context

The spotlight conversation with Nasdaq CEO Adena Friedman on “Navigating Financial Complexity: Public-Private Collaboration and Technological Innovation” was particularly engaging and insightful. Ms. Friedman’s insights offered valuable takeaways for transatlantic leaders, highlighting opportunities for collaboration and strategic action to foster innovation, economic growth, and financial stability. Her insights provided a valuable framework for understanding the interconnectedness of geopolitics, financial markets, and technology. For both Europe and the U.S., key takeaways include the potential for strategically investing public retirement funds, facilitating startup investment, leveraging public procurement to support startups, and drawing inspiration from successful models like the Nordic approach to strengthen capital markets. Furthermore, embracing technology is crucial for simplifying complexities, enhancing transparency, and safeguarding the integrity of the financial system.

The session underscored the need for strategic public-private collaboration, with insights into how pension funds could be leveraged for greater returns and economic growth, as seen in the Nordic model. Furthermore, facilitating easier access for financial institutions to invest in startups is crucial for fostering innovation and driving economic growth on both sides of the Atlantic. Reducing bureaucratic hurdles and providing incentives for early-stage investment can create a more fertile ground for startups to thrive, generating new jobs, and contributing to economic competitiveness. More opportunities for both Europe and the U.S. lie in the potential for public procurement to play a more active role in supporting startups. By partially awarding public contracts to startups, governments can provide them with a crucial early revenue stream, facilitating faster access to markets and accelerating their growth trajectory. By leveraging technology, Europe and the U.S. can enhance financial market resilience, security, and trust.

The Global Energy Transition

The panel “Vulnerabilities and Opportunities in the Electric Vehicles Supply Chain”, featuring distinguished guests Sarah Bauerle Danzman, Associate Professor of International Studies, Indiana University; Anahita Thoms, Partner, Baker McKenzie; Chris Smith, Chief Government Affairs Officer, Ford Motor Company, offered valuable insights into the ongoing energy transition debate. The panel highlighted the competitive challenges posed by China’s production overcapacity and also underscored the importance of coordinated energy policy between the U.S. and Europe to address climate challenges and ensure stable supply chains.

Traditional narratives of U.S.-EU diplomacy often emphasize economic partnerships and mutual defense alliances. Climate change will exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and lend to the instability of all these systems. Therefore, a coordinated energy policy will become central to enhance bilateral relations while also addressing global climate challenges. Moving toward this coordinated policy is immensely difficult, especially considering how supply chains for popular technical solutions are wrapped around the globe.

One of the key topics discussed at the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics was the global electric vehicle (EV) market. Ambassador of the United States of America to the People’s Republic of China Nicholas Burns highlighted that China’s EV production currently exceeds domestic demand by 2-3 times, resulting in significant overcapacity. Since 2017, China’s EV exports have grown dramatically, increasing by 13,300% to $42 billion in 2023, with the country now accounting for nearly 70% of global EV production. These vehicles are sold at competitive prices in global markets, prompting several countries to impose tariffs on Chinese EVs to protect their domestic automotive industries.

In response to concerns over potential dumping, China is contesting the European Union’s tariffs at the World Trade Organization and has initiated anti-dumping investigations on Canada’s canola oil. Some observers have drawn parallels between China’s government subsidies and similar measures in the U.S., such as the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. This situation has highlighted potential policy differences on both sides, fueling rising political tensions with broader geopolitical implications.

“Listening to the ambassador on US-China relations was reassuring about America’s future, but it also shows that China will continue to be the West’s largest strategic competitor.” Ambassador Cameron Munter, CEO & President, EastWest Institute

To conclude the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics on a festive note, Atlantik-Brücke, in collaboration with the Siemens Arts Program, hosted a special concert at New York’s renowned Carnegie Hall to celebrate German-American friendship. The evening featured performances by American and German artists, including the Orchestra of St. Luke’s (OSL) from New York, clarinetist Anthony McGill, cellist Daniel Müller-Schott, and rising cellist Charlotte Melkonian, all under the baton of conductor Prof. Dr. Stephan Frucht. The program included works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, David Popper, and Friedrich Gulda.

After the Forum: A New Bridge Day

On the New Bridge exclusive day of programming, the lunch discussion with the founder and creator of New York’s first German Döner Kebab restaurant, Erkan Emre, provided a compelling narrative of his journey as a German immigrant finding entrepreneurial success in the United States.

The founder’s story fueled a meaningful discussion on the perception of the U.S. as a land of opportunity for immigrants. The conversation drew on personal experiences, data, and comparisons between U.S. and German economic systems, highlighting both opportunities and challenges for immigrants. While the opportunities described by Emre resonated with the group, alumni also expressed concerns about the challenges immigrants encounter, particularly regarding their initial status upon arriving in a new country. The conversation also explored broader issues, including the experiences of first and second-generation immigrants, fostering a rich dialogue on transatlantic economic and social dynamics.

The programming also included a historical walking tour of New York’s Chinatown, an insightful meeting with Lucas Theo Rehaag at the German American Chamber of Commerce in New York, and a discussion on cultural diplomacy with the Executive Director of the Goethe Institute New York, Dr. Jörg Schuhmacher.

All in all, the insights gathered from the discussions, panels, and conversations in New York will serve as a foundation for shaping future policies and strategies that influence international cooperation and development. The New Bridge Program alumni departed with a strengthened commitment to foster a resilient and dynamic transatlantic partnership. Equipped with fresh perspectives and a shared vision, they are poised to advocate for collaboration, innovation, and stability in the face of emerging challenges.

“That’s why international convenings like the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics are so important. These shared spaces allow for us to meet new partners in high places, share innovative novel solutions, strengthen ties that keep the peace within our societies, and advance peaceful statecraft and cultural diplomacy in the years to come.” Alexandra McGee, New Bridge Alumna

This alumni engagement opportunity was funded by the German Federal Foreign Office (AA).

Der Beitrag A New Bridge Perspective on the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In September 2024, the New Bridge Program (NBP) convened ten changemakers from across the U.S. to add voices from marginalized groups to transatlantic discussions surrounding economics, migration, misinformation in the news, and security. The cohort engaged with top officials, scholars, journalists, activists, students and others actively shaping German and European politics and culture. Together, these individuals painted a comprehensive picture of how, from halls of power to city streets, Germany’s past and present inform its and the United States’ future.

The trip unfolded against a backdrop of rising nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment, highlighted by the far-right Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) ascendance in several state elections. The country simultaneously implemented stricter border controls, challenging the Schengen Agreement’s principle of open borders. Meanwhile, the looming U.S. presidential elections became a focus, with implications for trade, alliances, and energy resources.

German relations’ stateside dimensions

The ten-day journey began in Washington, D.C., with a comprehensive overview of German history and its intricate ties to the U.S. The day after an introductory happy hour with NBP alums, Georgetown Universty Professor Dr. Jeffrey Anderson identified for cohort members three critical periods (WWI, WWII, and the rise and fall of the Berlin Wall) when Germany confronted its identity, unity, and role on the global stage. A lunch discussion with Axel Dittman, Deputy Chief of Mission at the German Embassy, illustrated Germany’s commitment to modernity. Dittman emphasized the importance of strong relationships with the U.S. and communities with fewer German touchpoints, such as the heartland and South.

At public broadcaster ARD’s D.C. studio, fellows explored the implications of local German elections on transatlantic relations. Rising nationalism in both nations is primary concern among journalists, who examined parallels in state-level dynamics. A poignant visit to the Holocaust Museum and meeting with the German Historical Institute experts facilitated difficult reflections on historical injustices. Notably, NBP fellow Ashley Hodges, a DEI leader for the Atlanta Mayor’s Office, ushered the group during a mindful debriefing as the cohort highlighted the treatment of Germany’s Jewish population and indigenous, Black, and Brown communities in the U.S.

The transatlantic relationship on the international stage

Once in Brussels, the group spoke to NATO and U.S. State Department staffers about the alliance’s role in global security. American officials honed in on the message of unity through strength, citing NATO and its 32 constituent nations’ around-the-clock efforts to maintain peace and collective defense preparations. A trip highlight for all was a private tour of NATO’s expansive campus led by Nick Nguyen, Head of the Public Disclosure Unit for NATO Archives. While the U.S. and Germany have the two largest missions to NATO, even the smallest delegation is needed for action to be taken, leading to robust debate that enables members’ lock-step decision-making.

The cohort then explored the transatlantic alliance’s political dimensions with Free Russia Foundation’s Brussels Director Roland Freudenstein, who briefed fellows on the European Union’s (EU) history and governance structures. These lessons, from an organization caught in the Ukraine-Russia conflict’s destabilizing aftershocks, prepared fellows for their subsequent visit to the European Parliament (EP). There, the cohort saw NBP fellow Chase Phillips, Executive Advsior to the Mayor of Denver, Colorado discuss the far-right, BRICS alliance and artificial intelligence in misinformation with Sergey Lagodinsky, a German EP representative with The Greens political party.

Germany’s history, economy, politics and education, front-and-center

Upon arriving in Germany, fellows took a walking tour of Berlin, with notable landmarks like the Berlin Wall, Holocaust Memorial and approximate area above Adolf Hitler’s bunker offering deeper understanding of the nation’s history. Fellows then went to Atlantik-Brücke headquarters, where sea rescuer and graphic novelist Adrian Pourvisehled an interactive session on the European migration crisis. It sparked a powerful conversation on the complexities of migration in the Mediterranean, as well as the comparison between Europe’s migration landscape and the United States’.

A briefing on Germany’s political system by Dr. Matthias Roßbach, the Head of the Representation of the State of North Rhien-Westphalia to the Federal Government, laid the foundation with an engaging conversation on the differences between German and U.S. government structures, the perceptions and limitations of local and federal laws, and the election systems of both countries. Fellows got to exchange thoughts and opinions surrounding voting structure in the both countries, as well as the misinformation landscape and varying trust in both elections system.

A trip to multinational technology giant Siemens yielded a solid understanding of Germany’s dual education system, via a presentation where fellows learned about the different educational paths German youth can take, as well the hands-on dimensions of vocational tracks. A tour of the Reichstag with Innokenty Burshteyn and Rita Lieder, a pair of NBP alums and political advisors to the FDP Parliamentary group, brought the prior talk to life through visits to different party rooms and walking the Bundestag halls. Cohort member Alex Schyllander, Senior Manager of Global Advocacy at the Human Rights Campaign, further explored these structures and navigating the anti-gender movement in conversation with Nyke Slawik, a Bundestag representative for The Greens and the legislative body’s first trans woman lawmaker.

The chance to dine with Fridays for Future activists Helena Marschall and Zahra Pischnamazzadeh illuminated climate issues in Germany and how movement-building compared to the United States. While in Germany, the cohort also got to taste popular local and regional delicacies such as currywurst and döner — both of which, like Tex-Mex food or pizza in the U.S., show how immigrants and their descendants contribute to national identity.

From East German streets to the global stage

The program’s last two days put everything the cohort learned beforehand into sharp relief. First, cohort members visited Leipzig, the largest city in Saxony, where recent state elections gave AfD over 30% of vote.

The day’s programming started at the esteemed St. Thomas School. A mix of students and educators at one of the world’s oldest schools, including members of its acclaimed boys’ choir, gave the group a fuller picture of Germany’s multi-tiered educational system. This included a tour of the school’s facilities, a student’s presentation on the German educational structure and coffee chats with several teachers and pupils. In turn, NBP fellows Maggie Salas Crespo, a co-managing partner of NReal Media Strategies and former Deputy Secretary of State for Southern Nevada, and Chase Phillips taught students about U.S. electoral processes. Building off their expertise in local government in Nevada and Denver, Colorado, respectively, the pair engaged students in discussions about the recent elections and the coming U.S. one.

These topics also grounded visits to the Amadeu Antonio Stiftung and University of Leipzig, where experts like Debunk program leaders Marie Künne (an NBP alumna) and Benjamin Winkler  and Dr. Rebecca Patesdiscussed the AfD’s roots in post-unification issues and current misinformation campaigns.

Leipzig’s history and present grew sharper with NBP alum and doctoral student Mario Futh’s tour of historic sites (including where the Monday demonstrations helped bring the German Democratic Republic to an end), along with his and Stiftung Bürger für Bürger  staffer Walter Grunt’s explanation of how local activists and communities of color organize to resist the far-right’s embedded place in German politics.

Bringing it (to the president’s) home

The cohort’s final day in Berlin more fully illustrated the transatlantic exchange as it stands today. Members returned to Atlantik-Brücke for a final debrief led by cohort member and Venture Café Miami director Alejandra Silva. Later, Bronx native Dr. Nakeema Stefflbauer took cohort members through a conversation on her multifaceted approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in Berlin’s tech sector, from training migrant women in technical skills to teaching DEI at local meetups. She also discussed Americans of color’s positionality in Germany, where Black Americans may be seen as American first and accorded privileges African migrants don’t get.

After a conversation with Atlantik-Brücke CEO Julia Friedlander, cohort members attended a panel and conversations around identity, transatlantic relations and DEI. Together, these conversations brought the nuanced and often difficult but also joyous aspects of community-making among marginalized peoples in Germany and the US into the spotlight.

The conversations carried all the way to the fellows’ capstone event in a center of cultural power: the Schloss Bellevue and adjoining Bundespräsidialamt, where fellows discussed the myriad of topics they learned about the prior week with Ministerial Director Dr. Oliver Schmolke of the Office of the Federal President. This conversation’s textures of critique and hope also pervaded German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s Bürgerfest’s speech.Touching on recent events like a suspected attempted attack on the Israeli consulate in Munich, Steinmeier made a passionate plea for what joyous gatherings can do for a population.

At this time, we need light-hearted, happy moments from which we can draw strength. … And we need inspiring encounters that encourage us to stand up for a more just and peaceful future.

“At this time, we need light-hearted, happy moments from which we can draw strength. And we need inspiring encounters that encourage us to stand up for a more just and peaceful future.” Steinmeier and First Lady Elke Büdenbender said in a printed program note that evoked the themes of his speech. The cohort’s experiences leading up to this grand evening on the castle grounds, with guests of honor President William and First Lady Rachel Ruto of Kenya, frequently contrasted with the Bürgerfest’s dream-like atmosphere. And that’s symbolic of the New Bridge experience at large: a crash course in what two complex nations with inextricable histories can learn from one another.

As Germany and the US each wrestle with these inseparable pasts that enabled present political, civil, economic, and military crises, they both must look to their present realities — of real equity, critical reflection and the hope for a better future — to ensure pressing questions about transatlantic relations gets answered.

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: Collaborative solutions in need 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..

Verfasst von Rita Lieder, Azadê Peşmen, Yen Dieu Pham

Am sechsten Juni begann die Reise der zweiten deutschen Kohorte des New Bridge Programms. Gleich zu Beginn wurde eines schnell klar: Es ist eine Gruppe neun diverser Menschen, aus verschiedenen Berufsfeldern, mit unterschiedlichen Perspektiven.

Beim ersten offiziellen Programmpunkt konnten sich die Fellows mit einigen der Vertreter*innen der Organisationen austauschen, die das Programm unterstützen, wie das Auswärtige Amt, die Neuen Deutschen Medienmacher*innen, die Deutschlandstiftung Integration und Schotstek sowie mit Alumni aus der ersten Kohorte. Der erste inhaltliche Termin unserer Reise fand am nächsten Tag im Auswärtigen Amt statt, in einem Raum, der nach einer bedeutenden Diplomatin benannt wurde: Elinor von Puttkammer. Dort nahm sich Staatsminister Dr. Tobias Lindner Zeit, um zu erklären, wie wichtig die transatlantischen Beziehungen für die Sicherheit Europas und vor allem für die Sicherheit Deutschlands sind. Er gab uns den Rat mit auf den Weg, unser eigenes Bild der USA, das wir bereits haben, kritisch zu hinterfragen. Bei der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Außenpolitik (DGAP) hat uns Dr. Dominik Tolksdorf mit all dem Wissen ausgestattet, das wir für die Reise in die USA brauchen: das politische System der USA, der Unterschied zwischen federal und state politics und nicht zuletzt das Thema, in dessen Schatten die komplette Reise steht: die Präsidentschaftswahl im November.

Wir diskutierten über unterschiedliche Wählergruppen, die relevanten Wahlkampfthemen und welche Positionen die beiden Kandidaten vertreten. Es deutete sich an, was sich auf der Reise, aber auch in dem darauffolgenden Termin bestätigte: Die US-amerikanische Gesellschaft ist tief gespalten. Und diese Polarisierung ist dem System inhärent, wie uns Theresa “Tsesa” Monaghan, Beraterin von Michael Link, dem Koordinator für transatlantische Zusammenarbeit, und Ana Ramic, Vice President und Chief of Staff der American Academy in Berlin, erklärten. Sie kennen sowohl die deutsche als auch die US-amerikanische Gesellschaft sehr gut und haben uns nähergebracht, worin die kulturellen Unterschiede beider Länder liegen. Der Journalist Martin Klingst, der seit vielen Jahren aus und über die USA berichtet, war ebenfalls Teil der Gesprächsrunde. Er hat uns auf etwas aufmerksam gemacht, das wir mit den Stationen Washington D.C., Atlanta und Montgomery wenige Tage später selbst erleben würden: Es gibt nicht ein Amerika, sondern mehrere Amerikas.

Der Beitrag Continuing to Build Bridges erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Outgoing Consul General Norman Thatcher Scharpf talks about the development of transatlantic relations.

Dear Consul General Scharpf, when you took over the position as Consul General in Frankfurt in summer 2021, the world was a different place and Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine on full scale. How have the transatlantic relations developed since Russia’s attack on Ukraine, have the United States and Europe moved closer together in your view? 

When I arrived in Frankfurt, we were just starting to come out of the COVID pandemic, so there has been a lot of evolution since my arrival.  With respect to the transatlantic relationship, Germany and United States have been strong partners for a long time, based on shared democratic values, and on cooperation regarding security, trade, and research.  It’s important to remember that Russia had already invaded Ukraine in 2014 and annexed Crimea.  But I do think that since Russia’s 2022 attack, there is a sense that the post-WWII rules-based international order – which has given us unprecedented security, stability, prosperity, and peace – is fragile and must be defended.  I think that the U.S.-German relationship has become stronger because of the realization that so much of our security and prosperity is mutually dependent, and that there are adversaries – like Russia, China, and Iran – who want to dismantle that rules-based order.

The impression may often arise that the transatlantic partnership seems to be losing importance, especially among younger generations. Do you perceive a similar development, or do you have a different impression?

I would disagree.  In my travels around southwest Germany, I have – particularly over the past year – found a growing awareness that our partnership is something very special, to be treasured, and that it benefits both sides of the Atlantic tremendously.  But we cannot repeat this often enough.  With all the foreign manipulated information out there and the misinformation and disinformation that tries to sow divisions, we have to constantly remind the public – particularly young people – and talk to businesses and civil society organizations about why democracy and human rights are fundamental to our societies and speak clearly about what is at stake.

The close relationship between Germany, Europe and the US has grown historically and is characterized by the experiences of the post-World War II period and the Cold War. How should transatlantic relations change in the 21st century in order to become more resilient vis-à-vis authoritarian regimes and terrorist groups and not to lose significance on both sides of the Atlantic?

As a result of our adversaries’ ability and intent to manipulate information, our democracies are under threat in the United States and in Europe.  We have a responsibility to inoculate our citizens by training our young people in critical thinking, by talking constantly about the importance of democracy, and by reminding our citizens of the benefits that the post-WWII rules-based order has brought.  Democracy is not the natural order of humanity.  Governance throughout most of human history has been characterized by feudalism, autocracy, and various forms of authoritarianism.  We have benefitted from democracy for only a brief period of the entirety of human history, and we need to keep investing in it and constantly improving it.  We have to talk to young people about why democracy is not just a privilege, but that it also comes with responsibilities, including taking an active role.

Der Beitrag “Democracy comes with responsibilities” 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..

May 11- 15, 2024

The Young Atlantiks Program, organized with the support of the Embassy of Canada to Germany, the Embassy of Germany to Canada, Atlantik-Brücke Canada and Atlantik-Brücke e.V., seeks to cultivate the next generation of young leaders to foster the German-Canadian transatlantic partnership. From May 11-15, 2024, ten young Canadian and German professionals, with diverse backgrounds and expertise, met to discuss current and future transatlantic challenges and to attend the 37^th German-Canadian Conference in Berlin. The program’s goals include deepening the understanding of Canadian and German politics and culture, fostering connections between the two countries, and enhancing future leaders’ involvement in transatlantic networks.

During the five-day program, the Young Atlantiks engaged in dialogues with a variety of transatlantic actors to discuss key issues on the international policy agenda, including climate change, defence and security cooperation, as well as digitalization and artificial intelligence. These sessions were complemented by a well-curated cultural and historical program, which took the Young Atlantiks to museums in addition to civil society and art initiatives. The participants took the opportunity to learn not only from speakers but also from one another on a peer-to-peer level, sharing different perspectives and experiences from various fields. All discussions were held under the Chatham House Rules. Outlined below, are three key takeaways from the Young Atlantiks’ discussions in Berlin: the uncertainty of geopolitical changes in the upcoming super-election year, the benefits of generational collaboration across transatlantic allies, and the need to implement concrete joint projects to enhance the Canada-Germany bilateral relationship.

 Super-election Year: Uncertainty in a Geopolitical Polycrisis

A shared underlying theme in most discussions during the Young Atlantiks Program was the looming uncertainty of geopolitical change with upcoming elections in many countries, including the European Union (“EU”), Mexico, India, and, most notably, the United States (“US”) this fall. The US policy under a possible second Trump administration would greatly impact many policy areas discussed, including environmental, foreign, and trade policy. The consequences for the transatlantic relationship of new and re-emerging aggression from China and Russia, respectively, were also discussed. Finally, while climate change was a set agenda item for multiple sessions, it frequently featured in many others as well. As one of the conference speakers captured, “climate change is an ‘everything’ issue,” with intersectional impacts across all sectors. While Germany and Canada share generally similar approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, additional emphasis was placed on the countries acting together in supporting the world’s transition to net-zero, including Global South actors. The group learned about possible impacts of the EU election on the European Green Deal as well as ongoing debates in the Canadian context, which has a resource-based economy. Many speakers shared how domestic policy areas, such as inflation, employment, and immigration, link to the current geopolitical situation, highlighting the complexities foreign policy needs to consider.

Fostering Collaboration Across Generations, the Atlantic and Beyond

[related] When discussing the geopolitical challenges during the super-election year, most speakers stressed the importance of fostering collaborations between Germany and Canada across generations. While of particular importance in this context, building these relationships would serve both countries well regardless of election outcomes. Many guests during the Young Atlantiks program showed their appreciation for bringing together the next generation of transatlantic leaders and were  seeking the Young Atlantiks’ input as much as the Young Atlantiks sought theirs. Speakers collectively stressed a focus on being more agile, increasing collaboration, engaging other young people, and emphasizing what unites Germany, Canada, and other partners, rather than what divides them. To strengthen collaborations and partnerships, it is crucial to engage with the different cultures and populations of Germany and Canada, as well as to seek and maintain conversations with those who are not necessarily like-minded to find common ground and build trust. In a constantly changing world, the forces of government, industry, and civil society need to pull together in order to secure peace and prosperity for and with future generations. This can only be achieved through cooperation and collaboration.

Moving Beyond Rhetoric: Building a Concrete and Reliable Transatlantic Partnership

The Young Atlantiks Program highlighted that bilateral relations are currently at an all-time high, reflecting a strong and vibrant partnership. It is, however, imperative that this positive diplomatic climate is translated into concrete actions and initiatives. Instead of simply acknowledging the success of current bilateral relations, decisive steps need to be taken to initiate specific projects, advance particular issues, and ensure these relationships can weather the coming potential geopolitical instability. A prominent example is the trade agreement with Canada, which Germany has ratified, but other EU member states, such as France, have not yet. This situation highlights a critical challenge: if universal ratification of a trade agreement with a close and like-minded partner like Canada cannot be achieved, with whom can the EU successfully negotiate such agreements? While the United States will naturally remain Canada’s most important partner, the EU and Germany must elevate their commitments and take the Canadian relationship more seriously. Given the growing notion of isolationism in the US political debate, this would benefit both Canada and Germany. Strengthening the transatlantic relationship involves not only economic and trade matters but also addressing broader geopolitical, security, and environmental challenges together. By moving beyond rhetoric and focusing on tangible outcomes, the Canada-Germany relationship can be strengthened, contributing to a more resilient and prosperous future for both countries and partners.

Der Beitrag 2024 Young Atlantiks Program Report erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

With generous support fom the German Federal Foreign Office, Atlantik-Brücke was able to fund the participation of eight New Bridge alumni – six from the United States and two from Germany – in this year’s German-American Conference in Washington, D.C., on April 15 and 16. Organized by Atlantik-Brücke and the American Council on Germany, the conference focused on “The New Realities for Democracy and Transatlantic Relations in an Election Year Unlike Any Other.” This report reflects the unique experience of our New Bridge alumni.

In the historic corridors of the 2024 German-American Conference, a gathering defined by its focus on democracy’s present challenges and future sustainability, the conference entailed a series of pivotal discussions that spanned the breadth of the transatlantic geopolitical spectrum. Addressing the seismic shifts in political landscapes both in the United States and Europe, the conference sought to unravel the intricate tapestry of political, economic, and security challenges that define the contemporary global order. With a clear-eyed view towards the upcoming pivotal elections and their far-reaching implications, the sessions were designed to foster a deeper understanding and strategize responses that would strengthen the transatlantic alliance in times of profound change and uncertainty.

Global Elections and Where the Transatlantic World Fits in

The 2024 German-American Conference opened with a resounding call to action, setting the stage for discussions on the pressing challenges facing democracy in the transatlantic world. Participants focused on the significance of the “biggest election year in history,” recognizing the urgency of safeguarding democratic values amidst global political turmoil.

A Fireside Chat featuring Senator Christopher Murphy and Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke, kicked off the conference. Their dialogue delved into the fundamental principles underpinning the transatlantic partnership and the vital role played by both nations in promoting democracy globally.

“Trust in democratic institutions is so essential and fundamental. I’m confident that the commitment to freedom and democracy is still deeply entrenched in our societies on both sides of the Atlantic; much more entrenched than the divisions that we have to come to believe are insurmountable. Polls in both the U.S. and Europe should clearly, with the overwhelming majorities, agree that the right to vote lies at the core of the country’s identity. It lies at the core of the transatlantic partnership.” Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke

Subsequently, Matt Cunningham, Executive Vice President of Edelman Data & Intelligence, provided an insightful session on the state of trust within the transatlantic relationship, presenting survey results that depicted a concerning decline in trust among Germans about the partnership’s value. This session underscored the urgency of addressing key challenges and rebuilding confidence.

The role of the media in shaping global elections and perceptions of the transatlantic world was explored through a panel discussion with three media leaders: Allison Meakem, Associate Editor at Foreign Policy, Ines Pohl, Washington DC Bureau Chief at Deutsche Welle, and Dr. Majid Sattar, Washington Correspondent for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Their perspectives highlighted how the media landscape influences public discourse and political narratives, stressing the interconnectedness of information dissemination and democratic processes.

“What is the biggest motivator when voting during this American election cycle: hate, fear, or sanity?” Ines Pohl, Washington DC Bureau Chief at Deutsche Welle

As the day concluded, it became clear that the stakes are high in the upcoming elections across Europe and the United States, with complex drivers of political and social divisions demanding urgent attention. Participants left with a renewed commitment to confront these challenges by fostering dialogue and collaboration.

Elections in the U.S. and in Europe

The morning of Day Two at the 2024 German-American Conference provided a profound examination of the forthcoming elections in the U.S. and Europe, underscoring their significant international repercussions. The discussions were sparked by Ambassador John Emerson, who set the stage by articulating the changes in global dynamics post-Trump presidency, especially how these changes impact strategies around major conflicts such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This year’s election in the U.S., potentially seeing the return of Trump, could pivot the U.S. back towards isolationism, which might lessen pressure on adversaries like Russia and reshape U.S. commitments to international alliances.

The session titled “Political Polarization: What’s at Stake When the U.S. Votes?” delved deeper into the ramifications of the U.S. presidential election, with panelists – Julia Ioffe, Founding Partner and Washington Correspondent of Puck Media, Matt Gorman, Vice President of Targeted Victory, and Jamieson Greer, Partner at Kind & Spalding – arguing that, while American voters often focus on domestic issues such as the economy, immigration, and cultural values, their choices have far-reaching consequences on international relations. These include NATO’s future, the architecture of global trade, and the general stability of international diplomacy. Discussions highlighted the nuanced ways in which internal U.S. policies on tariffs and trade agreements, particularly with countries like France, are scrutinized abroad and can lead to shifts in global economic policies.

Subsequently, the focus shifted to Europe in “What to Watch When Europe Votes?” which explored the likely electoral gains of right-wing populism in European Parliament elections. Dr. Phyllis Berry, National Intelligence Officer for Europe at the National Intelligence Council, Christian Gaebel, Head of Agricultural and Support Policy at the Deutscher Bauernverband, Dr. Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton, and Julian Mueller-Kaler, Chief of Staff and Director of the Strategic Foresight Hub at the Stimson Center highlighted the growing disillusionment with traditional centrist politics, exacerbated by migration, economic instability, and cultural conflicts. This session examined how a shift to the right might affect Europe’s approach to international policy, including its agricultural policies and stance on geopolitical conflicts such as the Ukraine crisis. The insights offered a comprehensive look at how voter sentiment, driven by internal social and economic factors, is set to reshape Europe’s influence on the world stage.

“I wonder whether the differentiation between left and right is still an adequate term of what we are trying to describe. The Economist after the election of Donald Trump coined a new term of “drawbridge up” or “drawbridge down,” of those in favor of globalization and those against it, those thar have seen the benefits of a more integrated economy on a global scale and those that have not.” Julian Mueller-Kaler, Chief of Staff and Director Strategic Foresight Hub, Stimson Center

 Transatlantic Stability and Security

The second half of Day Two shifted the conference’s focus towards broader economic and security challenges impacting the transatlantic relationship. The panel on global economic futures – comprising of Dr. Andreas Dombret, Global Senior Advisor at Oliver Wyman, Claudia Donzelmann, Global Head of Regulatory and Public Affairs of Allianz SE, Dr. Christof Ehrhart, Executive Vice President of Corporate Communications and Governmental Affairs at Robert Bosch GmbH, Dr. John Lipsky, Senior Fellows at the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, and Dr. Inu Manak, Fellows for Trade Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations – tackled the pressing issue of how recent pivotal events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing Russian aggression in Ukraine, have reshaped the distribution of economic power and resources globally. The dialogue was framed around the concept that economic growth needs to be sustainable and equitable to prevent societal conflicts over shrinking resources. Panelists debated the effectiveness of current global economic structures like the G20, criticizing its lack of legitimacy and adequacy in addressing contemporary challenges. There was a consensus on the need for a new, more inclusive decision-making body that could better represent the interests of a multipolar world.

“With one third of global GDP, the transatlantic relationship is incredibly essential for the global economy and for economic stability for the entire world; what we decide to work on together and what we decide not to work on together also effects the entire world.” Dr. Inu Manak, Fellow for Trade Policy, Council on Foreign Relations

The discussion then turned to the security landscape, particularly the prolonged conflict in Gaza and its implications for regional stability and included experts Bradley Bowman, Senior Director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Dr. Charles Kupchan, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Dr. Norbert Röttgen, Member of the German Bundestag. Some expressed deep concern over the humanitarian crisis and the cycle of retaliation between Israel and Hamas. The American perspective cautioned against repeating the mistakes of past U.S. foreign policy decisions post-9/11, advocating for a balanced approach that emphasizes humanitarian aid alongside robust security measures to ensure Israel’s security and address the root causes of terrorism.

The last session – with Deborah Düring, Member of the German Bundestag, Dr. Evelyn Farkas, Executive Director of the McCain Institute, and Ambassador Jovita Neliupšienė, EU Ambassador to the U.S. – focused on Eastern Europe’s warnings about Russian intentions, which had long been overlooked but have now proven prescient with the ongoing war in Ukraine. This discussion underscored the strategic necessity of supporting Ukraine not only militarily but also through a reaffirmation of Western values and commitment to democratic governance and regional security. Panelists highlighted the critical role of the West in shaping the outcome of this conflict and the broader implications for global security architectures.

A New Bridge Perspective on the Conference

As the conference drew to a close, the New Bridge perspective offered a refreshing and innovative approach to the issues discussed over the two days, highlighting the critical need for engagement across generations and sectors to address shared challenges and strengthen transatlantic relations. The sessions had collectively underscored the urgency and complexity of addressing the multifaceted challenges that lie at the heart of the transatlantic relationship. From the electoral nuances that could redefine international alignments to the economic and security strategies critical for stability, the discussions highlighted the need for a proactive and nuanced approach to diplomacy and international cooperation and highlighted the interconnected nature of these challenges and the importance of a multisectoral approach to addressing them. New Bridge alumni brought unique insights from their varied backgrounds, emphasizing solutions that engage non-traditional stakeholders and utilize digital platforms to reach younger demographics, who are increasingly disillusioned with traditional politics.

The insights garnered from these sessions are set to inform policies and strategies that will not only navigate but also shape the future of global interactions. As New Bridge alumni left the conference halls, they carried with them a renewed sense of purpose and a clearer vision of the roles they must play in a rapidly evolving world stage, reflecting a shared commitment to a robust and enduring transatlantic alliance.

Der Beitrag The German-American Conference in Washington, D.C.: An In-Depth Analysis from a New Bridge Perspective 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..

On 4 April 1949, delegates from 12 countries – including the UK – gathered in Washington, D.C., to commit their nations to one another’s defence in the hope of avoiding another devastating war and to safeguard the democracy and freedom of their peoples.

Ever since NATO’s foundation, the United Kingdom has played a leading role at the heart of this transatlantic Alliance. It could even be said that NATO has British DNA:  its first headquarters were in London; its first Secretary General British; and the British Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was instrumental in negotiating its establishment.

Three quarters of a century later, NATO is now the most successful defensive Alliance in history. NATO is bigger, stronger, and more united than ever, keeping its one billion people safer and more secure with its “one for all and all for one” security guarantee. It is essential for the maintenance of peace and security of its members and has been the bedrock of European security for 75 years.

NATO is bigger, stronger, and more united than ever, keeping its one billion people safer and more secure with its “one for all and all for one” security guarantee.

[related]Two of the leading members of this Alliance are the UK and Germany. Indeed, Germany of course plays a unique role in enabling NATO’s defence capabilities. For example, more than a quarter of the British Army’s collective training takes place in Germany, leveraging the country’s strategic location at the heart of Europe. Additionally, Germany’s role as the “Drehscheibe” allows the UK to effectively prepare, deploy, and support forward defence forces along the NATO Alliance’s Eastern Flank.

Furthermore, Germany and the UK are the only NATO countries that conduct fully integrated air policing operations. This seamless integration of air defence capabilities across the Alliance is a testament to our strong defence cooperation.

As British Ambassador to Germany, I am also particularly aware of the pivotal role Berlin played in the formation of NATO. The Berlin Blockade which began in 1948 by Soviet forces cutting off links to West Berlin and the subsequent Allied airlift efforts may have ended peacefully after nearly a year. However, a few weeks after the end of the blockade, East and West Berlin officially separated. Over a decade later, on 13 August 1961, the world awoke to over 100km of barbed wire encircling West Berlin. This was one of the darkest days for post-war Europe.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace in Europe and challenged global security

This year marks not only NATO’s 75th anniversary, but also 35 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet, the optimism and hopefulness in the early 1990s that followed its fall is now only a faint memory. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine two years ago has shattered peace and stability in Europe and challenged global security.

This security crisis, of Russian President Putin’s making, threatens our way of life. The UK, Germany and our NATO allies must act to protect our societies – and both resource and resolve are required. Germany’s support of Ukraine since the Russian invasion began – a total of €28 billion in military support provided or pledged (including at least €7 billion in 2024) – has therefore been invaluable. It is however clear that if Russia succeeds, the outcome will be far more expensive than helping Ukraine now. Ukraine is not only defending its right to exist as a sovereign and democratic country; it is defending the right of peoples of all nations to live in freedom, without fear of aggression.

Putin has underestimated NATO. When he invaded Ukraine in 2022, he said he wanted less NATO – what he got was more.

Putin has underestimated NATO. When he invaded Ukraine in 2022, he said he wanted less NATO – what he got was more. Finland and Sweden becoming allies makes NATO stronger and all of us more secure. NATO continues to deter Russia, strengthen its defence industrial base, and build its partnerships.

2024 will be a historic year for NATO. As the Alliance celebrates its 75th birthday, the combination of the ongoing war in Ukraine, growing geopolitical competition in the Indo-Pacific, and emerging technologies will require NATO and its allies to show it can adapt to meet the challenges of the next 75 years.

In this more contested and less secure world, NATO’s importance is only set to expand. This anniversary is the moment to renew our historic pledge to this Alliance and to say that no matter what or who tests us, we will not waiver.

About the author: Jill Gallard was appointed British Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany on 11 November 2020. Before joining the Embassy, she was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Deputy Political Director (2018-2020) and Director of Human Resources (2014-2018). From 2011 to 2014 Gallard served as British Ambassador to Portugal.

Der Beitrag The bedrock of European security has British DNA erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

A brief but dignified ceremony in front of NATO Headquarters, Brussels, marked Finland’s accession to the Atlantic Alliance on 4 April 2023, NATO’s 74^th anniversary. Secretary General Stoltenberg and then president Sauli Niinistö gave speeches that reflected the significance of the day. “The era of military non-alignment in our history has come to an end. A new era begins.”, said the President of the Republic.

The Finnish flag was raised to the new flagpole that had appeared among those of existing Allies. After that, the yellow-blue identity cards of an Invitee Country were taken away from the staff of the Finnish Delegation and the all-blue Member State IDs were given to replace them. Finland had become the 31^st nation to the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Joining NATO was a big step, but also in many ways natural development in Finland’s foreign and security policy.  Finland and Sweden already for years had been NATO’s closest Partners. Technical and military interoperability was at a high level, and Finland had participated in almost all NATO-led crisis management operations after the end of the Cold War. Democracy, human rights and international law are important for Finland, and these are the very things that NATO is defending.

We had excellent relations with all members of NATO already before our accession but now we are part of the Transatlantic Community like never before.

Finland became a member of the European Union already 29 years ago, and a large majority of our fellow EU members were also members of NATO. What is really new is that Finland for the first time in its history is also allied with the United States and Canada. We had excellent relations with all members of NATO already before our accession but now we are part of the Transatlantic Community like never before. Advancing cooperation between the European Union and NATO is now one of the main goals of Finland as an Ally.

[related] Northern European landmass is framed by the Baltic Sea, North Atlantic and the Barents Sea, and Finland and Sweden have been all the time there in the middle. In practical terms Finland has been protecting NATO’s Northern Flank already as a Partner. Joining NATO makes geostrategic sense both to the Alliance and to our two nations. Finland’s accession to NATO increases Finland’s security and the security of NATO.

After the Cold War Finland never cut back on its defence

NATO is a defence alliance and is trying to advance peace in the world. Finland’s accession to this Alliance is not aimed against anybody. Alexander Stubb, the new President of Finland, noted in his inaugural speech on 1 March this year, that “as an ally, Finland will contribute to NATO’s collective deterrence and defence”. Certainly, Finland intends to be a security provider. We continue to be responsible for the defence or our own territory and sovereignty.

After the Cold War Finland never cut back on its defence. We continue to have a conscription army with a wartime strength of approximately 280.000 soldiers, and the number of trained reserves is close to one million – in a country of 5.5 million people. Finland’s air defence will be enhanced by the 64 new F-35 jet fighters, that beginning from 2026 will replace the F-18s as fighters of our Air Force. Our defence spending is well above the target of 2 percent of GDP that NATO members have committed themselves to. According to NATO’s figures, Finland’s defence spending is currently sixth largest among 32 Allies.  Finland will also bring to the Alliance a lot of expertise on countering hybrid threats and on strengthening the resilience of our societies. We have been able to engage the public sector and private enterprises to cooperate in resilience and safeguarding the critical functions of the society in a way that interested NATO already during our status as a Partner Country.

Finland’s values, interests and goals have not changed. NATO is a new forum in which to promote them together with 31 like-like minded Allies. It has been said, that we now live in the age of maximum danger and minimum agreement in international relations. Managing and preventing risks in such a situation is as necessary as it is difficult. NATO is very important for my country, and Finland’s accession makes NATO stronger.

NATO is about solidarity

After Russia’s brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine 24 February 2022, Finland immediately joined the large group of countries that are giving robust assistance to Ukraine, especially the urgently needed heavy weapons and ammunition. Finnish aid to Ukraine per capita is today among the highest of NATO Allies.

Russia’s attack was also the decisive factor that changed Finnish public opinion in favour of joining NATO. It triggered an intensive political process to adapt Finland’s orientation to a changed security environment.

NATO is about solidarity. According to a recent poll, 91% of the Finnish population is willing to defend another NATO Ally in case of an aggression. We are committed to the security of every Member of NATO. One of the first solidarity steps as an Ally is participation in NATO’s peacetime missions. In 2024, the Finnish Navy will participate in Mine Countermeasures mission in the Baltic Sea, and the Air Force will take part in NATO’s Air Shielding mission in Romania, Bulgaria and the Black Sea.

On 4 April 2024 Finland celebrated its first anniversary as a NATO Ally. One for all, all for one.

About the author: Klaus Korhonen, Ambassador for Policy Planning at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Helsinki. Mr. Korhonen was previous Finnish ambassador to NATO during the accession process.

Der Beitrag Finland in NATO is a Security Provider erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

by Andreas Dombret and Oliver Wünsch

Der Beitrag Not only interest rates, but above all political decisions determine the risks on the real estate market erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The US presidential election is fast approaching, with anxiety rising on both sides of the Atlantic. The political resurgence of the orange-haired, hockey-masked, Friday the 13th assailant who keeps rising again and again has everyone on the edge of their seat.

2024 already is looking to be a challenging year, from Ukraine to Gaza to North Korea. What’s at stake for Europe if the Real Donald Trump once again becomes president?

[related]Pretty much everything. Russia, Ukraine, NATO, climate change, bilateral trade, the Middle East, China, Viktor Orban, digital security, the very stability of the European Union itself, all of these major policy dimensions will be dramatically impacted if Trump returns. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, says even Russian interference in American democracy didn’t stop Trump “from being less confrontational with Putin than with European leaders.”

And this time around it will be the Donald 2.0 version. Rather than Trump having been chastened by the disaster of his first term, instead his recent speeches and social media messages show that he has become a Macbeth-like figure, consumed by sociopathic fantasies of revenge and domination of all who do not genuflect to his authority – whether individuals or nations. He has said that in a second term, his alliances and appointments would be prized above all for their loyalty to his rule and dictates.

How might this affect the EU’s security and economy?

Let me count the ways. In a replay of his previous “America First” policy, Trump has suggested that if he is reelected in November 2024, he will negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours,” and demand that Europe reimburse the US for ammunition used in Ukraine and kill Ukraine’s bid for NATO admission. Author and foreign policy expert Anne Applebaum says Trump may well abandon NATO entirely,  and “faith in collective defense could evaporate quickly…The prospect of America leaving NATO would force many European countries to keep their military resources at home; after all, they might soon face invasion as well.” Most recently, Trump outrageously claimed that he threatened NATO allies who he viewed as delinquent in paying NATO support with encouraging Russia to attack them.

Trump has also said he will withdraw from all climate agreements, and impose a ten percent tariff on all imports from Europe and other nations, even if it unleashes a global economic war. That’s no small threat, since the EU’s $16 trillion economy is heavily reliant on trade with the United States. The US is the EU’s biggest source of foreign direct investment and the $1.3 trillion in tradebetween America and the EU is the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world, 40 percent greater than the EU’s trade with China.

In short, Trump is already threatening to overturn the transatlantic relationship and the global order even more than he did last time. Surrounded by sycophants and loyalists, there would be no “adults in the room” to rein in the tantruming childish Trump.

Key areas where the EU needs to prepare for the worst

So what can Europeans do to prepare – to “Trump-proof” Europe, as it has been called? It won’t be easy. Europe will have to be more united than ever. And it will have to fill the enormous American leadership void, learning to help Ukraine defend against Russia, promote human rights, keep open trade flowing, safeguard its own borders (including its digital borders), fight climate change and champion democracy. Here are some key areas where the EU needs to prepare for the worst, even as it hopes for the best:

Trade: Europe can shield itself from Trump’s protectionist policies by forging trade agreements with other nations and regional markets. It also should deepen its single market, particularly the financial, digital and service sectors. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde says a more robust single market that better ensures the free movement of goods, services, people and capital across 27 member states would make it easier for smaller companies to raise funding and “facilitate and encourage innovation.”

China: Trump might well threaten sanctions on major telecom operators who use Chinese equipment, so the EU should anticipate that possibility by reducing any critical dependencies on Chinese telecommunications products. Failure to do that might result in fragmentation of the EU telecommunications market.

Energy: On the plus side, the share of EU pipeline gas imports from Russia declined from over 40 percent in 2021 to about 8 percent in 2023. But in the meantime, imports of LNG gas from the US tripled to over 50 percent of LNG gas imports. Might Trump pull a Putin on the EU? The EU must speed up its world-leading efforts at conservation and producing renewable energy.

Digital security: EU member states manufacture relatively little of their own cloud-computing systems and telecommunications infrastructure. They depend heavily on both American and Chinese products. Fortunately France, Italy, and Spain are leading by accessing cloud-computing services which are provided by firms headquartered in the EU.

Effective governance: The EU would be wise to address the institutional weaknesses that limit its ability to lead on the global stage. These vulnerabilities include requirements for unanimous vote approvals rather than majority votes. Francis Fukuyama, noted geopolitical strategist and Stanford University professor, laments how the EU’s consensus requirements “allow a single small country to block action by the whole.” Encouraged by Trump, Viktor Orban can be counted on to wield his frequent veto to undermine the EU unless the decision-making rules are changed.

Military and defense: This is a tricky one. A number of defense experts and strategists strongly recommend that Europeans “establish a level of military readiness it has not possessed since the Cold War” and become ”a strong actor, militarily.” But the EU does not have a unitary federal government with a highly visible president who is viewed as the legitimate chief of the armed forces and whose military authority is recognized by all member states. So this comes off as wishful thinking. Nevertheless, in the middle of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Europe’s combined military and financial aid to Ukraine now exceeds that of the United States.

European values: Perhaps the greatest threat that Trump represents to Europe is to its values: multilateralism, environmental responsiveness, the rule of law, and democracy itself. Through his actions and his rhetorical attacks, Trump tramples on these principles and sways public opinion. The EU needs to think hard about how, in order to withstand that pressure internally, it is necessary to defend the rule of law within its own borders.

In short, the EU member states must act as unified as possible. Is that possible?

Past crises have unified Europe

Europe has often needed a crisis to mobilize and to some extent unify its fractious member states. The European debt crisis in 2009-10 motivated the EU toward greater levels of federalism and to more fully integrate its banking systems. The immigration crisis in 2015-16 forced Europe to deal with its border issues and confront issues of member state solidarity. In the COVID-19 pandemic, member states empowered the EU Commission to buy vaccines, and for the first time the commission borrowed on a large scale to fund Europe’s economic recovery.

In a counter-intuitive way, Trump 1.0 also had a galvanizing effect on Europe, spurring efforts toward greater self-reliance. Trump’s previous tariffs on EU steel and aluminum not only mobilized the EU to respond with tariffs on $3 billion worth of US goods, but to strengthen the euro by further integrating EU banks and financial systems. It led to the signing of trade agreements with new partners in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Trump’s threats over Europe’s defense spending levels nudged the EU to help reinvigorate NATO under the Biden administration, and led to institutional incentives for member states to spend more on defense. In response to Trump, the EU created the European Peace Facility that supports the armies of partner countries and EU member states with infrastructure, training and equipment. When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, the EPF was employed to provide military aid to Ukraine.

So EU unity is the best remedy to any Trump 2.0 reckless brinksmanship. But what could incentivize more unity?

Josef Braml from the Institute for Strategic, Political, Security and Economic Consultancy in Berlin recommends that the EU incur debt together to build more defense capability and European cohesion. “Europe must act as a united player. We have to think bigger,” he says, to “support individual states financially, and impose conditions on them in return. With money from shared European borrowing, we could also afford our own defense.”

In that light, Trump’s reelection becomes a test not only for transatlantic relations, but also for European cohesion. For the foreseeable future, Europeans will have to wonder which America will emerge next November – and what Europe will emerge in response.

Steven Hill is editor and main author of DemocracySOS and the author of the book  “Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope In an Insecure Age.”  You can reach out to him under @StevenHill1776.

Der Beitrag How to Trump-proof Europe erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag New Publication: Current Study on the State of Transatlantic Relations erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

With this special legacy in the forefront in our minds, the devastating terrorist attacks by the terrorist group Hamas seize us with horror and grief. Comparisons to the Yom Kippur War 50 years ago or even to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 help us to digest the severity of the situation, and we have read and heard much of this over the past several days. But the atrocities from this weekend stand on their own: terror, murder, abduction.

The State of Israel has a right to its military strength and defense. As close partners, Europeans and Americans bear responsibility to debilitate the capabilities of Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization. We stand with Israel and the many friends, family members and colleagues who are affected and wish them strength and endurance during this terrible time.

With deep respect,

Board of Directors
Julia Friedlander, Sigmar Gabriel, Prof. Dr. Michael Hüther, Dr. Norbert Röttgen, Ute Wolf

_________________________________________________

GERMAN VERSION

Nur wenige Institutionen und Vereine sind in unserem Land so sehr mit der Geschichte jüdischer Bürgerinnen und Bürger verbunden wie die Atlantik-Brücke. Trotz der Zerstörungen des 2. Weltkrieges und des Holocausts waren es aus Deutschland geflüchtete Juden, die nach Ende des Krieges zurück nach Deutschland kamen und mit der Atlantik-Brücke die Idee verbanden, aus ehemals erbitterten Feinden neue Partner und Freunde werden zu lassen. So wie die Gründer unseres Vereins einen großen Beitrag dazu geleistet haben, die Bundesrepublik in den Westen zu integrieren und die transatlantischen Beziehungen als Grundpfeiler der deutschen Identität zu verankern, haben sie auch eine aktive Rolle bei der Schaffung und Etablierung von Institutionen in Israel gespielt. Diese gemeinsame Geschichte verbindet uns bis heute: Die besondere Beziehung und das Einstehen für die Freiheit und den Frieden Israels sind integraler Bestandteil unseres transatlantischen Selbstverständnisses.

Auch vor diesem besonderen Hintergrund blicken wir mit großem Entsetzen auf die verheerenden Angriffe der Terrorgruppe Hamas und sind in tiefer Trauer. Vergleiche zum Yom-Kippur-Krieg vor 50 Jahren oder gar zu den Terroranschlägen des 11. September 2001 dienen dazu, die Ernsthaftigkeit der Lage zu verdeutlichen; darüber haben wir in den letzten Tagen sehr viel gehört und gelesen. Aber die Gräueltaten vom Wochenende stehen für sich: Terror, Mord und Entführung.

Der Staat Israel hat das Recht auf seine Wehrhaftigkeit und Verteidigung. Als enge Partner haben Europäer und Amerikaner die Verantwortung, die Handlungsfähigkeit der offiziell als Terrorgruppe eingestuften Hamas zu entkräften. Wir stehen an der Seite Israels und den vielen Freunden, Familienmitgliedern und Kollegen, die betroffen sind und wünschen viel Kraft in dieser furchtbaren Zeit.

Im Namen des

Geschäftsführenden Vorstandes
Julia Friedlander, Sigmar Gabriel, Prof. Dr. Michael Hüther, Dr. Norbert Röttgen, Ute Wolf

Der Beitrag Statement by the Board of Directors on the attack on Israel erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Among the high-level speakers were Vice Chancellor and Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action Robert Habeck, the Netherland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Sigrid Kaag, and the United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai. Their keynotes as well as the panel discussions at the Transatlantic Forum made it clear: We live in a new era of geoeconomics. That is why we are looking forward to the Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics 2024 to continue the transatlantic dialogue on crucial issues at the nexus of economic and foreign policy.

DZ BANK generously hosted this year’s conference. Bloomberg was the media partner of the Transatlantic Forum.

You can watch the recording of the conference here:

[toggle title=”Welcoming Remarks”]

Souâd Benkredda, Member of the Board of Managing Directors, DZ BANK

Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke

Fred Kempe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Atlantic Council

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Session I – Building common ground: Transatlantic approaches to economic statecraft”]

Michael Lieberman, Assistant Director for Enforcement, Office of Foreign Asset Control, US Department of the Treasury

David Lim, Co-Director, Task Force KleptoCapture, US Department of Justice

David Reed, Director, Sanctions Directorate, UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office

Darta Tentere, Policy Advisor to the EU Sanctions Envoy David O’Sullivan, European Commission

Moderated by Kim Donovan, Director, Economic Statecraft Initiative, GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Keynote I – Navigating the geoeconomic era with an open approach”]

Sigrid Kaag, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Government of the Netherlands 

In conversation with Fred Kempe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Atlantic Council

You can read the full transcript of Minister Kaag’s keynote remarks here

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Session II – G20, BRICS, and the future of multilateralism”]

Jörg Kukies, State Secretary; Economic, Financial, and Energy Policy Advisor, German Federal Chancellery 

Daleep Singh, Chief Global Economist and Head of Global Macroeconomic Research, PGIM Fixed Income

 Moderated by Stephanie Flanders, Senior Executive Editor for Economics | Head, Bloomberg News | Bloomberg Economics

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Keynote II – GeoEconomic deepening of transatlantic cooperation”]

Dr. Robert Habeck, Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Climate Action, German Federal Government

In conversation with Julia Friedlander, Chief Executive Officer, Atlantik-Brücke

You can read the full transcript of Minister Habeck’s keynote remarks here

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Session III – Adapting at speed: The private sector and geopolitics”]

Nils Aldag, Chief Executive Officer, SunFire

Candace Kelly, Chief Legal Officer, Stellar Development Foundation

Christian Sewing, Chief Executive Officer, Deutsche Bank

Michael Schoellhorn, Chief Executive Officer, Airbus Defence and Space

Moderated by Josh Lipsky, Senior Director, GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Session IV – The clash of economics and national security Trade, industrial policy, and supply chains”]

Elizabeth Baltzan, Senior Advisor to the United States Trade Representative, Office of the United States Trade Representative

Denis Redonnet, Deputy Director-General, Chief Trade Enforcement Officer, EU Commission

Anahita Thoms, Board Member, Atlantik-Bruecke and Partner, Baker & Mckenzie International

Moderated by Sarah Bauerle Danzman, Senior Fellow | Associate Professor, Atlantic Council | Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Keynote III – A Conversation with US Trade Representative Ambassador Katherine Tai”]

Katherine Tai, United States Trade Representative, Office of the United States Trade Representative

 In conversation with Stephanie Flanders, Senior Executive Editor for Economics | Head, Bloomberg News | Bloomberg Economics

You can read the full transcript of US Trade Representative Tai’s keynote remarks here.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Closing remarks”]

Julia Friedlander, Chief Executive Officer, Atlantik-Brücke

Josh Lipsky, Senior Director, GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council

[/toggle]

Der Beitrag Transatlantic Forum on GeoEconomics 2023 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

by Ryan Millerick and Hubertus Riedesel Freiherr zu Eisenbach

What matters

Over the course of the week, we had the opportunity to hear from a plethora of diverse, high-level leaders across many disciplines. The list of esteemed guest speakers even included three Ministers/Ministers of State from the current government. In addition, we spent two days at the epicenter of German power and politics in Berlin with various onsite visits.

[related]Already on the first evening, the group had the pleasure of welcoming Minister Klara Geywitz. She not only shared remarks on urban development and participated in a discussion on what the US and Germany can learn from each other, but also took time to connect with us Young Leaders over dinner. This set the stage for the intensely packed and high-caliber days to follow.

Throughout the week we engaged in deep conversations with experts on critical current topics. Colonel Jill Long shared her perspective on leadership through her experience in the US Air Force. Prof. Dr. Andreas Dombret, former member of the Board of the German Bundesbank, shared his thoughts on the “Three I’s: Invasion, Inflation and Interest rates”, sparking vivid conversations on global economic structures. Dr. Mareike Ohlberg offered her insights and expertise on China strategies, highlighting the need for transatlantic cooperation. A further session focused on Germany’s “Zeitenwende” and the state of the German military with Colonel Frank Reiser and LTC Sebastian Bley from the German Army Headquarters. It was a pleasure to discuss matters of transatlantic and international security in such an open and trusting atmosphere. Another dialogue on voter identity was led by journalist Martin Klingst, who has spent extended time interviewing Trump voters in the US and AfD voters in Germany.

The first of two day trips to Berlin began with a visit to the AI Campus of Merantix in Berlin, where we learned about visionary startup ideas who are leveraging the potential of AI. Later, at the Federal Chancellery, we had a thorough discussion with Minister Wolfgang Schmidt, who shared intimate insights on his day-to-day work in German politics, as well as his view on current transatlantic and global challenges. As if this wasn’t enough, we also got to visit the ARD Capital Studio and met with Tina Hassel, who provided her own perspective on some of the topics we addressed in the Chancellery. What a great way to compare notes, contrast perspectives on current issues and see the media at work.

The second day in Berlin began directly in the seat of German democracy at the Bundestag. Minister of State in the Federal Foreign Office Dr. Tobias Lindner, a Young Leader himself, engaged in a lively discourse with us about both the transatlantic partnership as well as Germany’s role on the world stage. Our cohort’s Members of Parliament then led us on a behind-the-scenes tour of the Bundestag, sharing their own stories and offering insights into their daily work. The day was capped off back in the private sector, as Google opened their doors for us and provided an insightful panel on AI and Machine Learning, featuring Eveline Metzen, Michael Neuber and Slav Petrov. What a week!

What really matters

In addition to the thought-provoking sessions with the guest speakers, we split up into working groups ourselves, in order to explore creative solutions to tackle several pressing issues. The following four topics were intensively discussed and worked on, culminating in short policy suggestions which can be found in separate documents:

• Transatlantic Cooperation on AI: Balancing Innovation and Regulation for Business, Security and Civil Society
• Aligning Transatlantic Strategies on China
• Achieving Net Zero: Leveraging Opportunities for Transatlantic Climate Change Solutions
• Navigating the Transatlantic Trade Landscape: Overcoming State Subsidization and Market Challenges for Sustainable Economic Growth

Through extended discussions on these critical topics, we enjoyed immensely hearing the different perspectives around the table that come with the diverse backgrounds of our fellow Young Leaders. Learning from each other in the working groups was an enriching aspect of the week.

What matters most

Aside from the official part of the program, a unanimous highlight of the conference was simply getting to know each other and ultimately forming what will become deep and fruitful friendships, beyond a professional network. We certainly made use of the evenings, with or without the occasional glass of wine, exchanged stories, compared notes on the day and the speakers, enjoyed each other’s company and had a laugh. This personal connection is what building transatlantic relationships is all about.

Lucky for us, we not only got to know each other in our cohort, but we also coincidentally got to know many Young Leaders alumni who joined the 50^th program anniversary celebrations on the second to last day. As part of the evening’s official agenda, Prof. Dr. Michael Hüther offered opening remarks on the last fifty years of the transatlantic relationship, followed by a panel discussion with Dr. Joachim Freiherr von Falkenhausen, Christiane Hoffmann, Sarah Kelly, and Theo Koll, moderated by Atlantik-Brücke CEO Julia Friedlander. The evening was filled with many inspiring conversations across the Young Leaders cohorts, which instilled an immediate sense of community on us. What an honor to be welcomed into such an open-minded network.

We whole-heartedly thank the Atlantik-Brücke team and the selection committee for what will prove to be a life-changing week for us.

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

© Davslens

Der Beitrag Engaging in conversations, exploring solutions, forming friendships erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Vice-Admiral Topshee, what role does the Indo-Pacific play in strategic planning?

The Indo-Pacific region will play a critical role in shaping Canada’s future over the next half-century. Encompassing 40 economies, over four billion people and $47.19 trillion in economic activity, it is the world’s fastest growing-region and home to six of Canada’s top 13 trading partners. The Indo-Pacific region represents significant opportunities for growing the Canadian economy and advancing the interests of Canadian workers and businesses for decades to come. In terms of strategic planning for the Royal Canadian Navy, the current deployment model ensures the RCN is meeting commitments to both NATO and the Indo-Pacific region.

In accordance with the Indo-Pacific Strategy, the RCN will be sending three frigates dedicated to upholding the international law of the sea, including the UN convention through forward naval presence operations, in the waters of the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate that Canada’s commitment to that region of the world is year-round.

What are the biggest challenges the RCN has in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific?

The Royal Canadian Navy is currently conducting operations across the globe, with Maritime Coastal Defense Vessels HMCS Summerside and Shawinigan having just departed in early July to join Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 (SNMCMG1) in European waters, frigates HMCS Ottawa and Vancouver deploying in August on Operation HORIZON in the Indo-Pacific region, and the first in class Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel HMCS Harry DeWolf departing for Operation NANOOK throughout the Canadian Arctic this fall.

Security at home starts on the high seas. As the RCN works together with like-minded nations, we underpin stability for all. To ensure our fleet can fulfil our Navy’s commitments, strategic choices are made to match appropriate platforms to specific responsibilities, and scheduling of deployments aids to avoid lengthy transit and allow for force generation time, accommodates force generation training, and builds crucial experiences and skills for our professional sailors. Overall, in terms of ship maintenance, the RCN is examining the level of investment needed for the length of time required for ship service life and is planning accordingly for maintenance periods to allow for preventative maintenance and the upgrading of new systems and/or equipment.

The RCN is also undergoing the most comprehensive fleet modernization in its peacetime history. Three new platforms are at various stages of entering the RCN fleet. The Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) class are entering operational status in the fleet, with HMC Ships Harry DeWolf and Margaret Brooke already having deployed, and HMCS Max Bernays soon to be turned over to the RCN for sea trials. The remaining three AOPS are under construction.

As indicated in Canada’s defense policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, the Government is acquiring 15 surface combatants. The Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) is the largest, most complex procurement undertaken by the Government of Canada. Secondly, Joint Support Ships will form the core of the future fleet of the RCN. As auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels, they will surpass the operational capabilities of their predecessors. Together with the Joint Support Ships, the CSCs will form the core of the RCN’s future fleet.

Der Beitrag “Canada’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific is year-round” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

by Steven Hill

The summer is barely halfway over, and already extreme heat has rattled nerves around the world. From Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal to Canada, California and other locations around the world, the increasingly severe impacts of global warming, including massive and unpredictable wildfires, have become disturbingly frequent.

[related]I still vividly remember the morning of 9 September 2020, when I woke up and stared out my bedroom window in San Francisco at the sight of an ominously orange glowing sky. It looked so ashy and dim that for a moment I thought the sun hadn’t come up. Then I saw the clock, and realized that the eerie orange hue was being caused by a thick haze of wildfire smoke that had fallen over the city from hundreds of miles away in Northern California. This made me shiver with alarm; I knew it was a forewarning of the day of reckoning to come.

This summer the New York City skyline was visited by its own orange sky day, the result of blazing wildfires hundreds of miles away across the Canadian border. Borders will not save anyone from this menacing global threat of climate change. Thousands of wildfires across Canada have scorched more than 30 million acres, an area bigger than North Korea, and more than four times the acreage burned in a typical wildfire season. Many towns have been evacuated and it’s only halfway through the fire season.

Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece also have faced unrelenting heat for weeks, but the European Space Agency has warned that the current heat wave is only the beginning. In Italy, which has been particularly hard hit, temperatures in many cities have soared to 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) and higher, and deadly wildfires have ravaged the south. Climate scientist Hannah Cloke compared the effect to that of a giant oven swallowing the Mediterranean.

“The bubble of hot air that has inflated over southern Europe has turned Italy and surrounding countries into a giant pizza oven,” she said.

Most recently, the tropical island paradise of Maui in the US island state of Hawai’i went up in flames. The resort town of Lahaina turned into a towering inferno in which people had to flee into the nearby ocean to save themselves. The Maui death toll has surpassed 110 people, with more dead likely as firefighters search through the rubble. It is the deadliest wildfire in the US in a century, even more deadly than the Camp Fire in California in 2018, which killed 85 and destroyed an entire town, turning it into ashes. The only thing left standing were the remnants of brick chimneys. Ironically, the name of the obliterated town was Paradise.

In 2017, California wildfires caused $12.1 billion in damage, the highest in state history. In 2020, fire suppression costs surpassed $1 billion for the first time, as fighting fires drained the public taxes needed for education and health care.

Across the planet, this past June was the hottest month on record, according to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. It was accompanied by record high ocean temperatures and record low levels of Antarctic ice. Unlike previous years, the nights don’t always cool down and droughts have intensified, even as computer models predicting fire behavior have become unreliable. The first week in July was the hottest week on record, according to data from the World Meteorological Organization. These heatwaves have led to many premature deaths, especially among the elderly.

All of the evidence makes it clear that the planet is in what the World Meteorological Organization has described as “uncharted territory.” Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, has urged world leaders to “act now” on the climate crisis.

So how are the world’s governments responding to this unprecedented challenge?

Climate change leaders – and foot-draggers

Environmental researchers at Yale and Columbia universities regularly rank the world’s nations according to their levels of eco-friendliness. The 2022 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) graded 180 countries, from Albania to Zimbabwe, on 32 key sustainability indicators, taking into account the latest data on critical things such as CO2 emissions, air and water quality and other public health factors. A few findings of the report stand out.

First, the world’s top fifteen most green, climate-conscious countries are all in Europe. In fact, 23 out of the top 25 green countries are European, with the other two countries in the top 25 being Japan (ranked 25th) and Australia (ranked 17th). Europe also holds 29 out of the top 35 spots. The European continent is leading the world.

Meanwhile, China (160), Russia (112) and India (180) are among the biggest carbon polluters. Even more disappointing, the United States is ranked only 43rd, right between the developing nations of Namibia and Dominica. That’s a decline from the 2020 EPI, when the US was ranked 24th. The world’s wealthiest nation is projected to fall far short of its net-zero greenhouse gas emissions targets established by the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact. In fact by 2050, over 50% of global emissions are expected to come from just four countries – China, India, Russia and the US.

Opinion polls demonstrate that two-thirds of Americans believe that the US government should do more on climate. Unlike the authoritarian states of China and Russia, the US is a representative democracy, which in theory is supposed to be responsive and accountable to “the people.” So why isn’t the US government responding by following through on the public’s beliefs and commitments regarding climate change? This is perhaps one of the most significant policy dilemmas of our times.

The value of robust democracy

To understand Europe’s leadership in climate policy, it is helpful to understand that Europe’s vibrant democracies are quite different than the US, with very distinctive robust institutions and practices. Research by political scientists like Arend Lijphart and G. Bingham Powell has demonstrated that European democracies are far more representative of the varying political perspectives in society, and therefore are more reflective of a society-wide consensus than has been possible in the US.

Nearly all European nations use proportional representation electoral systems, as well as some degree of public financing of campaigns, free media time for political parties and candidates, inclusion in televised debates, and universal/automatic voter registration. These in turn result in a number of other good government features, such as multi-party democracy, higher voter turnout, more robust political debate, and the ability of everyday citizens to make sense of their political world (what political scientist Henry Milner has called “civic literacy”).

Multiparty democracy creates dialogue between the dominant mainstream parties and the junior parties, between the political center and the flanks of the spectrum. Minor parties in Europe mostly are welcomed for the valuable role they play as the “laboratories for new ideas,” challenging and stimulating voters, the media, and the major parties to think outside the conventional political box. In the short run that political dynamic can sound noisy and untidy, but in the medium and long terms it allows a much fuller airing of the issues and achieving a broader consensus, and a greater effectiveness to pass policy that reflects that consensus.

When it comes to environmental issues, pro-environmental parties across Europe have played an indispensable role. They have championed positions that initially had little public support because they were ahead of their time; now those same positions are the core of mainstream European politics, having been adopted by the major parties, even the conservative parties, as those positions became popular due to the increasingly obvious impacts of global warming and other environmental threats. European democracies are not perfect and have their own challenges. But on the whole, many have performed more effectively than most other governments.

A failure of America’s two party “winner take all” system

Representative democracy works very differently in the United States. Voters are mostly bunkered down in non-competitive, one-party districts and states where their frame of reference is not even of a two-party system, but of one party that dominates their entire region. Smaller parties are weak and unfunded, and rarely elect officeholders. Political monocultures result, where debate becomes all but frozen.

Without proportional representation, public financing, free media time and universal/automatic voter registration in the US, forward-looking voices have a hard time breaking through the duopoly and gaining a place at the table. Complicating matters further, in the U.S. Senate it takes a super-majority of 60 out of 100 Senators to pass legislation, due to a process rule known as the “filibuster” which can be used to terminate debate on any legislation. The US political system is still rooted in its antiquated, 18th-century origins, and that reality has led to a destructive form of “minority rule” in which a right wing Republican party led by Donald Trump has been able to kill environmental policy or any attempts to reach consensus on controversial issues.

Last year, President Joe Biden’s administration made progress with its passage of federal legislation that will spend an $369 billion on energy and climate change. That amounts to the largest investment in clean energy to combat climate change in US history. With the incentive of federal tax credits, companies have announced nearly 200 new clean energy projects totaling more than $110 billion in investment.

But in the 2022 elections, Republicans won back control of the US House. So the lack of a truly representative democracy that translates public opinion into effective policy will continue to hamper US efforts. Given the crucial role that America plays in the world, this lack of policy responsiveness is perhaps the greatest threat to the world’s future.

Steven Hill is publisher and chief author of DemocracySOS and is the author of “Europe’s Promise: Why the European Way Is the Best Hope In an Insecure Age.” You can reach him @StevenHill1776

Der Beitrag A hot summer of wildfires underscores the global urgency of governmental action erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Earlier this month, as the German parliament wrapped up its final week in session and students kicked off their summer breaks, a curious group of young, diverse American leaders made its way from Washington, D.C. to Brussels and to Berlin, on a mission to learn all they could about US-European relations and infuse their diverse voices and perspectives into the transatlantic dialogue.

[related]These leaders made up the 7th cohort of Atlantik-Brücke’s innovative New Bridge Program. The program allows emerging leaders from historically underrepresented communities to learn and engage in conversations about transatlantic relations over the course of a 10-day program. Fellows from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds dove into a wide range of topics spanning historical and contemporary political and social issues involving the U.S. and Europe. Our 11-person cohort included elected officials, public servants, private sector representatives, and media professionals from across the nation, including Hawaii, Virginia, Texas, D.C., New York, Georgia, Washington, and more.

The fellows met for the first time in Washington, D.C. Here, we received a crash course on the history of Germany and the European Union at Georgetown University, visited the ARD news studio to discuss our views on current events as well as German perceptions of Americans, and ended the first leg of our trip with a visit to the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the German Historical Institute, where we reflected on the lasting legacy of WWII and the importance of diversity, inclusion, and acceptance of people from all backgrounds.

After a seven-hour flight across the Atlantic, we landed in Brussels and immediately started exploring some of the city’s cultural sites, while indulging in Belgium’s signature chocolate and waffles. The next day, we visited the European Parliament and discussed how the EU government works, meeting with representatives from the office of Member of the European Parliament David McAllister.

The day ended with a tour of and briefings at the 41-hectare NATO headquarters on the outskirts of Brussels, where we heard about how the alliance works and monitors major conflicts, such as the war in Ukraine. The visit to NATO was one of the cohort’s most memorable experiences, as access to this space is usually limited to high-level government and defense professionals. Fellow Jordan Cohen, a policy analyst at the CATO Institute, shared the following reflection: “Seeing NATO was an unforgettable experience. The building and surrounding campus were beautiful and unlike anything that I’ve ever seen. Nonetheless, my biggest takeaway is that opinions within NATO are not monolithic, and there is open disagreement about the important issues for transatlantic security.”

After a busy two days in Brussels, we hit the skies again en route to Berlin. Once we arrived in Berlin, we learned about the city’s history, including seeing remnants of Nazi Germany and the Berlin Wall. Our time in the city included visits to the State of Rhineland-Palatinate’s Berlin mission to learn about Germany’s political system; the U.S. Embassy, where we learned about the U.S. priorities in its relationship with Germany; and a tour of the historic Reichstag Dome, the meeting place of the German parliament.

Several fellows were especially struck by how much Europe prioritizes compromise and solution-based policy in its governance, particularly in contrast to the polarization of politics in the U.S. Fellow Bao-Tram Do, CEO of the Center for Women & Democracy, shared: “I deeply appreciated Germany’s democratic values of collaboration across party lines, transparency to foster trust in government, and promotion of gender equality in positions of power. I was also surprised in our conversations that women’s representation across different fields such as government and the private sector were many times 50%. Germany demonstrates that gender parity in government and the workforce is possible and provides a model for the U.S. to draw valuable insights.”

We also heard from entrepreneur Hans Raffauf who has founded several technology companies in Germany. He shared with us the journey of the German education and apprentice system as well as the struggles of securing venture funding for entrepreneurs. He also spoke about the gender-based difficulties for female founders who only make up a very small percentage of the entrepreneur population in Germany.

While in Germany, we also took a day trip to Hamburg. We traveled by train and experienced Germany’s interrail system firsthand before arriving at sessions to learn more about the country’s education system and apprenticeships, labor and social affairs programs, and the country’s colonial past. During a walking tour through Hamburg, we saw how the effects of colonialism continue to reverberate through contemporary German society. Fellow Nicole Jackson Mansch, Chief of Staff at the U.S. Department of Labor, shared: “During our session with the Human Resources Department at Hapag-Lloyd [in Hamburg], I learned that expecting mothers get 6 weeks of paid maternity leave before giving birth, in addition to 8 weeks after the birth of their child. I would love for the U.S. to adopt similar, if not better, protections for pregnant women. Sometimes, women in the U.S. decide to take unpaid leave in order to spend key moments bonding with and caring for their newborn child after giving birth. Our conversation with Hapag-Lloyd staff illustrated that the U.S. still has room to improve its protections for pregnant women and new mothers.”

Our fellowship ended back in Berlin, where we learned about social issues in Germany, including a conversation with Armand Zorn, a Member of the German Bundestag, who discussed his background, journey, and election as one of the few Black elected officials, and Angelo Camufingo, a social justice consultant and DEI expert who spoke to us about the history of racial issues in Germany and the various ways to teach racial justice through a spectrum of lenses.

The night ended with a dinner at FREA Lab, a zero-emission Michelin Star restaurant, joined by youth activists from Fridays for Futures, who spoke about the climate crisis and the steps they would like to see Germany and the EU take to ensure a more environmentally friendly future.

Impact on Fellows

“The New Bridge Program was a phenomenal experience,” shared fellow Abdullah Hammoud, who serves as the current Mayor of the City of Dearborn, MI. “It provided me a window into the importance of German-American partnerships, as well as an opportunity to bring my learnings home.”

The New Bridge experience was impactful and eye-opening for each of the fellows. As we forged personal connections with each other, we also grew in our understanding of international and transatlantic relations. Reflecting on our time with the program, the recurring theme that comes to mind is “similarity despite differences.” When we arrived and met each member of the cohort, our backgrounds and perspectives seemed so different and unique. Yet, as we got to know each other and dove deeper into our personal experiences, hopes, and fears, we learned how similar each of us are and what connects us. As young leaders, we feel proud of our past accomplishments, but we are also restless and ambitious, wondering what our futures will hold and whether we are making the right choices.

We also saw many similarities between the U.S. and German social and political systems. Both countries have strong democratic systems with intense party politics. Both countries have inequities which current social systems struggle to adequately address. While the German education system is lauded internationally for its apprenticeship system, which features strong connections between academic instruction and applied skills in the workplace, it is also criticized for tracking individuals into career paths that sometimes limit socioeconomic mobility. The U.S. education system is a similar paradox of opportunity and limitation.

Finally, we saw similarity in how diverse groups are treated in each country. Germany’s history of antisemitism has undeniable parallels to America’s history of anti-Black racism and discrimination. It was striking to see the many ways that the U.S. and Germany are similar and the direct ways in which our economies, politics, and culture are intertwined.

Throughout the trip, the importance of the relationship between the EU and the U.S. became increasingly clear. In our global society, it’s important that countries listen and learn from one another on world issues including climate, diversity, economics, politics, and more to create a brighter future for us all.

The program truly is a “New Bridge” in each of us understanding the history, culture, and logistics of Germany, Belgium, and the United States but taking that newfound dialogue and learning opportunity and using it to build new bridges and forge new transatlantic relationships that will carry an impact far beyond this program. Not only can we take best practices with us, in our opportunities within the United States to create new ideas and improve existing processes, we also can now pick up the phone and have true, invaluable connections that are just as invested in progress and innovation – between our countries.

“I think we can all agree on the fact that good transatlantic relations are important and will remain important, as we can only develop an understanding of the other side’s perspective if we keep in touch and talk to one another,” said Ulrich Mueller, member of the Executive Board of the Joachim Herz Stiftung, at one of our events in Hamburg. “Particularly in times of multiple crises, ongoing dialogue between partners is essential to maintaining the mutual understanding we all value.” We agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment and feel energized by the possibilities for continued engagement with Germany and the transatlantic community.

Thank you to Atlantik-Brücke and its partners for making this incredible journey of growth and discovery possible. Without the program, many of us would not have had the opportunity to learn about or meaningfully engage in the transatlantic dialogue.

Der Beitrag Building Bridges through Transatlantic Dialogue erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Report by Jesse Deaton

Day 1,
June 24, 2023

Twelve teachers from seven states arrived safely to Berlin and were shuttled to the hotel to freshen up before dinner. We walked over to Potsdamer Platz and were overwhelmed by the welcoming nature of our hosts who guided us in what we should order. We got to know each other over Berliner Kindl Pilsner and Berliner Weiße.

Day 2,
June 25, 2023

Our day began with a Berlin city walking tour, starting at the Brandenburg Gate. During the tour, we were led around the city and amazed by the detailed answers our tour guide Hannah was able to provide for us. As teachers, we asked lots of questions, enough so that the tour took longer than it was supposed to! We proceeded to meet with Dr. Fabrizio Micallizzi and discussed Germany’s political system and foreign policy appraoch, Germans’ responsibilities towards refugees, and what we can do as American teachers to help foster transatlantic relations. Afterwards, we had lunch with Dr. Matthias Rossbach who helped us understand German cooperative Federalism and German politics. In addition, we met with Sabine Luthe to discuss the structure of Germany’s education system. We talked about topics such as curricula, assessment, and foreign language teaching methods. Our day ended in a dinner discussion with two activists from the Fridays for Future climate protection movement, during which we learned about how to encourage students’ passions.

Day 3,
June 26, 2023

The amazement of actually being in Germany finally set in and we were off to Dresden! First, we visited Martin-Andersen-Nexö-Gymansium where the students greeted us, gave us tours of the school, and participated in small group discussions about the differences between German and American schools. We learned about the school’s science specialty and the school choice that parents and students have to make in Germany. Our second meeting in Dresden was with Dr. Roland Loeffler and Dr. Joachim Amm with the Saxon Agency for Civic Education. We discussed voting trends, the nature of division between conservative and liberal belief systems, the conservative tilt of rural areas on the basis of workers’ rights, and the necessity of civic education for a successful democracy. These discussions were eerily similar to those in the United States.

We exchanged stories from our classroom experiences and our personal histories, which left us laughing and commiserating into the night.

We proceeded to tour the former Stasi Prison and Memorial Site Bautzner Strasse which touched us deeply (the prison held political prisoners in East Germany). In the evening, we went to our first German Biergarten where we met with the 2022 alumni of the transatlantic teachers’ trip! Our German counterparts welcomed us with open arms and suggested foods and drinks to try. We exchanged stories from our classroom experiences and our personal histories, which left us laughing and commiserating into the night. At the end of the evening, we parted ways, looking forward to visiting their schools in the coming days.

Day 4,
June 27, 2023

Our wonderful bus drivers shuttled us to Limbach-Oberfrohna where we visited Grit Muller’s school, the Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium. On the way, we made an impromptu stop at a supermarket to pick up snacks to bring home to our families! Albert-Schweitzer-Gymnasium’s 5th grade class welcomed us with a tour of their favorite parts of their lively school. Their upperclassmen had just finished their exams, so we were able to experience the buzz of excitement in the hallways. Heike Bachmann, then, welcomed us into Pestalozzischule. Her students guided us through the hallways, discussing their vocational programs. After lunch, we visited the Amerika Tierpark with a group of Ms. Bachmann’s students and talked about their favorite animals. We proceeded on to Leipzig and learned about German views of America with journalist Martin Klingst including German views on the Trump presidency and the skepticism that surrounds German-American collaboration. We also discussed the teaching of critical race theory and the controversy around it in the United States. Our day concluded with a beautiful walk through Leipzig to enjoy our first Döner Kebap.

Day 5,
June 28, 2023

The final school we toured was Oberschule Wiederitzsch. Daniel Selle, a 2022 alumnus of the program, opened his school to us and demonstrated an unmatched passion for his students and his subject. We were inundated with the love that this school pours out for its students. From supporting the academic success of their students to special art programs initiated by the teacher, these students were valued as people in their community.

We were inundated with the love that this school pours out for its students.

Afterwards, we proceeded to the Museum of Contemporary History Leipzig and found yet another deeply enriching historical experience. The tour was soaked in historical details, yet made personally relatable by our tour guide and our host, Franka. After our tour, we ate lunch at Auerbachs Keller and we learned about the restaurant’s history: It was already well-established in the 16^th century and featured prominently in Goethe’s play, “Faust.” The food was delicious and the Apfelkuchen was particularly wonderful! Another 2022 alumnus, Daniel Riedel, led our tour of the Völkerschlacht Memorial where we learned another layer of German history and created memories with our fellow teachers. To finish out the day, we attended a stand-up comedy show by Shakak Shapira during which many jokes were made about Texas because one of our colleagues was a Texan! When the show was over, we enjoyed lively discussion with Daniel Selle and Daniel Riedel exploring more ways that our schools could collaborate at different grade levels.

Day 6,
June 29, 2023

Our final day in Germany started out with a bang as we got to ride the bullet train from Leipzig to Berlin! We arrived in Berlin and made our way to tour the Bundestag. We were able to spend a significant amount of time here during which we studied the skyline, discussed the symbolism of transparency in the dome’s design, and highlighted our favorite parts of the trip thus far. For lunch, we met at the Atlantik-Brücke headquarters to debrief about our trip. Our group noted the truly life changing, inspiring nature of the opportunity we were given. The intercultural exchange that we witnessed in each city was astounding. We also noted the inclusion of climate protection that blended throughout each community from public transport to not seeing a single paper cup in a restaurant. We discussed the connections that were made between us, the American teachers, as well as between our group and the German teachers. We each look forward to incorporating these relationships into our classrooms. Our free time that afternoon was filled with museum tours, a visit to the East Side Gallery, visits with international friends, and delicious snacks. To wrap up our last day in Germany, we had a farewell dinner at a Turkish restaurant which was a perfect way to inspire more cultural exchange in our group.

Each host welcomed us with open arms, excited to form a relationship and share their expertise.

The highlight of this trip truly is the people you meet. Each host welcomed us with open arms, excited to form a relationship and share their expertise. We witnessed their passions and their talents alongside their best work. From seeing teachers care for their students to hearing foreign officers praise transatlantic relations, we became more inspired the longer into our journey we went. During our trip, we meditated on personal connections we have made with our own students and developed new connections with teachers across the US and in Germany. These connections will serve us well in the future for exchange programs, pen pal projects, and for furthering our own education. Most of all, these relationships will help us become better people for ourselves, our families, and our students by emphasizing the necessity for relationships between nations.

Der Beitrag Insightful, Inspirational, Interconnected erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

As Russia’s war on Ukraine drags into its second year, a certain narrative has taken hold among the Western foreign policy commentariat: “Russia is winning the information war in the Global South.” The case is relatively simple: states throughout Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia are relatively permissive environments for Russian state-backed media—both traditional and online. Many of these states have meanwhile largely refrained from full-throated condemnation of Moscow’s brutal and illegal invasion of neighboring Ukraine and have largely sidestepped adoption of (or adherence to) Western sanctions regimes. Surely, as the thinking goes, there must be a causal link between the former and the latter. Surely Western governments, in league with civil society organizations, can bring these states and their publics around to the truth through improved counter-propaganda efforts. Right?

Der Beitrag Russian Propaganda in the Southern Hemisphere: A Simplistic Scapegoat erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In June, I participated in the fifteenth edition of the Oslo Freedom Forum, a global gathering of human rights activists and pro-democracy supporters. Few conferences are able to bring together such a collection of dissidents, persecuted individuals, and advocates; I wanted to hear and see what was on people’s minds. In the plenary sessions, keynote speakers described a litany of human rights abuses. Gulbahar Haitiwaji spoke about surviving China’s concentration camps – set up to terrorize the Uyghur population. Felix Maradiaga described Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega’s brutal campaign to silence his opponents. Victor Navarro, a journalist and former prisoner of conscience, talked about enduring torture during imprisonment by Venezuelan authorities. Nazanin Boniadi exposed the Iranian regime’s systematic assault on its population, noting that “Iranians are no longer afraid of prison, because Iran itself has become a prison.” After three grueling days of plenary presentations, side conversations with activists, and discussions in small workshops, three big themes emerged.

[related]First, the current landscape for human rights is grim. Democracy continues to backslide around the world – Freedom House’s 2023 report notes 17 consecutive years of democratic decline. Activists and dissidents face heavy pressure from authoritarian leaders in every region across the world. Democratic bright spots which emerged in the past decade have reversed. In the Middle East, the exuberance of Arab Spring has been replaced by civil war, authoritarian retrenchment, and political reversal. The last democratic holdout in the region, Tunisia, is fast turning into a dictatorship. In Africa, the Sudanese revolution has devolved into a bloody civil war as the army and RSF militia battle in the streets of Khartoum and throughout the country. In the meantime, its citizens face a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. In Myanmar, the country’s once promising transition to democratic rule has been violently extinguished. An illegitimate military junta governs through coercion and fear, arbitrarily detaining thousands of individuals and displacing millions of citizens.

Second, China and Russia are bolstering a rising bloc of authoritarian states through the provision of military arms, financial assistance, and political support. In Venezuela and Cuba, China has helped both regimes withstand popular uprisings by respectively furnishing Caracas with advanced surveillance technology and establishing joint military training facilities with Havana. In Africa, Russia’s private military army, the Wagner Group, has meddled in elections, obtained extractive concessions, and paved the way for a new generation of strongmen to consolidate power. The support goes both ways. Russia itself has received vital support in its military campaign against Ukraine in the form of imported drones and missiles from Iran, or shipments of assault rifles, body armor, drone parts, and other critical military equipment from China (much of which is flowing through Hong Kong).

Third, the Ukraine war has emerged as a signal test of democracies’ commitment to confronting the global authoritarian tide. As Francis Fukuyama intoned from the Oslo stage, the fight in Ukraine will be decisive, not just for relations between Ukraine and Russia, but for the world overall – “because it’s going to demonstrate whether the strong state can actually get away with this kind of naked aggression.” Thus far, democracies have demonstrated resolve in providing billions of military assistance to Kyiv to recapture territory and strike Russian forces. While a Ukrainian victory against Russia will not save global democracy, it can make a material difference in curbing authoritarian momentum. The stakes are high. On the one hand, authoritarian regimes have shown surprising weakness – from China’s failed Covid lockdown policy to Iran’s bumbling attempts to quell mass uprisings. Russia’s defeat in Ukraine would substantially change the narrative about the triumphal march of global authoritarianism. It would demonstrate that aggressing nations will be punished and that international norms will be enforced. Moreover, a Russian loss would drastically weaken Putin’s grip on power – thereby diminishing the overall strength of the authoritarian bloc. Conversely, a victory by Russia would lock in an alternative account – that democracies lack the stamina and political will to confront autocratic forces, and that countries can make a better bet aligning with Beijing and Moscow rather than remaining with Washington and Brussels.

The conversations in Oslo were tough, but pro-democracy advocates and human rights defenders remain hopeful. While authoritarian governments appear to be on the ascent, dictatorships are inherently brittle (such is the peril of ruling without the consent of the governed). When political collapses occur, they are often swift and sudden. Autocrats around the world should take heed.

Steven Feldstein is a Senior Fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Before joining the Carnegie Endowment he worked as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the U.S. Department of State under President Obama. He is also a Young Leader Alumnus of Atlantik-Brücke from the class of 2012. You can learn more about Steven Feldstein here.

Der Beitrag The Ukraine war as a signal test of democracies’ commitment of confronting the authoritarian tide erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Earlier this year, a prominent conservative writer in the US prompted an outpouring of rage and sympathy from his readers with a long reportage, published in a new journal that has become influential on the American right [1]. In the story, the writer warned that a “Christian nation,” that had been the victim of “modern genocide,” faced “extinction in a territory stippled by their churches and crosses.” This nation-state, he wrote, “risks being downgraded to a rump state,” due not to “ancient, mythical hatreds, not initially, at any rate,” but rather from a dispute whose “origins lie in the rise of modern nationalism amid the breakup of one imperial order—and the birth of a new one.”

The writer was not referring to Ukraine, but rather to Armenia. As for Ukraine, that conflict, according to him, was being morally oversimplified by liberal Washington. Vladimir Putin should be given concessions, so as not to overly provoke him, and the general backlash against all things Russian in America was silly.

This kind of doublethink will unfortunately not be terribly surprising to anyone who has been paying attention to US politics over the last few years. A vicious politicization of everything has prevented the country from reaching coherence (forget about consensus) in its response to multiple crises. As with Covid, the Russian war in Ukraine seems poised to become another casualty in the 2024 presidential election campaign. The facts about Ukraine will, tragically, be largely irrelevant, as the debate between the two sides in the U.S. is, at this point, purely about power – who knows best, and who gets to make decisions.

If liberals or Democrats are in favor of something, you can be certain that Republicans will be against it.

These public relations battles do obscure some more complicated dynamics. Notably, in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea and the beginning of the years-long war in the eastern part of the country, the Obama administration declined to send lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the Trump administration that reversed course, sending $47 million worth of lethal weapons (although Trump was impeached the first time, in 2019, for withholding that aid in order to gain campaign favors). There is an old guard among the Republican Party that still sees Russian imperialism as a threat: Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, for all the damage that he has done over the last years to the rule of law in the United States, made a speech in February, on the anniversary of the war, in which he encouraged his colleagues to “wak[e] up from our holiday from history.” That was in response to calls from Republicans to scale back US aid to Ukraine, or end it altogether. The Republican Party has continued to radicalize over the last few years, and it seems difficult to foresee how that will change. Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host who is said to have a great deal of influence over the party, recently falsely told his 3.5 million viewers, based on faked intelligence documents, that “seven Ukrainians are being killed for every Russian.” Those who would claim “America First,” sadly, care little about creating a world in which American values flourish.

There are important shifts happening in Europe, too. Poland has emerged since the beginning of the war as a new force in European defense and foreign policy, a role that may increase proportionately to its military, which is slated to become the most powerful land force in Europe in 5 to 10 years. There are Polish parliamentary elections this fall, which could see a change in government in Warsaw, with a new administration that would be friendlier to the German government. Or, if the current Polish government wins reelection, it could find itself faced with a Republican US administration in 2024 that it gets along with better politically and ideologically, but disagrees with on Russia policy. These are all potentially consequential rearrangements.

Some members of the Republican Party argue that the US is spreading itself too thin and should focus on China as the greater adversary. Perhaps this is a way to still appear strong to their voters, while opposing what the Democrats are doing, but the Biden administration is correct to treat Russia and China as related pieces of a greater challenge. From a European vantage point, the only predictable certainty is that the realities that we rely on today cannot be counted on for tomorrow.

Elisabeth Zerofsky is a journalist and Contributing Writer at the New York Times Magazine, based in Berlin. She writes frequently about European and American politics and society.

[1]  Armenia’s Race for Survival – Sohrab Amari, Compact, December 22, 2022

Der Beitrag A vicious politicization of everything erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Carl Luna

“The secret of being a topnotch con man is being able to know what the mark wants and how to make him think he’s getting it.” Ken Kesey

There are three parts of the con: convince your marks you can fulfill their deepest desires, convince them that you can do it on the cheap, then take their money (or, in politics, power) and run. In 21^st Century, economic insecurity and frustration has allowed hucksters posing as statesmen to run such a gambit, transforming the American Dream into the Great American Con.

[related]Emerging out of the unprecedented national prosperity following World War II, the American Dream was simple: in a land of endless opportunity, if you worked hard, you would make it – at least to the middle class, if not upper. As the economy exploded, the idea of doubling the national standard of living every generation was no longer an aspiration. It was a birthright. By the 1970s the post-war boom petered out. The American economy continued to grow (often faster than that of its other high-income allies) but the costs of securing three pillars of the middle class status – affordable higher education, healthcare and housing – rose far faster than income and the fourth, guaranteed retirement, disappeared for millions. Life may have been getting better, but it now took 2-3 generations to double the standard of living rather than the one promised by the American Dream. With expectations delayed came an increasingly anxious middle class, angry working class and disconnected upper class. This sense of failure of the American Dream led to its amendment in the 1980: If someone doesn’t get ahead in America then they didn’t work hard enough and don’t deserve support or sympathy. The age of “Welfare Queens” – a derogatory term used to stigmatize women on welfare, often specifically targeting single black mothers – was born. Government began a decades-long quest to cut the social safety net for the “underserving” with the false promise that doing so would free up monies to support massive tax cuts, stimulating a great economy for all. Instead, the rich got richer faster and the rest slower, if at all.

In the 21^st Century, another, more insidious amendment to the Dream was added. Politicians began speaking of “real” (hence deserving) Americans (traditional – usually white and male –blue collar workers) and argued if these hardworking real Americans weren’t succeeding it had to be because Others were keeping them down. Real Americans needed champions to vanquish these enemies and return America to its golden days of yesteryear. This is the Great American Con.

Where the American Dream was based on aspiration, the American Con is based on aspersion– and despair. From the 1960s to the 1990s, this Con sat on the edge of mainstream American politics, as politicians from George Wallace to Pat Buchanan blamed minorities and immigrants for declining blue-collar wages. It was only in the aftermath of the Great Recession that the Great Con achieved true national power. The Con, sitting at the core of MAGA-like movements in wealthy nations where the status of dominant majorities is being shaken by demographic and technological shifts, is based on a simple promise: If only We can find Them (immigrants, racial and gender minorities and elites of all sorts – academic, cultural, economic, political, urban elites) and stop Them, We, the real (fill in blank: Americans, British, Germans…) can return to the glorious past.

The Great Con flourishes because neither mainstream progressives nor conservatives really know how to address an economy changing more rapidly than at any time in history.  Progressives work to recycle social programs that worked for 20^th century industrial economies while conservatives seek to time warp back to an even earlier mythological age of laissez faire economics. Neither paradigm deals with the utter disruption of 21^st century post – and, with the rapid emergence of AI, post-post-industrial societies.

At least progressives and conservatives share a common faith that adopting their policies would result in positive change for people. The hucksters of the Great American Con, like all great conmen, could care less about people, seeing them only as a source of power to exploit. But today’s political conmen have a problem: having launched their con, they can’t easily take the money and run. Just as their ilk did in the 1920s and 1930s, their only endgame is to ride their con either to infamy or permanent power – the inevitable authoritarian payoff.

You can’t con someone unless they want to be conned. As long as Americans lack the resolve to grapple with the fundamental consequences of unprecedented revolutions in technology and economics and, instead, continue to look to the cheap fix of blaming others, we will remain mired in the Great American Con. But the American Dream is a dream of hope. America is still, despite real problems, a beacon of possibilities across our planet. You don’t hear as much about people wanting a piece of the Russian or the Chinese Dreams (though with a baby born in Shanghai now projected to live 7 years longer than a baby born in Washington, DC, how much longer this will be the case is the great question of the 21^st century.) America can make itself Great for the 21^st century. But not if we continue to fall for our own con.

Der Beitrag The Great American Con erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

To take stock of the current global energy system, discuss the future of a German-Canadian partnership in energy security and sustainability, and assess Alberta’s unique role in particular, Atlantik-Brücke convened a roundtable featuring Pete Guthrie, Alberta’s Minister of Energy, Grant Sprague, Alberta’s Deputy Minister of Energy, Jerry Bellikka, Chief of Staff, Klaus Büttner, Managing Director of Alberta United Kingdom Office, and Julia Friedlander, CEO of Atlantik-Brücke.

Status Quo

Russia’s war on Ukraine revealed the deep dependencies inherent to global energy markets. Inflationary pressure continues to impact consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. With Canada being the fourth largest producer of oil and the sixth largest producer of natural gas in the world and Alberta being the country’s largest oil and gas producer, the province has the potential to be a key piece in the puzzle of replacing Russian energy sources. Central to the province’s strategy in providing a reliable stream of energy to customers in Canada and abroad is supplying energy while keeping in mind a multitude of environmental and social standards, like its carbon footprint and responsibilities to indigenous populations. This year, Alberta will be closing its last coal plant. Renewable energy currently makes up 20 percent of the province’s electricity mix. Alberta is committed to meet Canada’s federal emission reduction targets for 2030 and 2050, but a reliable base load of electricity is needed. Given these circumstances, Minister Guthrie called for pragmatism and described finding a balance between affordability and sustainability as the key goal for future energy sector strategies.

Emission Reduction Technology

As the largest producer of hydrogen in Canada, Alberta produces around 2.4 million tons of hydrogen annually. Alberta has developed a hydrogen roadmap to provide steady supply for provincial and global markets. Closely connected to the development of hydrogen as an energy source, the provincial government wants the exploration of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) technologies to be a part of that strategy. There are currently two large-scale CCUS projects in Alberta. The Shell Quest Project situated near Edmonton which was opened in 2015 and the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line operating since 2019. Participants discussed the role of industry and government regulation to further emission reduction technologies. In this context, Minister Guthrie views industry as innovators that drive technological development and underlines the need to plan more collaboratively with industry and think tanks to achieve climate goals.

Infrastructure and Transport as Main Challenge

Aligning policy priorities of Alberta’s conservative provincial government with those of a liberal-led federal government poses challenges within the energy sector. While the federal government currently pushes for the development of green hydrogen, Alberta wants to focus on all available energy resources. According to Minister Guthrie, Alberta cooperates closely with British Columbia in the west and Manitoba and Saskatchewan in the east to establish energy corridors to move Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) among others. Common ground with the federal government could be found in tackling the lack of infrastructure to simplify Alberta’s access to national and global markets and transport of resources to customers. Here, the federal government could support Alberta in terms of energy grid, pipeline and railway infrastructure.

A Partnership Based on Shared Values

When asked about Chinas influence on the Albertan energy sector, Minister Guthrie referred to the example of the light metal Lithium, an indispensable component of any battery which plays a key role in sustainable transport and energy concepts. The market is dominated by Chinese companies and even though the raw material is available in Alberta in great quantities, there is little possibility to circumvent China in the supply chain. This case exemplifies an underlying reoccurring problem in global supply chains where business decisions are above all based on price points. Against this backdrop, participants agreed that shared standards and values should weigh more heavily into the choice of suppliers. Applied to the energy sector, this approach has the potential to catalyze existing strong German-Canadian relations into a stable and sustainable energy partnership.

Der Beitrag The Potential of a German-Canadian Partnership in Energy Security and Energy Transition erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

For the past decade, the tech sector in the US has enjoyed explosive growth. During the Covid-19 pandemic, people’s daily lives were forced to move online, and tech companies like Amazon and Meta/Facebook doubled the number of employees to keep up with the surging demand. Profits and stock valuations soared.

But as the pandemic lifted, the highflying tech sector has been brought down to earth. Company expansions ceased, and even began to shift into reverse. Massive layoffs have ensued. According to an industry layoff tracker, the tech sector eliminated more than 220,000 jobs during 2022.

That reversal has continued in 2023. Amazon has announced 18,000 more layoffs, Microsoft is slashing by 10,000 and Google by 12,000, 6 percent of its workforce. Yahoo will lay off 20% of its workforce, Zoom 15 percent, Salesforce 10 percent and the Musk-ified Twitter has cut 50 percent of its employees. If all the laid-off tech workers formed a city, it would be bigger than Pittsburgh, Newark or St. Louis.

The layoffs often come in a ruthless manner, sometimes via middle-of-the night emails that leave employees with no chance to say goodbye to coworkers. And these numbers don’t include laid off contracted workers who often work overseas or laid-off foreign workers who have lost not only their income but also their work visas and face deportation if they cannot find another visa-sponsoring job.

Why have the most profitable Silicon Valley companies engaged in such staggering rounds of layoffs, one company after the other? The answer to that question is complicated and increasingly shrouded in controversy.

Are tech companies hitting reset?

The tech CEOs claim that we have entered a new economic reality, marked by supply chain bottlenecks, rising interest rates, high fuel costs, war in Ukraine and talk of a looming recession. According to this narrative, the companies have no choice because they overstaffed during pandemic-fueled hiring sprees, so now it is necessary to streamline operations.

“We hired for a different economic reality than the one we face today,” Alphabet/Google CEO Sundar Pichai said in his layoff announcement.

But most of these companies have been and remain enormously profitable. They are sitting on piles of cash that could be invested in new business lines and technologies that would preserve jobs or even create new ones. The US Commerce Department reports that corporate profits hit a record $2.1 trillion in the third quarter of 2022. Meanwhile, the remaining employees are asked to do more work to keep productivity high.

And while inflation remains elevated, recession has not yet struck the United States. Recent economic predictions are less dire, and in fact the US economy added hundreds of thousands of new jobs in December.

…or are CEOs covering for other business goals?

So what are the true reasons for these massive job cuts? Increasingly a number of experts question the validity of what the companies are saying. Other data points seem to indicate that the executives are using the current economic situation as cover for other unstated business goals. These include:  1) to weaken labor power within their companies, 2) to increase their companies’ stock price by engaging in stock buybacks and employee layoffs, and 3) to pivot toward new AI-focused technologies that will require fewer employees with different skill sets.

Let’s look at each of these in turn.

During the pandemic and even before, when tech companies were hiring at a fast pace, employee salaries hit record levels as competition raged for the top talent. Stories of extravagant perks were highlighted in the media. Labor shortages meant it was a relatively pro-worker market.

Things have changed dramatically.

“Controlling labor costs via periodic layoffs is like breathing for Silicon Valley: cyclical and necessary for life,” says Malcolm Harris, author of the new book “Palo Alto: A History of California, Capitalism and the World.” The layoffs, Harris says, have “very little to do with long- or even medium-term strategy except as it pertains to cultivating an insecure workforce.”

Indeed, there have been growing efforts by tech workers to organize into labor unions. A subset of Google employees formed the Alphabet Workers Union, Amazon workers have organized in several locations, Instacart workers voted to unionize, and Microsoft workers at subsidiary ZeniMax formed the first certified union ever to be recognized by the company. Tech workers at Kickstarter, the New York Times, Code for America and several other companies have formed unions.

Following Google’s announcement of mass layoffs, more than 1000 employees joined the Alphabet Workers Union. One of the first things that the AWU did was set up Slack and Discord channels where laid-off workers could connect and share information. The Discord channel reportedly has 18,000 users.

This organizing activity intensified after 2015, when Apple, Google and other tech companies agreed to pay a $415-million settlement after a lawsuit alleged the companies had colluded to keep pay low with a “non-poaching” agreement between CEOs. All of this worker consciousness and growing mobilization has been of increasing concern to the bosses of Silicon Valley. Firing masses of people in such an overbearing way seems designed to instill a sense of fear and precarity into those who still have jobs. It wouldn’t take explicit and illegal collusion for company CEOs to realize that if they all copy each other and lay off workers at the same rate, conditions become more favorable for the companies.

Stock buybacks and layoffs:  two sides of the same coin

Related to this is the sudden rise in stock buybacks, which increase a company’s attractiveness to investors by boosting its stock price.  After suffering dramatic declines over the past year in the valuation of their equity positions, tech CEOs are obsessively focused on reversing this trend. The tech companies aren’t using the money saved from laying off workers to keep the company afloat or invest in capital projects. After announcing $17 billion in earnings in Q3 2022, Google used almost all of it to buy back its own stock. Meta announced plans to purchase $40 billion of its own stock after laying off 11,000 workers. These stock purchases do nothing to increase productivity — they merely boost the company’s stock price and line investors’ pockets.

Indeed, even the announcement of layoffs can send a tech company’s stock price skyrocketing because it signals to investors that the company’s executives are serious about disciplining workers and driving wages down. The morning that Google announced its layoffs, its stock climbed by 3.5 percent. Meta/Facebook’s stock, which collapsed by 63 percent in 2022, has zoomed 35 percent since the start of the year after announcing its mass layoffs.

Until 1982, equity buybacks were illegal in the US and considered a form of market manipulation. But a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruling under the Reagan administration gave companies free reign to buy back stocks. The massive cost of these stock buybacks alone would have paid the salaries of every laid-off worker for decades.

The task of the CEOs, then, seems to be to cultivate an atmosphere in which workers are too scared to organize and investors start investing. CEOs seem determined to mold their remaining employees into an intimidated, compliant and disposable workforce. That allows the company executives the labor flexibility they prefer.

About the same time that Microsoft laid off 10,000 employees its executives also announced plans to invest $10 billion in OpenAI, the creators of the hot new chatbot application ChatGPT. That sum equates to $1 million per laid-off employee. Apparently the fastest way to save money for investments is to lay off employees, and potentially use AI to replace some of these workers with responsive software.

None of the companies have stated that automation is a driving force behind the layoffs and stock buybacks. But it’s not farfetched to conclude that these are the real business reasons at the heart of these puzzling decisions. These policies offer a chance for company execs to hit “reset” on their business model with a smaller, more compliant work force that is more focused around the latest company priorities.

Steven Hill is publisher and chief author of DemocracySOS and is the author of “Raw Deal:  How the Uber Economy and Runaway Capitalism Are Screwing American Workers.” You can reach him @StevenHill1776

Der Beitrag Disruption in the US Tech Sector: Layoffs, Stock Buybacks, and Business Plan Pivots 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..

By Dirk Nowak

This year’s U.S. delegation trip shone a spotlight on the energy industry and energy policy in the United States. The selection of the stops – Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Freeport, and New Orleans – underlined this focus. In addition to discussions with politicians, the agenda included talks with leading representatives from the energy industry, such as Apache, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Kinder Morgan, Noble, Tellurian and Williams. In particular, an evening reception hosted by Cecilie Rohwedder and Paul Horvath in Houston provided ample opportunity for exchange – including insightful conversations late into the evening, for example with Dr. Paul Achleitner. The breakfast event on “Texas – Ninth Largest World Economy: Hub for the Global Energy Industry” highlighted the importance of the region and reflected how Texans see their energy industry. Our discussions were supplemented by two tours of the Driftwood LNG terminal currently under construction by Tellurian, one of the leading U.S. LNG exporters, and the Toyota plant near Houston.

Texas and Louisiana have shown consistently strong support for the energy sector. The political and economic representatives from Texas were very interested in energy investments from Germany – not only in the oil and gas industry, which has been dominant for decades, but also in renewable energies. Few people interested in energy in Germany might have known before our trip that (West) Texas is the largest electricity producer for wind energy in the US. In fact, Texas produced 29% of the total U.S. wind energy in 2020 – many would probably have thought of California or a state in New England instead.

Both Texas and Louisiana are major energy-producing states in the U.S. with a diverse mix of energy sources. In Texas, the main energy sources are oil, natural gas, and coal. Texas is the largest oil producer in the U.S. – the exchange-traded oil grade WTI stands for West Texas Intermediate – and a major natural gas producer, encompassing extensive upstream, midstream, and downstream activities, i.e., exploration and production, transportation, and storage, as well as further processing of natural gas. Texas, more specifically ERCOT, the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, has a stand-alone electricity market that is largely deregulated and does not have a capacity market. In 2021, enormous electricity price volatility occurred during storm Uri, necessitating a Public Utility Commission-mandated price cap of $9,000 per megawatt-hour (MWh) (which was lowered to $5,000 per MWh in late 2021). Although Texas is home to a number of coal-fired power plants, coal-fired generation has been declining for several years due to increasing competition from natural gas and renewables. Texas and Louisiana are very well positioned to become future hydrogen hubs due to their geographic location, infrastructure, and renewable energy sources.

Louisiana is home to several nuclear power plants and is a major producer of oil and natural gas; for example, the Henry Hub, the major distribution hub of the natural gas pipeline system, is located in Louisiana. The state is also a major producer of wind and solar energy. Both Texas and Louisiana supply oil, gas, and numerous petrochemical products to other U.S. states. Thus, they are major players in the U.S. energy market and contribute significantly to U.S. energy security.

Particularly through fracking and shale gas development, the U.S. became a net energy exporter in 2019 and has built significant LNG infrastructure with a number of LNG export terminals. Texas and Louisiana are demonstrating, through large investments by private companies in LNG infrastructure totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, that LNG can be more than a short-term bridge technology. Although it is sometimes argued that LNG infrastructure expansion could complicate the transition to renewables, it has been clear since the Ukraine war at the latest that LNG imports are essential for Germany’s and Europe’s security of supply.

As early as 2011, Germany’s nuclear phase-out after Fukushima was completely misguided, as base load electricity generation must be available if CO2 emissions are to be reduced through the extremely important expansion of renewable technologies. Even before the Ukraine war, Germany had to use coal-fired power plants much more intensively to compensate for the loss of nuclear power with high CO2 emissions as the result; not to mention the one-sided energy policy dependence on Russia.

What are the key lessons learned from the trip?

In contrast to Europe and Germany in particular, the USA has clearly recognized the national security and economic benefits of energy independence and has implemented supportive measures. Significant investments in new technologies from fracking to renewable energy to energy transportation infrastructure have enabled the U.S. to become a net energy exporter in 2019 for the first time in more than 60 years. Significant advances in fracking and horizontal drilling techniques have allowed U.S. companies to cost-effectively extract large volumes of oil and natural gas from shale formations that were previously nearly inaccessible. In addition, the U.S. has made significant progress in expanding its renewable energy base. The country is a leading producer of wind and solar energy and has made significant investments in research and development to promote the (cost) efficiency of these technologies.

Not least for this reason, the USA – already a reliable trading partner for many decades – is an increasingly important LNG supplier for Germany. Thanks to new energy production technologies and significant investments in LNG infrastructure, the U.S. can supply LNG to Germany and Europe cost-effectively. While it goes without saying that it is important not to create new unilateral dependencies, significantly increased cooperation including investments in the U.S. can be very attractive for German companies – also taking advantage of the Inflation Reduction Act – to at least geographically diversify the energy mix. Thus, having the U.S. as a proven, long-term partner through LNG imports in the German and European energy mix to fill German gas storage facilities, especially in the fall of 2023 and beyond, seems extremely sensible.

What should Germany and Europe do differently in their energy management from America?

Due to geographic and geopolitical differences, access to oil and gas in particular, Germany must certainly pursue a different strategy than the USA. For example, it cannot aim to become a net energy exporter. Rather, Germany must aim to make its energy mix as efficient as possible and ensure independence from individual energy-exporting countries. An important step along this path has already been taken: Germany has made significant efforts to expand the use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power as part of its transition to a low-carbon and energy-independent economy. In doing so, Germany has advanced the use of renewables at a much faster pace than, for example, the United States. Furthermore, Germany has made great strides in reducing its energy consumption through the use of energy-efficient technologies. Here, the USA still has some catching up to do.

What should be done now?

From my understanding of the energy policy and energy landscape in Germany and Europe, there are a number of measures that should be considered to support the transition to a more sustainable energy system:

• Further expanding the use of renewable energy sources and increasing energy efficiency:

These measures are certainly obvious, based on the motto “do more of what you do well.” After all, Germany has made substantial progress in the use of renewable energies and in energy efficiency in recent years. Nevertheless, further investments in renewable energies and more energy-efficient technologies are the most effective ways to minimize energy consumption and even make it significantly greener.

• Promoting forward-looking new technologies and infrastructures:

Hydrogen in its various colors, as already detailed in my presentation on the role of hydrogen at Atlantik-Brücke’s Energy Talk in Berlin in October 2020, represents an important element of Germany’s future energy strategy. Biogas and carbon capture and storage are also becoming increasingly important.

Investment in research and development can help drive the development and deployment of new energy technologies and infrastructure, such as distributed generation, advanced battery storage systems, and smart grids, which can support the transition to a more sustainable energy system.

Finally, fracking can also be an option by leveraging classic German strengths such as high engineering expertise, innovation, and sustainable improvements to overcome negative environmental impacts and reduce energy dependence.

• Developing a comprehensive energy policy:

Germany and Europe should develop a comprehensive, long-term energy policy that takes into account the full range of available energy sources and technologies, as well as the economic, social and environmental impacts of various energy choices. To achieve a meaningful transition to a low-carbon energy economy, measures taken so far fall short. They are often designed to carry favor with voters in the near-term as opposed to thinking through long-term challenges. In this context, I recommend Prof. Wolfgang Reitzle’s speech at Motorworld on December 5, 2022, on electromobility, which can be viewed on YouTube.

Overall, Germany and Europe must take a holistic approach to energy management that takes into account their specific energy needs and challenges and works toward developing a diverse and sustainable energy mix. International cooperation and partnerships across continental borders are absolutely essential for this. This once again underscores the social, economic, and political value-add that international forums such as those offered by Atlantik-Brücke can and must provide.

Der Beitrag Towards a more sustainable energy economy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The questions they set out to answer are: How can we expand the partnership across the Atlantic in the face of a multitude of crises? How do transatlantic partners deal with the Russian threat over the long term? How do we jointly meet the challenge posed by China? And what security risks does climate change bring?

In addition to this analytical look at transatlantic relations, the book also focuses on the heart of the partnership: personal encounters. At the end of the book, we take the reader on a visual journey through the history of Atlantik-Brücke and of European-American relations.

Read the book here.

Contents:

Sigmar Gabriel: “Returning to a World that has Clear Rules”

Amrai Coen & Martin Klingst: “My America, Your America”

Thomas Bagger: “Democracies of the Future”

Anand Raghuraman: “A New Bridge from Asia to Europe”

Julia Friedlander: “America’s Zeitenwende”

Christiane Hoffmann: “Crossing Borders”

Friedrich Merz: “An Alliance with a Future”

Chelsea McKelvey: “Overseas”

Veronica Escobar & Michael Werz: “A Wall is No Solution”

Elisabeth Zerofsky: “The Best of Both Worlds”

Norbert Röttgen: “The Strength of the West”

Mayra Guadalupe Cedano Robles: “A More Inclusive Conversation”

Erin Sikorsky: “A Threatening Climate”

Hans-Gert Pöttering: “With the Very Best Recommendations”

Volker Berghahn: “The Gateway to the World”

Timeline: Visual Journey through the Decades

Der Beitrag “Here to Stay” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

70 years of Atlantik-Brücke are cause for celebration, but also for reflection. How can we strengthen transatlantic relations in the face of multiple crises? What are the greatest challenges we must face together? How can we complement each other? And how can we continue the close friendship and partnership that has grown over the past decades for generations to come?

Der Beitrag 70 Years of Atlantik-Brücke erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The fellows of Atlantik-Brücke’s New Bridge Program add new ideas and viewpoints to the transatlantic debate. In this video, Catt Phan, a communications manager from Fountain Valley, California, shares her experience as a Vietnamese immigrant, talks about what she hopes to take away from the New Bridge Program, and elaborates on how traveling abroad has changed her perception of herself as an American. Coming to Europe has been enlightening she says: “Even when I am challenging the status quo in America and pushing for more social change, I am also humbled by the idea that I am a representative of the United States.”

With its New Bridge Program, Atlantik-Brücke seeks to garner interest in Europe among more Americans, spark new ideas and continue to build a strong transatlantic community. The driven young Americans that visit Europe on an intensive 10-day study program are raising important questions, enriching the dialogue and advocating change, while getting a chance to immerse themselves in Germany’s and Europe’s social, foreign policy, business and cultural debates.

Der Beitrag “In Europe, I’m automatically the American. That switch has been really enlightening.” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

A focus of the discussion was the changing security landscape, which, in large part, is due to Russia’s attack on Ukraine. This has represented a “sea change” for Finland. The war has also had a profound effect on Finnish public opinion, a country that shares a more than 1,300 km-long border with Russia: whereas previously around 30% of the population was in favor of joining NATO, this number has since increased to almost 80%. One of the crucial strengths that Finland would have to offer NATO as a member state are the country’s military capabilities, chief among them hardware and artillery, as well as a large military reserve.

Furthermore, partly due to the increasing geopolitical significance of the Arctic, Finland is also faced with greater expectations and stressors than before. The importance of technology and the possibility of Swedish and Finnish 5G-manufacturers being more closely aligned with NATO were also discussed.

Another question was concerned with how Finnish civil society thought about the war and support for Ukraine. The high degree of solidarity in Finland with Ukraine and a commitment to support Ukraine was stressed.

The topic of energy independence was also brought up, and the concerns many Finns still have despite the country’s new nuclear plant, intended to reduce Finnland’s reliance on energy imports.

We would like to thank Microsoft for hosting the event and for the kind support.

Der Beitrag On Board! Finland and the New NATO 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..

Der Beitrag Current annual report erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

[toggle title=”Introduction to Transatlantic Relations”]

(by Frank Bi, Director of Tools and Technology, Star Tribune, Minneapolis)

As expected of a transatlantic study program, the airport served as the backdrop that bookended our experiences through the New Bridge Program. Our cohort of nine met at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C. Longer introductions yet to be, we were off to the races and shuttled to our first event as soon as all our checked luggage was collected off the airport conveyor belt.

The swift transition from a long flight to the home of Atlantik-Brücke board member Michael Werz set expectations with the cadence of what we could anticipate for the next 10 days. Over a lovely dinner in the backyard, Werz imparted upon us the significance of our trip – not only were we traveling to Europe at a historic time, but we were also going to meet with leaders who have dedicated their careers to nurturing transatlantic relations and preserving democracy. He helped us understand that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has massive implications for all of Europe and the world. We spent the remainder of the evening getting to know each other and other guests, including program alumni and German officials who happened to be in Washington for the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group.

The next morning, the tempo picked up again as we “fit a semester’s worth of transatlantic relations” into three hours, thanks to an energetic seminar from Dr. Joyce Marie Mushaben, adjunct professor at the BMW Center for German and European Studies at Georgetown University. The seminar broadened our historical perspective and prepared us to get the most out of our time in Europe.

A lunch reception at The Army and Navy Club also helped to prepare us for the journey ahead. Hosted by Dr. Jan Grünhage, Acting Deputy Chief of Mission at the German Embassy in Washington D.C., we mingled with German natives working at the embassy as well as with representatives from the New Bridge Program’s partner organizations.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Media Tour”]

(by Frank Bi, Director of Tools and Technology, Star Tribune, Minneapolis)

The program afforded us opportunities to see German media at work from two perspectives – how German media covers the U.S. for the audience at home and how German media covers Germany for non-German audiences.

At ARD in Washington D.C.’s Georgetown neighborhood, we toured the D.C. Bureau of Germany’s public-service broadcast network. A studio tour provided the intricacies of television and radio journalism, and a Q&A with journalists and other staff at ARD gave us insight into how they approach their work in a foreign country while reporting to an audience at home.

In Berlin, we visited the headquarters of state-owned international broadcaster Deutsche Welle and met with veteran journalist and presenter Pia Castro and colleagues. Along with questions surrounding the process of reporting in Germany and the work that Deutsche Welle does abroad to broadcast German and global issues through a German perspective, Castro also gave us leadership advice and talked about being a Latina, originally from Argentina, in Germany.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Learning about the Holocaust”]

(by Alyssa Llamas, Policy Director, Wynne Health Group)

Before departing for Europe, we visited the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, a sobering experience that deepened our understanding of the dark, yet important, history of Germany and the legacy of the Holocaust. We wandered through the exhibits, each with an identification card describing the experience of a person who lived in Europe during the Holocaust, following along what happened to them during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany and the start of World War II (1933 to 1939), during the war years and in concentration camps (1940 to 1945), and their ultimate fate (1945). The following quotation by Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor who spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, resonated with many of us:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

At the German Historical Institute Washington (GHI), one of the fellows, Marifer, facilitated a debrief of our museum visit, where we further discussed the danger of complicity – not only during the Holocaust but also at present, particularly in regard to public policies and sentiments that continue to harm historically marginalized communities in the United States. We also met with two historians at the GHI, Dr. Axel Jansen and Dr. Richard Wetzell, and engaged in a lively discussion on how learning about historical events can help us better understand and respond to current issues. A major takeaway from the Holocaust exhibition was seeing how the gradual turn of events, starting with the boycott of Jewish-owned businesses and antisemitic propaganda, resulted in the systematic mass murder of European Jews and other groups, including people with disabilities, Sinti and Roma, and gay men. The Holocaust was not an overnight phenomenon; rather, it was a culmination of rising anti-Semitism over multiple years. On that point, Dr. Wetzell encouraged us to “watch for the beginning,” because major atrocities often have humble beginnings; it is incumbent upon us to watch for, and act upon, these foreboding signs.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”European Union 101″]

(by Alyssa Llamas, Policy Director, Wynne Health Group)

Besides our knowledge of the euro and the relatively seamless ability to travel from one country in the European Union (EU) to another, many of us were generally unfamiliar with the EU. Roland Freudenstein, Vice President and Head of GLOBSEC Brussels, educated us on the “founding fathers” as well as the principles and treaties of the EU that serve as its basis for economic and political integration. We also learned about the institutions of the EU and their distinct roles in policymaking. The voting system of the Council of the European Union, which requires a qualified majority for most issues and unanimity on sensitive matters, such as foreign and security policy, was particularly eye-opening. The discussion with Roland left us with a more curious perspective on how different democracies operate and, of course, a greater appreciation for the euro.

After our EU 101 session, we toured the European Parliament in Brussels, an exciting first for the New Bridge Program. Before entering the building, we all observed the blue and yellow of Ukraine’s flag fluttering alongside the flag of the EU and its 27 member countries – a symbol of EU solidarity with Ukraine. We had a Q&A session with Tim Peter, a staffer of Bernd Lange, Member of the European Parliament and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats. He explained the intricacies of the European Parliament. On our way out, we stopped by the European Parliament Plenary, where the 705 Members of the European Parliament debate and vote on legislative proposals. The large booth for interpreters reminded us of the cultural and linguistic diversity of the EU, which makes all materials available in its 24 official languages. With language access critical to engaging in the democratic process, we were impressed and inspired by the EU’s prioritization of translation services.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Conflict in Ukraine and NATO’s Role”]

(by Alyssa Llamas, Policy Director, Wynne Health Group)

The conflict in Ukraine was top of mind and a part of nearly all of our conversations with the people we met throughout the trip. Ahead of our visit to NATO Headquarters (HQ), one of the fellows, Chris, briefed us on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, including the events leading up to the attack, more recent developments, and NATO’s involvement. The opportunity to go to NATO HQ, the central nervous system of the Alliance, at this moment in time, was not lost on any of us.

Nick Nguyen of the NATO Archives Unit toured us around Headquarters and briefed us on its history. We learned that the building was designed to resemble interlaced fingers as a symbol of NATO’s unity and cooperation. Among the many historical documents and photos, we viewed Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, providing the principle of collective defense, which invoked greater significance for us amid the Russia-Ukraine war. We also walked through the atrium of NATO HQ, a magnificent space where we could see offices, the North Atlantic Council meeting room, and the special entrance for and office of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Our group met with three experts from the Joint Intelligence & Security Division at NATO HQ – Agnieszka Blümel, Senior Analyst; Lt. Col. Jesus Reyes (US Army), Head of Middle East Branch; and Edward Wrong, Senior Analyst. We appreciated their open and candid responses to our many questions. They talked about their day-to-day activities as well as their process for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating intelligence. With the seemingly infinite amount of information received on a daily basis, they focus their assessment, or “running estimate,” on “reducing uncertainty,” explained Lt. Col. Reyes.

Unable to resist a unique photo opportunity, we all grabbed a snapshot striking our best power pose at the former desk of the NATO Secretary General. Like any delegation visiting NATO HQ, we also took photos with the flags of NATO and its 30 member countries and the NATO Star sculpture.

Our time in Brussels concluded with a dinner discussion on transatlantic security and defense with Ambassador Julianne Smith, United States Permanent Representative to NATO, at her official residence, Truman Hall. We were joined by Richard Holtzapple, Deputy Chief of Mission; Sergeant Derek Landers, U.S. Military Delegation Representative; and Jesse Shaw, Assistant Information Officer. Over an exquisite three-course meal, we discussed the role of NATO in Ukraine from an American perspective and the importance of mentorship and diversity in the workplace. Ambassador Smith talked about the personal impact of being mentored by Madeleine Albright, the first woman to serve as U.S. Secretary of State, as well as her experience as a woman in national security, a field mostly dominated by men. Whether any of us will pivot towards a career in the U.S. Foreign Service remains to be seen. However, the surreal experience of dining with Ambassador Smith and other American diplomats certainly opened our minds to the possibilities of a career in foreign policy, not just for us but also for our communities at home.

In Berlin, we met with Ambassador Boris Ruge, Vice Chairman of the Munich Security Conference and former Deputy Chief of Mission at the Germany Embassy in Washington, D.C. He explained the Russia-Ukraine war from a German perspective and how Germany’s history has influenced its foreign policy. We also discussed the Munich Security Conference and its increasingly comprehensive view of security issues, such as the connection between food security and political stability, as well as the implications of COVID-19 and other emerging infectious diseases.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Climate Change”]

(by Frank Bi, Director of Tools and Technology, Star Tribune, Minneapolis)

Climate change was a central theme of the program, and our range of speakers offered various perspectives on this global issue. From representatives at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin to young activists, we received a holistic view on the impacts of climate change through a German lens, including implications of the Russia-Ukraine war.

At the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, we heard from Dr. Martina Kohl who explained how they are getting young Germans and Americans to adopt new perspectives on the environment by encouraging habits to combat climate change and to further understand the issue. We were also given a perspective on Germany’s dependence on energy sources, from nuclear energy at home, to gas from Russia, and what the future holds for the country. The visit to the U.S. Embassy was capped off by a meeting with Dr. Amy Gutmann, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, who answered our many questions and offered her leadership advice to the cohort.

Over a dinner of schnitzel, we further discussed climate change with activists Helena Marschall and Henrike Cremer of Fridays for Future. In this conversation, we heard first-hand the challenges they faced along with the strategies they developed to overcome them. The conversation also led us towards a deeper discussion of how our different cultures act in the face of the biggest issue of our time. Their commitment and their work to spread awareness about climate change and the environment at their young age was inspiring for all of us.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Germany’s Political System”]

(by Alyssa Llamas, Policy Director, Wynne Health Group)

As we walked through Berlin, Alina, project manager of the New Bridge Program, pointed out that each of Germany’s 16 states had a representation in the city. In our meeting with Dr. Matthias Roßbach, Head of Coordination of Federal and European Policy and International Affairs at the Berlin Representation of the State Chancellery of North-Rhine Westphalia, we learned that the physical presence of Germany’s states in Berlin and their proximity to federal offices illustrate Germany’s political system. Dr. Roßbach explained “cooperative federalism” in Germany, which entails state governments, represented in the Bundesrat, actively participating in the federal legislative process. This concept was quite intriguing, especially in contrast to the federalist system in the United States.

The modern architecture in the government district of Berlin was impressive. The relative newness of the German Chancellery and Reichstag Parliament building reminded us that German reunification happened just over 30 years ago. We learned that the buildings’ glass facades are intended to symbolize political transparency, a cornerstone of postwar Germany. We toured the German Bundestag and climbed the glass dome of the Reichstag, which offered a stunning 360-degree view of Berlin. From the glass dome, we looked into the plenary hall below, another symbol of the German government’s openness to citizens.

Our group met with two members of the German Parliament and the Alliance 90/The Greens party – Tessa Ganserer and Omid Nouripour. In a pre-meeting briefing, fellows Anthony and Anna shared highlights of their careers and achievements. Ms. Ganserer, one of the first two openly transgender people to be elected to the German Parliament, has been a vocal advocate for transgender and LGBTQ rights. She shared her campaign experience, including running under her deadname (or birth name) in protest of the longstanding German law requiring a person to obtain a medical certificate in order to legally change their name and gender identity. Mr. Nouripour, who fled from Iran to Germany with his family at the age of 13, leads the Alliance 90/The Green Party. We talked to Mr. Nouripour about different issues within the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, including migration policies for Ukrainian refugees versus Syrian refugees and energy policies related to Germany’s current reliance on Russian gas.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Germany’s Dual Education System”]

(by Frank Bi, Director of Tools and Technology, Star Tribune, Minneapolis)

Thanks to a thorough briefing on Germany’s dual education system by fellow Jeff, we were prepared to visit Aurubis, Europe’s largest copper producer and recycler. Headquartered in Hamburg, we met young Germans who were enlisted in a vocational apprenticeship at Aurubis as an alternative to a full-time academic education. The young apprentices told us about their mix of on-the-job training and time in the classroom. For apprentices at Aurubis, this also meant time abroad at a university in the United States.

From Aurubis, we headed to an apartment above the Hamburg State Opera for a lunch hosted by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr. Sabine Kunst, Chairwoman of the Joachim Herz Foundation. There, we also met Darion Akins, U.S. Consul General for Northern Germany, who gave advice on leadership and consulted with members of our cohort on starting careers in the U.S. Foreign Service.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Dinner Discussion on Diversity and Anti-Discrimination in Germany and Europe”]

(by Frank Bi, Director of Tools and Technology, Star Tribune, Minneapolis)

Diversity in Germany was markedly different than our view of diversity in the United States, something we noticed early in the program. We learned that the Federal Statistical Office – Germany’s version of the U.S. Census Bureau – only differentiates between Germans and foreigners in its survey because of Germany’s history of using this data for evil. Another perspective that stood out was how the German Chancellor is most frequently gendered as a woman because of young Germans who have only ever known Angela Merkel as chancellor.

From an American perspective, it also stood out how German birthright citizenship is not as clear as it is in the United States. A child born in Germany is only granted citizenship under certain conditions. This, along with learning about historical migration from Syria, Turkey – and most recently Ukraine – helped us understand what it means to be German in Germany.

We met with Ouassima Laabich-Mansour, PhD Candidate at the Free University of Berlin, and Project Manager at Superrr Lab at LAWRENCE in Berlin Mitte, a Middle Eastern restaurant with a workforce composed mostly of employees with refugee background. Laabich-Mansour was also one of the few people of color that our cohort met in Europe. In a private dining room (that doubles as a gallery showcasing contemporary art illustrating migration and globalization), we chatted with Laabich-Mansour about a whole range of topics. She shared her lived experience in Germany – such as being a student in the dual education system, interacting with law enforcement, and working in the community.

[/toggle]

[toggle title=”Exploring Brussels, Berlin, and Hamburg”]

The packed schedule of the New Bridge Program included dedicated time to explore Brussels, Berlin, and Hamburg. Chelsea, one of the fellows, led our tour through Brussels, which entailed enjoying local delicacies, such as Belgian fries, waffles, and beer, and buying lots of chocolate to bring home. Many of us also sprang at the opportunity to eat moules-frittes (steamed mussels with fries and mayonnaise), the national dish of Belgium. We visited several landmarks, including La Grand-Place, a large square with buildings mostly from the 17^th century, and Palais Royal de Bruxelles, the royal palace of the King and Queen of Belgium.

Hannah, our American tour guide who fell in love with Berlin, walked us through the city, recounting major historical events at different stops along the way. We gazed at Brandenburg Gate, reflected at the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, “jumped over” where the Berlin Wall once stood, and stared into the eyes of Checkpoint Charlie at the former border crossing between East and West Germany. Our food adventure continued with Berlin specialties – currywurst and döner kebab – as well as delicious Georgian and Sudanese cuisine, highlighting the cultural diversity of Berlin. We also rode the U-Bahn (or perhaps, it was the S-Bahn) to further soak in the sights and culture of Berlin.

By high-speed train, clocking over 200 km/h, we traveled from Berlin to Hamburg, a major port city in northern Germany. In addition to visiting the Aurubis Factory, we toured the streets of Hamburg, a bustling city juxtaposed with architectural marvels from different eras. We also learned about Hamburg’s colonial history. Before our ride back, we grabbed Franzbrötchen (a sweet cinnamon pastry from Hamburg), pretzels, and other snacks for the train.

On our walk from the train station to the COVID-19 testing site (for U.S. entry requirements), we saw signs directing Ukrainian refugees to the welcome center, a white tent decorated with Ukrainian flags – another reminder of the war, its devasting impact on Ukrainians, and German solidarity with Ukraine. As for getting tested for COVID-19 (at a hotel for free), the easy process available 24/7 entailed scanning a QR code, registering, getting our nose swabbed, and receiving our results by email within 15 minutes. Fortunately, we all tested negative.

[/toggle]

Der Beitrag „A semester’s worth of transatlantic relations in one week“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

You can find a pdf of the survey results >here.

“The State of Trust and the US-German Partnership: A Transatlantic Survey” was released on the occasion of the 2022 German-American Conference hosted by Atlantik-Brücke and the American Council on Germany.

The study, surveyed a total of 4,000 Americans and Germans – nationally representative of their respective general populations – to understand their confidence in the stability of the US-German partnership, their attitudes towards the role of government and business to restore trust in democracies, and their views on global challenges facing both countries.

The survey was jointly commissioned by the American Council on Germany and Atlantik-Brücke, both in their 70^thanniversary year. It was conducted by the opinion research institute Edelman Data & Intelligence (DxI) and underwritten by Allianz SE.

Key findings include:

• Trust in the transatlantic partnership is high in both nations. However, American participants have greater trust in the Federal Republic of Germany and its institutions than vice versa. (Business: USA 58% / GER 51%, Government: USA 55% / GER 54%, NGO’s: USA 55% / GER 51%, Media: USA 53% / GER 44%).
• The vast majority in both countries (USA 70%, GER 75%) believe that the partnership is needed today more than ever and plays a crucial role for stability in the world.
• While American participants are more optimistic on the partnership and believe its best days are ahead (USA 55% vs. GER 46%), positive scores in each country are mostly driven by younger generations, particularly Millennials in the US and Gen Z in Germany.

A United Defense

Survey participants recognize that the foundations of the partnership are rooted in its military and defense alliances (USA 74%, GER 76%), with trade and commerce also being foundational (USA 74%, GER 79%). The pooling of military resources is a top priority for nearly 30% of American participants and 39% of German participants. 

The response to the war in Ukraine and the actions of the relatively new administrations in the U.S. and Germany have helped to strengthen trust in the partnership.

Prioritizing Climate, Jobs, and Democracy 

There is alignment that addressing climate change is a current top priority (USA 31%, GER 39%), though more American participants say economic growth and job creation should be the future focus (42%), when asked to choose among a list of top three priorities. By contrast, an overwhelming number of German participants view climate change as the top priority of the future.

Strengthening democracy is a core common value. In Germany, it is the second biggest priority, only behind addressing climate change. For Americans, it is the second biggest priority, only behind economic growth and job creation. Defining and articulating a common view on democracy will only further strengthen trust between the two nations.

The data reveals opportunities to demonstrate how addressing climate change can benefit economic growth, create jobs, and in turn stabilize and strengthen democratic societies.

Business Competence and Long-termism Build Trust

Participants in both countries report positive perceptions of each other’s business competence and reliability.  Trust in businesses is built on three pillars: historic trade relationships, high perceptions of the quality of the products and services delivered, and the ability to innovate. However, for Germans, differing views on free trade undermine trust in US businesses, and a lack of confidence to regulate fairly and transparently was the leading source for Germans’ distrust in the US government.

The majority of respondents expect governments and businesses to co-lead the partnership and continue to build trust with transparency and a focus on long-term, shared goals that balance both economic growth and climate responses.

Next-Generation Optimism

The survey found that men, older and more affluent groups are generally more trusting of the partnership. Notably, however,  a majority of younger Americans and Germans, especially Millennials in both countries, expressed trust in the partnership (Millennials in both USA and GER 69%).

Der Beitrag “The State of Trust and the US-German Partnership: A Transatlantic Survey” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Russia’s war against Ukraine will have consequences extending far beyond the European Union and our country’s security and defense policies. In fact, this war is the most visible and tragic proof to date that the world is in a dramatic process of change. The Old Order, forged by the momentous events of two world wars originating in Germany and Europe and designed first and foremost by the United States of America, is losing its power to shape global events. This “Wilsonian era” began at a time when China, India and the African nations were still referred to as “third world countries” and looked down upon by the paternalistic old European powers, and the USA.

[related]Those countries have long since evolved into more than merely cheap marketplaces serving the economic interests of their former colonial rulers. And justifiably so, because the Indo-Pacific nations alone represent around 60 percent of the global population, generate 60 percent of global GDP, and are responsible for around two-thirds of global economic growth. Since the establishment of a free trade zone Africa, too, has been showing the first signs of geopolitical confidence. The former European colonial regimes are largely responsible for the failure of decolonization and, for many years, their former colonies in Africa were unable to find an answer to their problems.

A tectonic shift of global power axes

We are contemporary witnesses to a tectonic shift in our world’s power axes – a shift that is affecting both economic and political powers, and models of social organization. The Euro-Atlantic region is no longer the single global center of gravity today; it competes with the Indo-Pacific region. We are nearing the end of a European age spanning some 600 years in which Europe has been the origination point for global developments, both good and bad. Enlightenment, colonialism and slavery all have their roots in Europe. European technical revolutions and economic upheavals have shaped the world, and even though China certainly had the potential to have a similar impact, it chose protectionism instead. Then two world wars plunged Europe into chaos and America became a European power despite a distance of several thousands of miles separating the two continents – partly because of experiences in the first half of the 20th century. Pax Britannica was replaced by Pax Americana, with the United States stepping up to play an important role in protecting Europe from itself and replacing Great Britain as the Western guarantor of international order. It was a very convenient arrangement for Europe as a whole and especially for Germany, because we were able to focus on building a strong economy and society. With the exceptions of France and the United Kingdom, Germany and the rest of Europe evolved into soft powers that believed economic ties could help them achieve the integrative outcomes they sought. But what happens when Europe’s integrative strategy clashes with a diametrically opposed, confrontational strategy like Russia’s, and a country that is willing to accept significant economic disadvantages in order to expand its geopolitical power base? Up to now Europe has been able to count on the support of the USA as the leader of the free world, and President Biden’s willingness to clash with a foreign power on European soil in the interest of transatlantic relations.

In the long run, however, we may not be able to take that support for granted because the United States of America were first to recognize and put a name to the global power axis shift. George W. Bush was the first U.S. President to call his country a “Pacific nation” and Barack Obama coined the term ”pivot to Asia”. The change of perspective associated with the shift in the political and economic power axes is rooted in a second westernization process in the USA, which has permanently moved the population center towards the Pacific. The rising power that is China has long been seen by the USA as its main rival for global influence and economic strength. The United States no longer believes itself capable of being both the world’s leading economy and a globally indispensable nation. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East, from Afghanistan and – if Ukraine hadn’t been invaded – also from Europe, happened so that America could focus on its rivalry with China. At the same time, it symbolized the end of the Pax Americana era in which, at least since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States had deployed overwhelming power to shape and direct global events. We have now reached a “turning point in history”.

But what will the new world order look like? What principles will it be founded upon and who will ensure they are upheld? It is still unclear what the new world order can or should be. U.S. political scientist Ian Bremmer coined the phrase “G-Zero” to describe a post-Pax Americana world with an absence of clear leadership and no “hegemon” or guardian of international order: A volatile world with multiple pivot states.

We only have think about how our leaders deal with global crises to realize how much the world has changed in the space of just a few years. At the apex of the financial crisis in November of 2008 the G20 quickly and efficiently reached consensus on a crisis strategy. There has been no such meeting – if you discount online formats – to discuss a collective strategy for beating the coronavirus pandemic. Although we face an increasing number of issues that can only be resolved by international collaboration – the pandemic, climate change and the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology – it seems that we are losing our ability to act collectively. We aren’t even capable of establishing a common understanding of the status quo and the associated challenges, let alone agreeing upon and coordinating necessary political measures.

Turning point: geopolitics replace geoeconomics – hierarchies regain dominance over networks

The next decade will be characterized by various nations vying for influence in a new global order. And the outcome may not be what we Germans and the majority of Europeans are expecting because having the economic advantage is no longer the single deciding factor. In fact, the age of geoeconomics is being replaced by a new age of geopolitics. Power interests will supersede economic strength as the “currency” of international politics. Potential political power gains and geopolitical influence on the creation of a new global order are more important than the economic advantage of an efficient, conflict-free global economy based on the division of labor. Geopolitics is replacing geoeconomics. Russia views western sanctions as a kind of “superpower tax” that has to be paid in order to be an architect of the new global order.

Yet global power competition is also fundamentally defined by a new dominance of hierarchies over networks. According to Niall Ferguson, major historical episodes can be interpreted as conflicts between networks and hierarchies. The first phase of globalization after the dawn of the industrial age was followed by the first world war, which meant a setback for the hierarchies. In the decades that followed the networks gradually gained in strength, despite some setbacks, until they achieved widespread dominance after 1989.

Globalization is a phenomenon that creates networked economies based on free trade in goods and services, capital mobility and risk exchange, knowledge diffusion and information sharing, migration and human capital mobility. Networks are to some extent anarchic systems because they are fundamentally unstable and draw strength from weak, non-institutional and liberal connections. The political power hierarchies, whatever their constitutional status, perceive that as a latent threat. This explains why conflicts within societies resulting from perceived or real weaknesses in hierarchies often play into the hands of radicalized political powers – conflicts such as the ones we have seen in the USA (Trump), France (Le Pen), and the United Kingdom (Brexit).

After a lengthy phase of constantly accelerating economic globalization and increasing external and foreign influence, the turning point is characterized by an emerging dominance of hierarchies. In domestic policy it is represented by a shift in the political spectrum, and in foreign policy by emerging nationalism (America First) and competition between world powers. Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine is part of this process to the extent that Putin perceived the emerging dominance of hierarchies as a chance to restore his nation’s superpower status in the transatlantic West – particularly in light of the domestic policy conflicts and tensions in western democracies.

Until now two world powers have dominated the geopolitical arena: China and the USA. The war in Ukraine is likely to be Russia’s attempt to elevate its status to that of a superpower in the new world order, especially since it is taking place in a region called ”Eurasia” in Russia. With the USA so focused on its domestic policy divisions, its own affairs, and competition with China, Russia saw a good opportunity with calculable risks to flex its muscles in Europe again.  Even NATO was recently described by a European head of state as “brain dead”, and Europe is afflicted by both a north-south and an east-west divide. In this context, Russia’s war is more a reflection of the transition to a new era than its cause. However, Russia made a number of assumptions that have proven to be incorrect. NATO is more united than it has been for a very long time. The USA and President Joe Biden have stepped up again in their role as a “European power” and the people of Ukraine did not react with the restraint to be expected in this “post-heroic age”. Instead, they have been willing to sacrifice much, even their lives, for their country’s freedom.

As a result of the Ukraine war, Russia will be reduced to a shadow of its former self. Instead of increasing its influence in Europe, it will lose that influence altogether. All that will remain is an economic, political and military cooperation with China – although Russia will be in a position of dependency rather than an equal partner. As an economic partner it will lose status by having to take a technological step backwards, and in the framework of progressive global decarbonization, there will be a permanent degeneration in value of the country’s natural resources. An historic slump in prosperity seems unavoidable and, even if the political regime does change, by then Russia will be lagging so far behind in terms of technological capability that it will take decades to establish a new prosperity base.

China’s position on the war in Ukraine and the Chinese COVID-19 strategy are a related puzzle.

The Chinese leadership initially appeared to be observing the Ukraine war with a certain gratification. After all, its old rival Russia – and sparring partner in violent border conflicts during the second half of the 20th century – had seemingly fallen into its lap like a “ripe fruit”. At the same time the USA’s renewed involvement in European affairs took its focus and attention away from the Indo-Pacific region, making it easier for China to pursue its maritime interests there. This could also explain why China initially seemed disinterested in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

However, although the Ukraine war initially seems to offer advantages, these could quickly turn into a significant risk. More than anything else China is dependent on the continuous growth of its economy. Even though the vast Chinese population, with 1.4 billion citizens, offers immense growth potential, China remains a nation that can only achieve its dream of prosperity for all through global trade in goods, services, and technologies. In recent years, despite increasingly obvious ideological regression and the centralization of political power in one person’s hands for an unlimited term, the Chinese leadership has managed to hold on to its political dominance by promising the comprehensive completion of a moderately prosperous society in return for the lack of democracy and human rights. There are indications that this promise will be replaced by a pledge to achieve an historic victory over the coronavirus. In return Chinese citizens have to live with extreme restrictions on elementary freedoms and accept shortages of basic supplies, even the citizens of the supposedly more liberal city of Shanghai. It is impossible to foresee the end of China’s lockdown policy because the country has a low vaccination rate and less effective vaccines. So the historic victory can only be achieved through permanent isolation, such as has been imposed by the quarantine rules.

The anti-COVID-19 strategy that China is propagating as the only possible way forward, as well as its position on the Ukraine war, are prompting people to ask themselves if China can still be depended on as a partner in international relations and in the global division of labor. There have already been some quite dramatic consequences of the Ukraine war. Since the war began there has been an unprecedented capital outflow as foreign investors turn their backs on China and, in Shanghai, for example, 85 percent of foreign specialists want to leave the country. It seems increasingly likely that this fits in with the dual circulation strategy – to boost domestic consumption and lower dependency on exports – in conjunction with the concentration on the Indo-Pacific economic partnership (RCEP). However, it doesn’t mean that Chinese globalization is coming to an end; it is simply changing regional direction. China’s regional divergence, lack of social capital, capital market inefficiencies, and ageing population mean it has to continue to be a dependable and calculable global economic partner in order to strengthen its own economy and develop the economic regions where it hopes to exert its influence.

Global trade has been thrown into disarray by the Ukraine war. There have been dramatic consequences for Africa, a continent dependent on supplies from both Russia and Ukraine, and the food security crisis there has worsened. This development certainly doesn’t serve China’s interests on the African continent and, on top of that, parts of the “New Silk Road” from China pass through Russia to Europe. Sanctions and counter-sanctions are likely to render these trade routes impassable for a considerable time. On a more general note, the massive global economic disruptions cannot be in China’s interest either. Anyone following the energy independence debate will have soon realized that it is associated with a general call for de-globalization. Even though deglobalization may seem unrealistic for Germany, a country more closely intermeshed in the international value chains than any other, except China, the country that will be most affected by debate on re-shoring and decoupling is China.

With that knowledge, it is difficult to understand why the Chinese leadership is not attempting, at least externally, to adopt a “neutral position” on the war in Ukraine. The Chinese leadership interprets the Ukraine conflict as a “proxy war” between the USA and Russia in which China does not want to take sides. However, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is actually more about a breach of the minimum standards of international law, one of those being that no nation should be permitted to launch a military attack on a neighboring country.

Russia is violating China’s foreign policy principles

The war being waged in Ukraine isn’t “just” a conflict between “the West” and Russia, nor is it a “proxy war” between the two “old” superpowers. Essentially, the issue at stake is whether a country – in this case Russia – should be permitted to breach one of the main pillars of international law and get away with it unpunished. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also violates the United Nations Charter, which is a very important document for China. The Charter codifies the principles for international relations that were fought for so hard in early modern Europe’s Thirty Years War: the non-intervention in domestic affairs of another country, and the sovereign equality of all countries under international law, irrespective of their size or internal constitution.

Fundamental principles of international order have been violated. To uphold a stable international order the powerful nations and global institutions, particularly the UN and its Security Council, must be able to guarantee the common principles of: territorial integrity, national sovereignty, the non-use of force, and the resolution of conflicts by negotiation and treaties. The People’s Republic of China has always emphasized that these principles are an important part of its foreign policy because a stable and peaceful world order is central to the realization of the “Chinese dream”. Or could it be that China has set its sights on defining, realigning, and securing its sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific region? That would mean the beginning of bi-polar globalization.

Russia has brutally violated all of the previously mentioned principles with its invasion of Ukraine. However much the Chinese view of this conflict is shaped by its own antagonisms with the United States of America and its former allies, the violation of these fundamental principles cannot be in the interest of the People’s Republic of China.

After all, 141 countries attending the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand a prompt end to Russia’s military operations in Ukraine. And, even though China, India, and South Africa abstained from voting – as did 31 other countries – this is the biggest ever majority vote on such an issue.

The United Nations’ clear position on Ukraine poses crucial questions for China, a country whose history and international image is closely linked to the United Nations General Assembly. A resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in 1971 recognized the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations, even though the USA and other nations voted against it. From then on the People’s Republic began to cultivate its international influence.  This, too, is reason alone not to go against the UN’s unequivocal decisions.

Russia’s war against Ukraine not only violates the principles of international order that are so crucial to China’s continued development, but also directly violates the Chinese interests because China imports raw materials and technologies from Ukraine. The war in Ukraine will also stop exports to other countries for some time to come, which will cause famine in parts of the world that are dependent on the World Food Program (WFP) and are also China’s partners.  So it is in China’s own best interests to deploy and build its “soft power” and “public diplomacy” efforts. Past examples of China’s positive interventions in crisis situations include its handling of the Asian economic crisis at the end of the 1990s, and the global financial crisis of 2008. In other words, it has plenty of experience that it could be putting to better use.

If China were to assume a more proactive role in easing the conflict or, at least, in achieving a permanent ceasefire, it would have a far better chance of securing significant reputation gains – measured in terms of previous strategies for economic development and political positioning – and this would fundamentally change and improve its opportunities for closer economic and political collaboration, particularly in Europe. Until the Ukraine war is stopped, European-Chinese relations, especially German-Chinese relations, will suffer because Chinese “neutrality” is interpreted in Europe as tolerance of Russia’s aggression.

China has every right to exert influence on the global order. It has long since evolved into one of the global economic and political powers, a status that comes with certain responsibilities. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China has co-responsibility for global stability and peace. It should be ready to exert that influence and shoulder the responsibility, even when it is inconvenient.

China and Germany are the main beneficiaries of globalization

Germany and Europe should also avoid becoming too complacent in their dealings with China. Despite all our efforts to make our economies more resilient and pursue a diversification strategy in South-East Asia, decoupling ourselves from China is not in the political or economic interests of Europe and Germany. We can never put a country with a population of 1.4 billion under a kind of “house arrest” and Europe should be taking geopolitical advantage of its influence over China, however moderate it remains in the long run. Bearing the Chinese leadership’s COVID-19 policy in mind, all efforts should be restricted to exploring the scope for future cooperation – not least in order to discover whether and to what extent it is associated with a fundamental change in the political program.

Germany could play an important role in this respect  because China and Germany both have developed economies with integrated (i.e. reciprocally dependent and supportive) industrial value chains. The two economies differ in terms of their main industries, their pace of innovation, and their business culture, and they have very clear divergences in regional development, as well as differences in other areas. Nevertheless, both economies are fundamentally based on access to raw materials and energy, and export-oriented. For that reason the two countries, their economies, and their companies are interested in free market access, including the secure supply chains on which the international division of labor is based. In the last 30 years China has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of globalization, but so has Germany – in fact, Germany is the biggest beneficiary in the developed world.

Germany’s exchange of goods and services with China is very important for both countries: in terms of the continuous growth in volumes in recent years and the quality of the integrated value chains. In 2021 the European Union exchanged goods in the value of around EUR 695 billion with China (around EUR 472 billion EU imports and around EUR 223 billion EU exports). In that same period Germany exchanged around EUR 245 billion in goods with China (almost EUR 104 billion exports from Germany and almost EUR 142 billion imports from China). Modern-day globalization – the globalization of supply chains – has created dependencies for all participants. We have to remember this, because the disruptions caused by Russia’s war against Ukraine give the impression that the dependencies are the problem and that unbundling and de-coupling is the answer when, in actual fact, unbundling and de-coupling would have a negative impact on prosperity and limit action capabilities in the transformation to climate neutrality. However much we call the Chinese strategy into question, we face the unavoidable challenge of finding a cooperation formula that works in this maze of contradictions and conflicts of interest. The failure of the simple concept of “change through trade” doesn’t necessarily mean that isolation and self-sufficiency are the answer.

Despite all the cultural and historical differences between China and Germany, they are both strongly integrated into the international division of labor and value chain. So perhaps we should be considering China’s history, culture, and social development to a greater extent rather than focusing exclusively on disassociation and exclusion. It is certainly possible, as is evident by recent developments in South-East Asia, despite serious political and security policy conflicts.

Is Europe being sidelined?

On January 1, 2022 the RCEP entered into force, creating the world’s largest free trade zone. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership presents Europe with one of the biggest challenges it has yet faced. The new free trade zone encompasses around 30 percent of global domestic product, 30 percent of the world’s population and 30 percent of global trade. The European Union, which also represents around one-third of global trade, looks set to be overtaken by the RCEP in the near future. The RCEP comprising Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Chinaand the  ASEAN states, which are all very different nations, was established to explore and realize common economic opportunities. The deal was signed despite many of the nations being involved in tough political conflicts, which are evident by the political and, in some cases, military tensions of recent months. What can Europe learn from this?

Firstly, the process of economic globalization and international division of labor always has and always will be a regionalization process involving regional markets that are in line with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. These markets are gaining in significance, not least due to the need for resilient supply chains and regional integration, which is why they have gained a lot of momentum over the last 25 years (Article 24 GATT unites the idea of regional trade agreements with the concept of a global order). One impressive example of such a trade agreement is USMCA, which replaced NAFTA, the former trade agreement between the USA, Canada and Mexico, or CPTPP, a trade agreement that the Obama administration was keen to push through, which went ahead during the Trump administration without the USA. The United Kingdom and China have now applied to participate in membership.

The EU has still not ratified a negotiated trade agreement with Mercosur, the common market of South American nations, and the CAI, an investment agreement that doesn’t cover trade issues negotiated with China in December 2020, has been put on ice. Even the most modern and progressive trade agreement in the world between the European Union and Canada, CETA, has not yet been fully ratified by all EU Member States in the last five years – one of those being Germany. The Europeans have always been fixated on social and ecological standards. This is the reason why the free trade agreement between the EU and the USA failed. Europe tends to view itself as the measure of all things and forget that European standards were established in a step-by-step process and not in one giant leap. Increasing differences between Member States as a result of its expansion to include very different countries, as well as the pending new memberships, are diluting the EU’s future powers of negotiation.

We may not need a new European entity (as recently suggested by President Macron), because that would never work, but the EU does need to focus on its essential functions and issues: democracy, rule of law, the common market, currency stability, infrastructure networks, the investment union, and the defense union. These are the strong foundations of civil society and democratic institutions on which the EU could base a more modest negotiation strategy that helps it to mobilize the benefits of open markets. Instead, we are seeing obvious and disconcerting egocentricity on the part of the European Union and some of its Member States. They appear to believe that the sun revolves around our planet and especially the continent of Europe, even though the 500 million Europeans only account for a bit more than 5 percent of the global population.

Perhaps the EU representatives should engage with Australia and New Zealand for a change. Both countries are developed democracies. Both countries have firm security partnerships with the USA, and both are RCEP signatories. Australia and New Zealand also have significantly different positions on China – relating to policy, security policy, ecology, and many other issues. However, these two countries are also “close”, and not just geographically speaking. They practice a value-based Realpolitik in an attempt to achieve alignment, explore new options, and make fundamental differences of opinion “manageable”.

And what about the USA? Although the confrontation with China has become a focal issue in U.S. foreign (and domestic) policy, there is no talk of “decoupling” from China. Only 10 percent of U.S. companies have cut back on their business with China. 50 percent are still doing the same level of business and 40 percent have actually increased their level of business. The United States is now planning to supply American climate protection technology to China so that it can step up its climate protection efforts. Last but not least, the USA closed a deal with China a few days ago making the USA China’s second-largest supplier of liquid gas behind Australia.

Striking a new balance: confrontation, competition, cooperation

For a while now the USA and China have been focusing on relativizing three areas of their relations: confrontation on the issues of human rights, Taiwan, and the freedom of international maritime traffic, competition on the issues of innovation, economic success, and technology,  and cooperation in global challenges such as the battle against COVID-19, climate change, and the control of nuclear weapons, which can only be achieved together. They have not yet struck the right balance of confrontation, competition, and cooperation, but this is an objective of both U.S. President Joe Biden and the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping.  However, it would be fatal for Europe if these efforts were based on a silent consensus to focus on the U.S.’ and China’s respective spheres of interest rather than having a global focus.

If that happens, the EU could easily be sidelined. Supply chains would shift, with products from the new RCEP economic area having a distance advantage and a cost advantage, because they would be exempt from customs duties. Machines and electrical goods, optical and IT products, vehicles and their parts – which are manufactured in Japan, South Korea, or China – would have it “easier” than they did in the past. Products originating from the EU would lose some of their competitiveness. The existing free trade agreements between the EU and Japan, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea will not change that, nor will the ongoing negotiations with Australia, New Zealand, or Indonesia.

It would be better for all sides to stop the spiral of reciprocal sanctions that are currently blocking the further ratification of CAI because both sides – the EU and China – would gain a great deal, despite losing out on some fronts. It would be possible to apply CAI rules without ratifying it – which is what happened with the EU-Canadian free trade agreement.  This is about more than an economic strategy and economic policy that makes good sense. It is also about building trust in a new economic framework and political process to exploit common opportunities  This new political process is in the global interest, not just the interests of the two sides involved. No global challenge, be it climate change, weapons of mass destruction, peace or terrorism, can be effectively overcome without China or even against China.

The EU should manage its own interests more effectively, particularly by being more focused and not attempting to Europeanize every single issue. Germany and France, but also other Member States are called upon in this respect. The work of the Trade and Technology Council (TTC) which was established last year as a replacement for the investment and trade agreement between the EU and the USA, which was looking increasingly unachievable, has begun to take shape and step up pace. Despite being a poor substitute for a trade deal, the TTC shows the joint actions that are possible, involving specific issues that are in the interest of both nations such as the transformation to renewable energy, chip manufacture, and the regulation of artificial intelligence. At the end of April this year the EU and India established a similar council. The underlying idea, which is a bit like setting up debating clubs to discuss specific topics, could also be an approach to reshaping and adding more substance to the cooperation with China.

The European Union should also be more flexible when it comes to incorporating standards in trade agreements if it wants to achieve a realistic solution that isn’t beyond any of the other partners’ reach. It would definitely be worth Europe’s while to try a new approach. What is the use of being strong on rules and standards, but having a weak grasp of reality when it comes to economic and industrial policy? The potential is there. Europe just has to leverage it. The world will not wait for Europe, but it would lose many things without Europe because Europe is the only place where everything that typifies the modern world works: minority-resistant democracy, a society capable of integration, and an innovative, transformative market economy. It is a club of unpredictable democracies.

Der Beitrag In Search of a New World Order erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Der Beitrag Julia Friedlander named as Atlantik-Brücke’s new CEO erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

There is a growing sentiment among analysts that Germany’s new government, after a shaky start, has found its footing on the European stage. The story, in this telling, is one of redemption. In the early stages of the Ukraine crisis, Germany’s new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, appeared taciturn and equivocating. But when it mattered most during trips to Washington and Moscow this month, Scholz delivered convincing, at times emphatic, performances. In the span of a few weeks, so the narrative goes, Scholz steadied his image and that of his government. “Germany is back,” announced one headline last week.

[related]Alas, while Germany has gone back, the world has moved forward. After three decades, the post-Cold War era of globalization, underwritten by American power, has given way to a confrontation of competing blocs, most jarringly between Russia and the West. By now it is plain to see that Russian President Vladimir Putin views himself in an advanced stage of conflict with the West.

That conflict is defined at present by hard power. Putin has issued a military challenge of Europe, and in the process has caught Berlin mostly unprepared. For all its economic strength and multilateral ideals, Germany has proven unwilling to exert leadership in the area that now matters most: the defense of Europe.

If U.S. defense capabilities must be diverted to check Russia in Europe, Washington will be stretched thin

Traditionally, the United States has assumed this responsibility. But Russia is not the only challenger the West faces today. The rise of China is occupying more American attention by the day, making it urgently necessary for Germany to relieve the United States in Europe. If U.S. defense capabilities needed to deter China in Asia must be diverted to check Russia in Europe, Washington will be stretched thin. As the most influential, prosperous, and powerful country in Europe, it is up to Germany to take the baton.

Germany has been slow to grasp that it is in the midst of a conflict

To date, however, Germany has been slow to grasp that it is in the midst of a conflict. The new government has framed a further invasion of Ukraine as a choice between war and peace, as if Putin has not already made his decision. After the invasion of Georgia, annexation of Crimea, conflict in Donbass, blockade of Ukraine, intervention in Syria, and manifold hybrid attacks across the West, including the use of chemical weapons in the United Kingdom, can anyone honestly say that Putin is interested in partnership or peace?

In fact, Russia’s stated demands in the present crisis are so outlandish that they are best understood as a pretext for invasion. Indeed, the steady stream of Western leaders, Scholz included, who have traveled to Moscow in recent weeks have not met a counterpart interested in problem-solving or off-ramps. Instead, Putin has exploited the attention to extol himself as a leader without peer while seizing on their desire for de-escalation to weaken Kyiv. Only since his military buildup began, for example, have Western leaders so regularly and publicly made clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table for the foreseeable future.

Germany requires regular “coaxing” to stand strong on the current sanctions package

The grim reality is that the next act in Putin’s war against the West is coming to Ukraine. The U.S. and Germany should be levying widespread sanctions against him now, not waiting until after military operations have begun. Instead, the U.S. national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, recently briefed congressional leaders that Germany requires regular “coaxing” to stand strong on the current sanctions package—measures which will only come into effect after an invasion anyway.

No matter how the coming days and weeks unfold, Putin’s absorption of Belarus alone should give NATO leaders pause. Just as it makes little sense to wait until after Russia launches a further incursion into Ukraine to sanction Putin, it is foolhardy to wait for the encirclement of Kyiv or Odessa to contemplate the upgrading of NATO’s presence in the Bucharest 9 states of Eastern Europe. The greatest deterrent to Putin is strength. It is the only message that can truly stop war.

Olaf Scholz and the traffic light coalition took power with ambitious plans to modernize Germany in discrete areas, from digital policy and climate change to the global minimum tax, which the chancellor personally negotiated while still finance minister. Vladimir Putin has now shot a hole through those plans. For the sake of the West, Scholz will have to lead Germany into a more confrontational posture toward Russia, including by upgrading Germany’s military. That will take much more effort than any press conference or television interview in Washington or Moscow. If he succeeds, however, Scholz would go down as a chancellor very much worth celebrating.

Peter Rough is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., and an Alumnus of Atlantik-Brücke’s Young Leaders program. The contributions of our guest authors reflect their opinions and not necessarily the position of Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag Germany needs to protect Europe erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was once asked what had been the primary influence on his government when he held office. His response was: “Events, dear boy, events.” We are reminded of this as we watch tensions flare over the Russian troop build-up along the border with Ukraine and the international response.

Governments are always confronted with unforeseen events, and these can serve as catalysts to shape policies and positions, but they can also be a litmus test of leadership. Barely 50 days into office, the new German government has been confronted with its first stress test – and its response has raised doubts about whether Germany is a reliable partner in facing international challenges.

With a transatlanticist in the White House who is committed to multilateralism, Germany has the opportunity to step up.

These events will provide the backdrop for Olaf Scholz’s first trip to Washington, DC as Chancellor, and the tensions with Russia over Ukraine will be at the top of the agenda when he meets with President Joe Biden. With a transatlanticist in the White House who is committed to multilateralism, Germany has the opportunity to step up. After weeks of waffling, this will be a chance for Germany to show leadership and commitment to the common cause. Germany cannot be complacent in the face of Russia’s instigated crisis on Europe’s doorstep.

With more than 100,000 Russian soldiers on the border of Ukraine, full-scale war is once again possible in the center of Europe. This should be impossible. The United States, together with Germany, France, and the United Kingdom has conveyed to Russia that an invasion would carry a very high price, but also that it remains committed to diplomacy. Russia cannot doubt that the West is open to dialogue – indeed, this is one of the two pillars of NATO: deterrence and the defense of member states’ freedom and security, along with a conduit for cooperation and dialogue. While Ukraine is not a NATO member, western allies believe firmly in any European nation’s sovereignty.

While Ukraine is not a NATO member, western allies believe firmly in any European nation’s sovereignty.

It is important to remember that the Ukraine crisis is not new. There has been an ongoing war since the spring of 2014 and the Russian incursions into the Donbas region and Crimea – but tensions between Russia and the West about Ukraine have been simmering for much longer than that. Russian President Vladimir Putin has seized the opportunity to drive wedges between partners in the West. But, instead his actions can serve as a catalyst to shift German public opinion (to see the threat posed by Russia) and shape the new German government’s policy toward Russia.

So, what can Germany realistically do?

Germany has done a great deal for Ukraine in terms of security and development. Since 2014, it has provided 1.8 billion US Dollars in economic aid and supported rule of law and anti-corruption programs for Ukraine. Jointly with France, it leads a diplomatic effort to resolve the Russian-Ukrainian issues called the Normandy format. As a member of the European Union and its largest financial contributor, Germany has financially supported the Ukrainian government since 2014 with 17 billion Euros.

Due to its history, Germany is restricted in its ability to deliver weapons. Berlin could immediately consider providing more than helmets – to show support for Ukraine. This could take the form of protective Kevlar vests, equipment for radio communications, as well as transportation and logistic support. However, there needs to be a frank and open debate in the Bundestag about the contours of German foreign and security policy – and the tangible contributions Germany is willing to provide in the future.

Rather than finger-pointing, a strong transatlantic partnership is built on trust and an unconditional willingness to strengthen cooperation, especially when the partnership is challenged or called into question.

President Biden and Chancellor Scholz need each other. This should give Germany political courage.

In Joe Biden, the United States has a president who, unlike his predecessor, is once again ready to unite and lead the world’s democracies. However, it needs allies in the face of 21st century challenges and volatility – and Germany and Europe also need the United States. Only together can they keep the world in balance while defending and strengthening the world’s democracies.

In short, President Biden and Chancellor Scholz need each other. This should give Germany political courage. Courage to represent its own view of things and to assume a role for Germany and Europe in the negotiations with Russia. Courage, however, also to respond to the expectations of the Biden administration that Germany be prepared to take on more responsibility for Europe’s defense.

The new German government can make a strong commitment to nuclear sharing and announce that it will buy American F-35 aircraft to prevent a looming capability gap until Europe’s own Future Combat Air System is operational. It can pledge to substantially increase German defense spending – but allocate a portion of these additional funds to strengthening the military operational capability of NATO members in Eastern Europe.

In light of the common challenges facing Europe and the United States, we need to come together and present a united front.

While in Washington, Scholz should also make very clear that Berlin is willing to use Nord Stream 2 as a bargaining chip. Russia (and the Soviet Union before that) has been a reliable source of gas for Germany for decades, but that is no longer assured. This crisis underscores that Germany must further diversify its energy supply chain – regardless of whether or not Nord Stream 2 goes online. Wavering on using Nord Stream 2 as possible leverage plays into Putin’s hand. Furthermore, it is worth considering that Putin may already have accepted that the pipeline might never become operational.

In taking such steps, the German Chancellor would move toward the United States and the hand that Joe Biden has held out to Germany for so long. He would put an end to the current blame game and lay the foundation for a constructive new chapter for transatlantic cooperation. Scholz would also deliver an important domestic and foreign policy win to Joe Biden, who could then say that he succeeded in achieving what no U.S. president has been able to do since the end of the Cold War by recognizing that Europe – and Germany in particular – is taking on more responsibility for itself and its defense. This would be courageous and wise: In light of the common challenges facing Europe and the United States, we need to come together, figure out how to address them, and present a united front. Hopefully, when Biden and Scholz meet, they will be able to find consensus and a path forward.

Sigmar Gabriel, former German Vice Chancellor and Federal Minister, has been Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke since 2019. John B. Emerson, former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, has been Chairman of the American Council on Germany since 2018. The German version of this article was published in the Tagesspiegel on February 5, 2022.

Der Beitrag Rebuilding Trust: How Germany Can be a Reliable Partner erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany John B. Emerson, Chairman of the American Council on Germany, and Chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke Sigmar Gabriel, former Federal Foreign Minister, spoke about the domestic and foreign policy priorities of Germany’s new government represented by the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Free Democrats. They analyzed the political handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, the international fight against climate change and the appropriate reaction to the tensions with Russia in the Ukraine crisis. Juliane Schäuble, U.S. Correspondent, Der Tagesspiegel, moderated the discussion. The event was held in cooperation with the American Council on Germany and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall.

Der Beitrag The priorities of Germany’s new government erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Crebo-Rediker, who specializes in international political economy, U.S. economic competitiveness, infrastructure policy, and women in the global economy, laid out thoughts for the way forward: “We share similar opportunities and challenges: opportunities to invest in our own people to make sure they benefit from the digital and climate transformations and large infrastructure investment we are undertaking, and ensure we do so in a way that represents common values and ambitions.” The economist reflected that while there may sometimes not be a consensus on how to tackle challenges between Europe and the United States, disagreements should not be seen as absolute: “How we proceed will not entirely synch across the Atlantic, but we should be able to resolve the differences. Likewise, our best success will come from addressing challenges together. Rising competition from countries that don’t play fair and pose a systemic security and economic challenge, in particular China, is front of mind in the US. It is in both our interests to protect each other from distorted markets, supply chain risks – especially in sensitive technology and materials – and shared vulnerabilities.”

After Ms. Crebo-Rediker’s remarks, Atlantik-Bruecke members and Young Leaders Alumni took the opportunity to discuss both the transatlantic relationship as well as the transatlantic partners’ approach to China with her.

Der Beitrag “China is front of mind in the US” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Joining the artist at the ceremonial opening were Atlantik-Brücke Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, as well as Atlantik-Brücke Executive Director David Deißner, German Ambassador to the United States Emily Haber, and EU Ambassador Stavros Lambrinidis. The patron of the artwork, the Plenipotentiary of the State of Berlin to the Federal Government and State Secretary for Civic Engagement and International Affairs Sawsan Chebli, human rights activist Kimberly Marteau Emerson, and former U.S. Ambassador to Germany John B. Emerson were also among the distinguished guests.

The sculpture of oversized letters combines the two words love and hate and invites a change of perspective: depending on whether you look at the artwork from the front or the back, you see the respective other word. Thus, “hate” becomes “love.”

The sculpture could also be seen as a symbol for transatlantic relations. According to Ambassador Haber, relations are “on the right track.” So after four rather tense years under President Trump, the two countries are getting closer again. However, Sigmar Gabriel stressed to German media outlet WELT: “When Joe Biden said ‘America is back,’ many of us thought it’s all back to the way it used to be. For all the unpleasant things in the world, we have the Americans and we can take care of ourselves. That time is over. America has long since turned toward the Indo-Pacific.”

The WELT report on the opening of the artwork in Washington, D.C. can be found here.

The grand opening was hosted by the European Union Delegation to the United States in cooperation with the German Embassy in the U.S. and the Golden Triangle. Atlantik-Brücke supported the launch as a network partner.

Der Beitrag Love Hate Sculpture unveiled in Washington, D.C. erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The Indo-Pacific is at the center of great power rivalry. Australia’s analysis of this strategic environment led to the country’s decision to join AUKUS. While AUKUS is of military nature, Ambassador Green stressed that Australia first and foremost pursues a diplomatic approach in the region with three aims: Freedom of navigation, freedom of trade, and freedom from the multitude of cyber-threats. In pursuing these aims, Australia strongly engages with its regional partners and supports solutions through multilateral fora like ASEAN and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue.

To balance China’s revisionist efforts to control and dominate the region, Australia does not only seek cooperation with its regional partners in the Indo-Pacific, but also with its natural liberal democratic allies. This includes Europe and Germany. Developing a stronger strategic interest and understanding of the region and making use of its soft-power leverage could well be beneficial for European interests. One example for such European soft-power export that was discussed were joint investment efforts into sustainable infrastructure and the production of vaccines in the region.

The discussion provided insights into Australia’s perspective on the dynamics in the Indo-Pacific – and how the region affects the transatlantic relations: “It is high time for Europe and Germany to develop a better understanding of the dynamics in the Indo-Pacific for the future of the transatlantic relations”, Sigmar Gabriel observed in his closing remarks.

Der Beitrag AUKUS – an Australian Perspective erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Hannah Helmke, Founder and CEO, right. based on science, and Laura Behrens Wu, CEO, Shippo, speak about the role of startups in digitizing society on both sides of the Atlantic and the challenges and opportunities that female founders face.

After hearing from both speakers about their experiences, the attendees discussed what needs to change in Germany for female founders to thrive. The participants came up with the following ideas and identified political requirements that should be put in place to better support female founders:

• German society is somewhat more risk-averse than in the United States, which is also reflected in the way investors operate. This risk-averseness makes raising capital challenging – especially for female founders. We need to enable a more risk-taking culture.
• It’s easier for men to raise venture capital than for women. It is not enough to encourage women to become startup founders, there also should be more initiatives to increase the number of female investors, so that there are women on the capital side, who can better support female founders.
• The accessibility of loans for female founders needs to be improved.
• Daycare should be made more readily available so that mothers can more easily rejoin the workforce.
• Another way to expressly encourage women in the startup world could be to offer tax benefits for female founders.

The discussion, which was part of the Female Digital Leaders Roundtable, was chaired by Angelika Gifford, Vice President Central Europe, Facebook; Member of the Board, Atlantik-Brücke. The Roundtable is co-hosted by Atlantik-Brücke and The GroUp.

Der Beitrag Female Founders on Challenges and Opportunities in the Startup World erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

I remember this situation very clearly because I had an Israeli friend as a guest in the Lower Saxony State Chancellery, with whom I wanted to celebrate my birthday on September 12. Of course, nothing came of it after the terrorist attacks in New York. We were sitting in my office when an employee rushed in and told us to turn on the TV. When we saw the live pictures, we thought it was some kind of disaster movie. When we realized that we had just witnessed these gruel attacks, we, like probably everyone else, sat front of these images, stunned and horrified.

In response to the attacks orchestrated by Al Qaeda, the U.S. and its allies invaded Afghanistan in October 2001; NATO declared an alliance emergency for the first time. Now, following the withdrawal of NATO troops a few weeks ago, the Taliban have immediately regained control of the country. What has the 20-year mission in Afghanistan achieved?

After the attacks, the UN Security Council approved a mandate for an international military mission in Afghanistan to dismantle Al Qaeda’s terrorist structures. That was a remarkable decision because it is normally very difficult to get veto powers like Russia, the U.S., and China on the same page in the UN Security Council. Following this decision and invoking the mutual assistance clause in Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, Germany also participated in this operation with its Bundeswehr. In sometimes heavy fighting with many dead and wounded, also in the Bundeswehr, it was finally possible to actually dismantle the structures of Al Qaeda and to eliminate its leader, Osama Bin Laden, in 2011. In this respect, the UN’s mission has been fulfilled. What the international military mission did not succeed in doing, and perhaps never could, was to engage in nation-building in Afghanistan by establishing democratic structures based on the model of Western societies.

The longer a war lasts, the deeper hatred and the desire for revenge dig into the souls of those affected. We see the result today.

The idea, of course, was not simply to leave the country to its own devices after Al Qaeda had been crushed, but to transfer it to reasonably stable state structures. Germany was one of the main proponents of this “nation building”. But as in Iraq, it became clear in Afghanistan that this idealistic approach could not be fulfilled. Anyone who asked the Bundeswehr soldiers and the police officers we had on the ground, was always reminded of the instability of this new “nation of Afghanistan.” This was truly no secret. Establishing a democratic society in almost medieval tribal structures proved impossible. There was simply a lack of democrats, however, especially among women and in large cities, many were very invested in democracy. But without the backing of international forces, they were unable to stabilize the country.

When, after a trip to Afghanistan in 2007, the then SPD chairman Kurt Beck expressed the conviction that it was also necessary to talk to the Taliban, he was laughed at, especially here in Germany. It would have been wiser to follow the advice he gave at the time and involve the Taliban. Of course, that would have been neither easy nor necessarily successful. But it would have given a chance to end the war ten years earlier. The longer a war lasts, the deeper hatred and the desire for revenge dig into the souls of those involved. We see the result today. And whether the new Taliban rule will not once again create a basis for international terrorism is an open question. There are parts of the Taliban movement that definitely do not want that, but there are also others who do.

Where do you see the greatest opportunities for countering extremism and terrorism today? What can the U.S. and Europe learn from each other when it comes to fighting and preventing the root causes of terrorism?

We are not helpless in the face of international terrorism, and recent years have shown that we are able to prevent attacks, at least here in Europe. But one thing is unfortunately also true: there is no such thing as absolute security, and attacks can also occur again. Not only by Islamist assassins, by the way, but also, as we have seen, by right-wing radicals.

The most important tool in the fight against fundamentalism and terror is a resilient and strong democratic society.

The most important tool in the fight against fundamentalism and terror is a resilient and strong democratic society. After all, the goal of these attacks is always to create chaos, in a perverse strategy aimed at shaking up democracy. The more stable our democracies are, the less terrorists can harm us. And, of course, it’s also about prevention: working with young people from the radical-religious milieu, better educational and advancement opportunities for young immigrants, breaking up radical Islamic mosque communities, and, of course, exchanges between intelligence agencies so that we know who is moving in our countries – something that we Germans view with skepticism and that is nevertheless necessary. Prevention and repression are two sides of the same coin in the fight against terror.

Der Beitrag “The more stable our democracies are, the less terrorists can harm us” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

General James Mattis, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, spoke at Atlantik-Brücke’s Young Leaders Conference 2021 via Zoom.

James N. Mattis is a retired U.S. Marine Corps four-star general who served as the 26th Secretary of Defense. During his more than four decades in uniform, Secretary Mattis commanded forces in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan after 9/11, and in the Iraq War in 2003.

From 2007 to 2010, he commanded the United States Joint Forces Command and also served as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. He was commander of United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013.

After his retirement, Secretary Mattis served as the Davies Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He co-edited the book, “Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military.”

Der Beitrag “Allies, allies, allies” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The significance of diversity in transatlantic exchange — with regards to ethnicity and race, but also differing professional backgrounds or regions within the US — has been largely overlooked. In order to establish long-lasting ties with the United States, however, it is essential that a broad range of voices joins the conversation between Europe and the United States. Our new program is therefore tailored to those young American professionals with little or no prior contact with Europe.

To create a program that is truly relevant and impactful, we cooperate with a network of experts. Atlantik-Brücke Chairman Sigmar Gabriel and Executive Director David Deißner travelled to Washington, DC, for a kick-off meeting with our partner organizations this week. The meeting was also an opportunity to reveal the initial findings of a qualitative focus group study conducted to learn about the interests and wishes of our target group.

The 10-day-program will be conducted multiple times a year. The delegation of participants will travel to Berlin and Brussels, where they will meet with high-ranking officials and decision-makers from critical sectors, visit key government, business, and cultural sites, and engage with their European counterparts, both professionally and socially. After completing the program, participants will be integrated into an alumni network with additional events and opportunities for continued exchange.

The participants, diverse professionals from all fields between the ages of 25 and 35, will be nominated by our partner organizations. The first two groups will be visiting Europe this fall. We are excited to connect with a new generation of Americans.

The program is co-funded by Germany’s Federal Foreign Office.

Der Beitrag Building the New Bridge Program erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Interactive Female Roundtable

with:
Claudia Nemat, Member of the Board for Technology and Innovation, Deutsche Telekom AG
Victoria Espinel, President & CEO of BSA: The Software Alliance; Head of Software.org: The BSA Foundation

Chaired by:
Friederike von Tiesenhausen Cave, Global Head of Public Affairs, Bloomberg LP; Member of the Board, Atlantik-Brücke

The event was held by Atlantik-Brücke in cooperation with The Group.

Der Beitrag Smart Cities: Introducing the Public Sector to the 21st Century erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Mr. Mattingly, before President Biden’s visit to Europe, he wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that he intended to “rally the world’s democracies” to “defend our values, which cannot be separate from our interests.” Is Joe Biden reuniting the West? 

Phil Mattingly: It’s certainly President Biden’s goal – no question about that. But it’s important to recognize there are levels to the effort. Yes, in the view of White House officials I’ve spoken to, the G-7, NATO and U.S.-EU meetings were a net success – perhaps even more so than they were expecting going in. But they are also clear-eyed that given their predecessor’s view on many of those long-standing allies – and most certainly the alliances themselves – it wasn’t exactly a high bar to clear. Biden cleared it just by showing up and reiterating his support for baseline elements (think Article 5, which no U.S. president ever questioned before the previous four years.)

A very deliberate and concerted effort to thrust the U.S. back into a leadership role led to some tangible outcomes.

But this isn’t a short-term effort – there’s a recognition that the West isn’t a monolith and on so many issues, be it China, or trade, or concerns with the U.S. domestic position, that it will take sustained focus for the entirety of their time in office to keep things together. Western allies spent a lot of time the previous four years weighing the reliance on the relationship with the U.S., the stability of it, the merits of maintaining it to the degree it has existed for decades. A positive nine day trip doesn’t wipe all of those issues away. I think Biden’s team knows that. That said, a very deliberate and concerted effort to thrust the U.S. back into a leadership role led to some tangible outcomes, whether on vaccines or a sharper focus on China, or starting to move to reverse or resolve certain trade issues, that U.S. officials believe are a good starting point for that effort.

Based on the results of the G7-, EU-USA- and NATO Summits: What can we expect for the transatlantic relationship going forward? 

I don’t mean to sound like I’m undercutting a point I made on the first question – that one trip doesn’t undo the prior four years or solidify a return to the prior relationship – but I do think this trip is a really solid model for what officials describe as what Biden’s approach will be in the years ahead. The general idea is to agree on the baselines that have been the bedrock for those alliances for decades, but seek to update them to match a more 21^st century approach (there wasn’t a lot of nuance in the signing of the new Atlantic Treaty document with Prime Minister Johnson before the G-7. It was the symbolic embodiment of this approach.)

So on areas of mutual agreement, the idea is to show a consistently united front and use that unity as leverage on challenges throughout the region – and beyond. On areas where there are disagreements, keep them behind closed doors and see if a middle ground can be agreed upon before anything spills out into the public that could undercut the relationship in front of competitors (that’s particularly prevalent on areas like trade and technology – there are differences there, but the goal is to seek to address them in a private, and diplomatic, manner.) The goal, as its been explained to me, is to maintain relationships to a degree where nobody is surprised by anything and issues can be addressed and resolved to the best degree possible behind closed doors.

Biden’s focus on China  brings about very real differences on how its rise should be addressed.

I do think, and this isn’t a secret, that Biden’s approach will lead to some natural tension – trade issues aren’t going away and Biden’s focus on China, while addressed in both the G-7 and NATO communiques, brings about very real differences in views on how its rise should be approached and addressed. That will be a constant issue that needs to be managed and addressed. But the process of drafting those communiques, while probably viewed as trite by normal people, is one that U.S. officials viewed as a positive development in the ongoing process to bring allies into unified approach. Will it ever happen entirely? No, and there’s no expectation it will – domestic equities for the various players simply don’t align perfectly on the issue…at all. But, like a lot of what we saw through those nine days, it’s a model of the general approach to come.

How is Joe Biden’s policy towards the United States’ allies greeted at home, after four years of a U.S. president with a decidedly antagonistic rhetoric towards Europe? How does the concern about the domestic political rift play into the Biden administration’s foreign policy?

It won’t be a surprise to anyone when I say it’s not a unified view, but overall the polling in the wake of his foreign visit has reflected solid majority support for the efforts Biden undertook. But there were certainly those who viewed Biden’s diametrically different approach to Europe as the U.S. wandering its way back into relationships that have been too one-sided (the long-stated view of Trumpism, to the degree that’s a defined approach.) That, however attractive to more populist strains domestically, is far from a majority viewpoint.

That said, and I think this gets to the second part of the question, Biden’s team is keenly aware of the very disconnect that made Trump’s view attractive – the idea that U.S. foreign policy was, to so many Americans, foreign. They didn’t see the benefits. They can’t tangibly point to why those alliances made their lives demonstrably better at home. Sure, it makes sense to those who have studied the post-war era and all of its elements. It is unquestioned by the vast majority of those who consider themselves foreign policy professionals. But one of the things Biden’s national security team has keyed in on is that in the wake of President Trump’s rise, that’s just not enough anymore. It is an animating feature of Biden’s diplomatic approach – this idea of making U.S. foreign policy work for the middle class. It sounds a little strange on its face, certainly amorphous, and to some degree it is still being fleshed out in terms of the policy approach. But a good roadmap of sorts comes from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report released in 2020 titled “Making Foreign Policy Work Better for the Middle Class.” A co-author of that report is the current national security advisor, Jake Sullivan.

The alliances that serve as the backbone of the West need to also show they can deliver for their populations.

From a more 30,000 foot level, I’d point to an off-the-cuff remark Biden made during one of his press conferences, which I’ve notated below, that really struck me and gets to the core of this question. He’s so upfront about his framing of this moment as one of “Democracy versus Autocracy” – and it’s not a communications strategy, by all accounts of his senior aides he genuinely believes it (with China by far marking the primary autocracy he means, but it broadly applies to various countries across the globe.) But in order to “win” the construct he’s laid out, he knows the U.S. – and other Western allies – needs to demonstrate it can still operate as designed. It’s the basis for the global minimum tax push, and the B3W initiative [the G7’s “Build Back Better World”, a global infrastructure plan as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative], obviously the vaccine distribution effort etc.

Biden said: “You know and I know they’re wrong.  But it doesn’t mean we don’t have to work harder than ever to prove that democracy can still deliver for our people. For the many who think things are changing so rapidly, democracies cannot get together and form a consensus to respond like autocrats can, but you know better than anyone that democracy doesn’t happen by accident.  We have to defend it.  We have to strengthen it, renew it.” (From the Remarks of President Biden to U.S. Air Force Personnel and Families stationed at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, June 9, 2021)

In that he means he needs to show the government can work on the domestic front – prove to those disaffected or disenchanted that pursuing the line of the last four years isn’t the most productive path. But he also means the alliances that serve as the backbone of the West, need to also show they can deliver for their populations. It is a high-stakes bet – and he has a limited window to achieve a pretty dramatic goal given the current environment. But he is all in on the idea of it as he made very clear during his trip.

Der Beitrag “A good starting point” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In Pew’s latest survey of America’s image abroad, you look at how the international perception of the United States has changed after the election of Joe Biden. Within the transatlantic community, there has certainly been a feeling of renewal and optimism after November 3. Has this feeling reached the broader publics in Europe and Asia that you surveyed?

Richard Wike: This survey highlights a big change in how people in Europe and Asia view the United States, with attitudes turning much more positive. In fact, these are some of the largest shifts we’ve seen since we began surveying on this topic two decades ago. For example, if you look at 12 nations that we polled both in 2020 and this year, a median of just 17% across those nations had confidence in Trump last year, but 75% have confidence in Biden this year. The percentage across those 12 countries with a favorable view of the U.S. overall rose from 34% last year, when we saw all-time lows in many nations, to 62% in this survey. So there’s been a big change in how key allies and partners of the U.S. view who is in the White House, and that’s had a big impact on America’s overall image.

What, ultimately, is more important for Joe Biden’s positive rating in the international community – his policies or his personality?

Both are important. Part of the approval is about personality and personal leadership characteristics. Not many people thought that Trump was well qualified for the job. They do tend to think that Biden is well qualified. The majorities typically thought that Trump was arrogant and dangerous, and not many people say that about Biden. Trump’s best trait according to our polling when he was in office was that he was a strong leader. But even there, Biden gets better ratings than Trump did. So, regarding leadership characteristics and personality characteristics, Biden does better than Trump. But beyond personality it’s also about policies. During the Trump presidency, there was a lot of opposition to his key policies, people did not approve of the US withdrawing from international commitments, they didn’t like the US putting a barrier between themselves and the rest of the world. People now welcome the turn to multilateralism that they see from the Biden administration. Climate is a good example. There was a lot of opposition to President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, and a huge majority say they approve of President Biden’s reentry into the Paris Agreement. Similarly, people welcome the US rejoining the WHO, they approve of Biden’s policy to allow more refugees into the United States. Overall, there is a much more positive view about the Biden administration’s policies so far compared to what we saw during the Trump years.

Would you consider the upward trend in America’s image abroad sustainable, even if Joe Biden, due to the close majorities in Congress, is not able to put all his policies into action?

There is always a certain reservoir of good will towards the United States, even during times when people are frustrated with the United States. But it also matters what the US does, whether it is able to deliver on its promises. Even in this survey with high ratings for President Biden, there are still concerns about America’s promises. There is a sense that the US doesn’t always act in a multilateral fashion. Majorities in every public that we surveyed said that they don’t think the US considers the interests of countries like theirs when it makes foreign policy decisions. That is a consistent finding that we’ve seen over the years, no matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican in the White House. There is a sense that the US does not always live up to its ideals or listen to other countries.

You show that a similar uptick in Western European’s trust in the US President happened when President Obama was elected. Are we seeing the very same trend today as 12 years ago, or are different factors at play?  

There are some similarities between the rebound in America’s image today and what we saw in 2009 after President Obama had come into office: in both cases, people reacted positively to a more multilateral approach to foreign policy compared to the predecessor. It is important to note that although Obama was pretty popular overall, there were certain policies that people did not like during the Obama years, as well. What has changed since then is that the world has changed in many ways. The rise of China has changed the geopolitical environment in which an American president is operating. The pandemic has changed the world, and there has been a continued economic anxiety in many countries. So despite the similarities in numbers, it is important to note that Joe Biden is inheriting a world that has changed since the Obama years.

With the significant shifts in global dynamics that you described, what are the major differences you are seeing between the perception of the United States among publics in Europe and those in the Asia-Pacific region?

We do a lot of polling on views about China. A couple of things that are interesting have come out of that in recent years. One is that people very much see China’s power on the rise. And the other is that views towards China have turned negative in many of the countries where we do our surveys. 2020 in many ways was a low point in America’s image. There was a widespread perception that the US mishandled the pandemic and that, among some other things, led to record lows in ratings for the US. At the same time, there were also record lows for China in many countries. That was driven by concern about how China handled the pandemic, in some cases concerns about China in the security realm, in others China as an economic partner. So both superpowers, the United States and China, have been seen in an increasingly negative light over the past couple of years. The US’ image has now rebounded, and we will have some new numbers on China, soon.

How has the political divide in the United States and especially the events of January 6^th of this year influenced the international community’s view? Has America’s image and credibility as a world leader been compromised by this development?

That was one very interesting finding of this survey: the overall rating of the US improved, but people have concerns nonetheless, including concerns about the health of American democracy. We asked people: “Do you think the US is currently a good example of democracy? Or was it never a good example of democracy? Or did it use to be a good example, but hasn’t been in recent years?” In most places, people say that the US used to be a good example but is not any longer. Fewer than one in five say the US is currently a good example of democracy. We didn’t ask specifically about the events of January 6^th, when a violent mob stormed the US Capitol, but certainly that’s the kind of thing that will affect how people are feeling about the health of American democracy. And there is great concern about that in the publics we’ve included in this year’s survey. That is an important finding for America’s overall soft power, in which being regarded as a model democracy played a big role.

Later this year, we’ll release more survey results on views of the U.S., with a particular focus on how people see various elements of American soft power. And soon we will also release a report updating many of our key trends on attitudes toward China.

Richard Wike is director of global attitudes research at Pew Research Center. He conducts research and writes about international public opinion on a variety of topics, such as America’s global image, the rise of China, democracy, and globalization.

Der Beitrag America’s Image Abroad erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The book is an attempt to look at the character of future war, and what we need to do to prepare for it. The likelihood of being in conflicts with Russia and China at the same time is not something that anybody wants, but we don’t get to choose that. We have to prepare for that, to deter it, to prevent it. And because of our great alliance of thirty nations, as long as we stick together, that’s a formidable deterrent force. It’s when we’re not cohesive and coherent that we become vulnerable.

The Kremlin and the Chinese Communist Party see advantage in using technologies that undermine our capabilities.

The Kremlin and the Chinese Communist Party see advantage in asymmetrical approaches, using technologies that undermine our advantages and capabilities. Chief among these are things like drones – unmanned systems, both in the air, which are more common, but also underwater maritime systems, and unmanned vehicles or robotics. When you add to that the use of cyber as a weapon to cripple infrastructure, as we recently saw against the Colonial Pipeline in the United States, it is a reminder of how vulnerable we are. We wanted to draw attention to the importance of cyber defense and cyber protection, but also to the need to be able to use cyber offensively, if necessary, for deterrence.

Other issues to which we have adapt are:

Artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence and machine learning in tandem will enable our IT systems to adjust rapidly to what’s out there, faster than humans could possibly think. That means that we must set the parameters for what we need, bearing in mind legal, moral and ethical considerations, which our potential adversaries will not be bothered with.

The speed and range of weapons. This exceeds anything that we have experienced before, and the precision of these weapons that are nuclear as well as non-nuclear, hyper velocity, and can avoid detection, these are real challenges; particularly for large ships, but also for critical infrastructure, airports, and seaports.

And then finally, quantum calculations, the speed of how fast machines can learn. There is great potential to help us understand intentions better. We’re currently not able to find intentions, for example, behind how the president of the Russian Federation is thinking or the leader of the Chinese Communist Party. So, perhaps, much like the business world already does, quantum learning may help us figure this out more quickly.

Where do you see the biggest weaknesses in European preparedness for these challenges?

The principal target audience for our book are European political leaders and strategic thinkers because the United States alone does not have the capacity to do everything. Even with the largest defense budgets in history, significant Air Force, Navy, land forces, and all the other capabilities that we have, it’s not enough. You can’t deter Russia, contain the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts, contain Iran, contain North Korea, deal with Islamic extremism, protect the global commons, and take care of regular business. That’s why our president has emphasized the importance of alliances and multilateral institutions, to help deal with all these threats.

The defense of Europe is going to rest largely on the shoulders of our European allies.

In the event of a conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, or even as we shift more and more assets there, our European allies cannot assume that the US will provide the bulk of security in Europe. We are going to remain invested in Europe, our economic prosperity depends on European prosperity. The EU is the biggest trading partner for North America. Plus, we need the access our European allies give us in terms of air bases, naval bases, land training areas and so on. But overall, the defense of Europe is going to rest largely on the shoulders of our European allies.

There are a couple of vulnerabilities that need to be addressed. Number one: there is a reluctance on the part of many political leaders, in Germany, in France, in the Netherlands, in Italy, and some other Western European countries to look at the Kremlin as a real threat. That doesn’t mean that you can’t have dialog, that you can’t buy gas, it doesn’t mean that you can’t have trade and relations, but you have to acknowledge there’s a threat and you have to explain to your citizens that we have to protect ourselves and that means you have to invest in your own security. And the same thing is true for China: all of us, including the United States, want to be able to take advantage of the Chinese market, all of us depend on various products from China. But that comes at a price. We must be very clear and hold China accountable for respecting sovereignty and living up to international agreements and international law. That’s job one and it falls on the shoulders of our elected civilian leaders in Europe.

Number two: Cyber vulnerability. We have to acknowledge, even within federal systems like in Germany or the US, where so much power is devolved down to states or Bundesländer, that cyber may be one of those things that is best handled at a central level. Clearly, many businesses are not taking adequate responsibility, as we saw from the Colonial Pipeline.

A third vulnerability that our European allies have to address is air and missile defense, which are about protecting European citizens, protecting European infrastructure. This is where Germany in particular, but also the Netherlands, should play a leading role protecting the Baltic region, working with Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania do not have the capacity to provide high-end air and missile defense.

The final point is military mobility. We must show that we can move as fast or faster than Russian Federation forces to be able to convey to the Kremlin that we are prepared. The ability to cross borders, the ability to move equipment quickly in peace time conditions –many people don’t realize the importance of this. This is again something where Germany and the Netherlands can play a leading role.

With the new US administration, which changing priorities in American foreign policy should Europe be specifically aware of?

First, the United States has to remove all doubt about its commitment to security, stability and prosperity in Europe. Not just during the Trump administration, but even during the Obama administration, there was talk about a pivot to the Pacific, and well-intentioned but unsuccessful attempts at having the proper sort of relationship with the Kremlin. So, it’s very important that our president addresses this.

There is a huge responsibility and high expectations of Germany.

Germany is the most important ally for the United States. Germany has earned a moral authority of sorts over the last seven decades – which took hard work – that gives it a strong voice that is respected around the world. The brand “Made in Germany” is so respected. Your focus on the environment, on climate change, these things give Germany authority. Obviously, the economic power makes Germany the leader inside the European Union. The United States is depending on Germany. The Biden administration has made it clear that the relationship is very important. With that come high expectations that Germany will hold the EU together when it comes to having the necessary leverage to deal effectively with China, that Germany will hold the EU together on sanctions against Russia and press the Kremlin to respect international law and Ukrainian sovereignty, for example. There is a huge responsibility and high expectations of Germany. The Biden administration is probably a little disappointed because we haven’t seen a manifestation of that. But, of course, the administration recognizes that Germany has elections in September.

The UK is in a unique situation, no longer inside the EU. It’s a critical security partner and a critical economic partner, it has global aspirations, and the United States is going to work closely with the UK as always on how to deal with China and with Russia.

The French, obviously, are a critical ally and important leader within the European Union, but they do not seem at all interested in holding the Kremlin accountable for what it has done in Georgia or anywhere in the Black Sea, particularly in Ukraine. This will also be a point of emphasis for the administration.

In the past, between Europe and the United States, there has always been an emphasis on our common values. What role do these values play for the alliance today, and what is the relation between common values and interests?

The Biden administration is correct in emphasizing the importance of strong liberal democracies, of ensuring that the institutions that make up liberal democracies, such as the electoral process, a free media, a judiciary that is in fact fair, respect for international law, respect for other nations. If the United States wants to hold others accountable, we must get our own house in order.

Europeans have always criticized American policy decisions, that’s to be expected. But Europeans tended to have respect for American institutions, the ideal of these institutions. And when we don’t live up to what we say our values are, it significantly undermines our credibility as an ally and as a leader. That is something that the Biden administration is working hard to address. You can expect that the United States will have similar expectations for our allies, so that we can be strong and cohesive. We are going to have different policy views, each nation is going to have its own agenda, but it’s the values that are so clearly laid out in the preamble to the Washington Treaty which created NATO. That’s what helps us stick together and get through the policy differences.

Are you optimistic about the future of NATO? Macron famously called the alliance “braindead” – was he wrong?

Think about our alliance, created 1949, twelve countries at the beginning. Here we are in 2021, 30 countries and at least three in the queue wanting to come in. So, despite all the changes in the security environment, from the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, through the Cold War, the breakup of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now back into an era of Great Power competition, the alliance has only grown, because people know that their best chance for security lies with being a member of NATO. When you take a longer-term strategic view, it’s useful to remember that.

We have been through a lot of tough times: during the time of de Gaulle, France withdrew from the military structure of NATO. France and the UK were very unhappy with the United States when we did not support them in Suez. Germany was extremely unhappy after the US went into Iraq. Turkey would not let the US go through their territory into Northern Iraq back in 2002/2003. So, there’s been a host of issues, and then President Macron said that NATO was braindead. I completely disagree with him, but it was useful. Secretary Jens Stoltenberg created the Strategic Reflections Group to take a look at where we’ve been and where we’re going. And they provided several recommendations for the alliance, which are being worked on now and which are being addressed by NATO’s leaders.

Let me just highlight a handful of key points:

There is the topic of burden sharing. Two percent is a useful metric, but it should not be the only metric. We need a much more sophisticated approach to what it means. Germany is not a frontline state anymore in the traditional sense. It is the hub for logistics, for air and missile defense, for commanding control. Therefore, anything that improves NATO’s ability to respond quickly, such as rail, air transport, wheeled transport, cyber protection, and infrastructure, that should count towards two percent because that’s what we need from Germany. We are going to figure out a way to improve burden sharing.

We need a much more sophisticated approach to burden sharing.

The Asia-Pacific region: I don’t envision a NATO mission to the Indo-Pacific region, although there will be allies such as France and the UK who will provide maritime capabilities, even Germany is doing this, in the Pacific. Everybody has an interest in freedom of navigation and stability in the Pacific. But the alliance has to figure out how to deal with China. An important example of this is that NATO now tracks what infrastructure in Europe is controlled by Chinese business. The port of Piraeus in Greece is one of the most well-known examples – the Chinese own about 99% of that port. Recently I saw a report that said that about 40% of the port of Hamburg’s capacity may be owned by the Chinese soon. We talk about being in a crisis with Russia, and now you have China controlling transportation infrastructure. We have to be considerate of that.

The alliance is going to look at its role with climate change. Not only in terms what we can do to contribute to reducing human impact on the climate, but also what the implications are for security, the most obvious being the changing Arctic. Ships are going to increasingly be able to transit the Arctic throughout the year. We have to think about how Russia tries to control that, about Chinese competition – the alliance is going to have to respond. Our Norwegian allies pay attention to this very closely.

The alliance has to figure out how to deal with China.

Finally, what we started off talking about: is the alliance fit for purpose in the future? Do we have the tools and the political support necessary to operate in a cyber domain? Have we figured out how to accommodate each nation’s concerns about ethical issues with drones and artificial intelligence? That’s the future of our alliance. I’m actually very, very optimistic.

Let us look at the situation in the United States: The US has become a lot more domestic-oriented over the past few years. There is this deep political rift that seems to accelerate this look inward. Do you agree with this assessment and if so, what does that mean for the United States’ foreign engagement and for its allies?

Up until the Second World War, the United States always had a strong isolationist tendency. Blessed by incredible geography, with only Canada to the north and Mexico to the south – that affected how people thought. The United States was formed by people that left other continents to focus inwardly. That’s in our DNA. But after the Second World War it was clear that we should adopt a more forward leaning posture when it comes to global security to prevent conflict. That has been largely successful, especially within Europe.

As I mentioned, our economy depends on prosperity around the rest of the world so that there are markets for American products, as well as the things Americans want at very low prices. That has caused us to become much more globally oriented. But every president has to think about domestic issues. We have gone a little bit too far in the globalization effort, so that jobs were leaving the United States and production was happening elsewhere. That’s what was part of the appeal for President Trump, he focused on getting these jobs back in the United States. Even President Biden has said: “Buy American.”

Our political leaders have the responsibility to explain to their populations how we are going to take care of our own population, but why we also depend on other nations as well. COVID-19 has been an example of that. We depend on each other and that includes security. The United States cannot do it alone, Germany cannot do it alone, but your readers can appreciate that Americans will be a little bit annoyed if they see an ally who benefits from American security, not contributing.

Thank you very much for your thoughts!

Thank you.

Der Beitrag The Challenges of Future War erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan has begun, and is currently set to be completed by the 4th of July. In the wake of the decision, the immediate impact of the withdrawal on the outlook of Afghanistan has received widespread attention. However, it also marks a milestone for the NATO alliance, ending its largest mission after almost 20 years. Therefore, it seems pertinent to consider what the withdrawal means for NATO, and the transatlantic alliance as a whole. Bruce Jones, Director, Project on International Order and Strategy and Senior Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology at the Brookings Institution, discusses with Dr. Markus Kaim, Senior Fellow, Research Division International Security, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security Affairs). The conversation is chaired by Siemtje Möller, MdB (SPD), Defense Policy Spokeswoman of the SPD Parliamentary Group in the German Bundestag.

Der Beitrag The Transatlantic Alliance after Afghanistan erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Bojan Pancevski, Journalist, Author, and Germany Correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, joined Atlantik-Brücke  as a guest speaker at the Frankfurt Luncheon to talk about transatlantic relations under the Biden administration. After the event, we caught up with him for a quick interview. 

Mr. Pancevski, as a correspondent for an American newspaper, what do you find most remarkable about German reporting on the new U.S. administration?

I find the reporting generally unremarkable, given the wall-to-wall coverage of the previous administration, which was basically treated like a domestic story in Germany. Because of that, however, it is perhaps unusual that the Biden Administration’s continuation of some Trump Administration policies, such as the de facto ban for vaccine exports (the U.S. is even sitting on 60m doses of  the AstraZeneca vaccine, which will never be used in the country) and the steel and aluminium tariffs on EU exports. Indeed, the present U.S. government has even upped the ante with new tariffs on five European countries in response to their taxes on U.S. technology companies such as Google and Facebook.

With so many political resources dedicated to dealing with the aftermath of a pandemic and trying to heal a severe rift in American society, how much of a foreign policy president can Joe Biden really be?

Joe Biden took office with the most extensive foreign policy experience of, perhaps, any president in recent time. However, his focus will most likely remain firmly set on the domestic political arena, at least until the midterm elections, which means that he will probably have little time for major foreign policy projects.

China is one of the defining topics of transatlantic relations. Do you see a chance for EU-US cooperation vis-à-vis China?

The U.S. and the EU are bound by common values and, broadly, common interests, not least in relation to trade, and the Biden Administration is clearly attempting to forge an alliance with European allies and establish a modicum of a common stance towards China. Yet when it comes to China, the short-term economic interests of major EU economies, such as Germany, are opposed to those of the U.S.: Berlin wants to preserve and enhance its close trading relations with China, while Washington sees Beijing as a rival to be contained. The EU-China investment agreement, which was spearheaded by Germany and signed before the incoming U.S. administration could object to it, neatly encapsulates that divergence of interests which will be a challenge to any transatlantic alliance aimed at checking China’s geopolitical expansion.

Der Beitrag “Little Time for Major Foreign Policy Projects” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Earlier this year, President Biden declared at the Munich Security Conference that “America is back!”. Since coming into office, the Biden administration has demonstrated its interest in renewing the United States relationships with allies. This is a historic and pivotal time for strengthening the transatlantic alliance and addressing NATO’s shared problems, but we also face challenges and potential pitfalls.

At the virtual event “Reaffirming and Reimagining the Transatlantic Alliance: Facing Shared Challenges Together,” Philip T. Reeker, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, gave a presentation on the upcoming challenges the transatlantic partnership faces. Dr. Anna Sauerbrey, Member of the Editorial Board; Head of Opinion Section at Der Tagesspiegel, moderated the discussion.

This event was held in cooperation with the American Council on Germany.

Der Beitrag Reaffirming and Reimagining the Transatlantic Alliance: Facing Shared Challenges Together erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In the kick-off discussion for our series on the new U.S. administration, A.B. Stoddard, Associate Editor and Columnist, RealClearPolitics, and Bob Cusack, Editor in Chief, The Hill, share their expectations for Biden-Harris and the 117th Congress. The two high-profile journalists discuss topics such as the COVID-relief package, the role of the left wing of the Democratic party, and the migration crisis at the border.

Former Representative Barbara Comstock (R-Virginia, 2015-2019) moderated the discussion.

The event was held in cooperation with the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag President Biden and the 117th Congress erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

With the first event in our Female Leadership Workshop Series entitled “Behind the Scenes – Digitilization During a Global Crisis,” we aimed to create a space for women to come together, discuss topics related to leadership, and offer a female perspective on digitilization issues. The Workshop Series is held in cooperation with “The GroUP” and was initiated to share successful concepts and use cases, but also to talk openly about challenges and learnings.

The two speakers for this event were Angelika Gifford, Vice President Central Europe, Facebook; Member of the Board, Atlantik-Brücke, and Dr. Katrin Suder, Head, Digital Council of the Federal Government; Young Leader Alumna (2004).

Katrin Suder pointed out that it is not only women who should be concerned with the opportunity for equality that digilization provides: “Digitilization needs diversity and it also has the power to drive diversity.” But in order for that to happen, Suder emphasized, “Diversity has to become an honest priority.” So far, the increase in digitalization that the pandemic has brought has not helped balance gender inequality. Quite to the contrary: remote work has worsened the situation for many women. Suder believes that digitalization can be harnessed for positive change, but that this requires leadership from the top. Both men and women have to join forces to work towards  it.

“Digitilization needs diversity and it also has the power to drive diversity.”[quoter]Dr. Katrin Suder[/quoter]

Angelika Gifford explained how Facebook’s 200 million business customers around the world cope with lockdowns, changing buying behaviors and emerging competition, but also how a global company continues to operate with a remote workforce of almost 60,000. She also cast a light on the fact that women owned businesses are often times harder hit by the pandemic and called for change: “We’re going backward when we should be going forward on equality.”

During the interactive part of the workshop, participants developed a number of theses and questions which were then discussed with the speakers. The series will be continued and will address such issues as entrepreneurship and digital governance.

Der Beitrag Female Leadership Workshop on Digitilization erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Just under a year after the outbreak of the Corona pandemic, Germans’ confidence in institutions (government, companies, media and NGOs) continued to grow. This makes Germany unique in international comparison, as shown by the latest data from the 21st “Edelman Trust Barometer”. On the occasion of the survey’s launch in Germany, Atlantik-Brücke organized a panel discussion together with Edelman Germany.

If you would like to rewatch the event, please click here.

Richard Edelman, President and CEO of Edelman, and Christiane Schulz, CEO of Edelman Germany, outlined which institutions have gained or lost trust and discussed how institutions can meet expectations in the long term. Atlantik-Brücke board member Julie Teigland, Managing Partner EY Europe, Middle East, India and Africa, Ernst & Young, and Atlantik-Brücke Chairman Sigmar Gabriel, commented on the survey results.

David Deißner, Executive Director of Atlantik-Brücke, moderated the event.

The “Edelman Trust Barometer” is an annual study by the communications firm Edelman that examines trust in institutions. For this year’s study, 33,000 people from 28 countries were surveyed. The results of the study can be found here.

Der Beitrag A Trust Crisis? The Edelman Trust Barometer 2021 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Over the last few years, political views in the US seem to have become more and more ideologically entrenched. With your polling firm Echelon Insights, you have thoroughly studied voters’ opinions. Looking at these polls, which issues would you say are at the heart of the political divide? 

The divisions in American politics are about positions and priorities. People in different parties hold very different views about significant issues like race, gender, economics, religion – a very wide range of topics. But they are also divided about what issues are most important. Democrats hold issues such as racial equality and climate change to be at the top of their priority list, while for Republicans those issues are not seen as crises. Republicans would instead prioritize issues like “cancel culture” and pushing back against what they view as a progressive push to drive conservative views out of the public discourse. Democrats and Republicans are divided about what issues are most important.

How have these topics changed over the years, particularly for Republican and swing voters? What has driven this development?

We tend to think of issues in America as divided into two varieties – “social and cultural” issues and “economic” issues. Donald Trump was able to build a larger coalition by adding cultural conservatives who hold more “big government” type economic views into the GOP. He did not talk very much about cutting spending or shrinking the size of government. In today’s Republican Party, issues like government spending are lower on the priority list than they were a decade ago at the height of the Tea Party movement. Additionally, the sorts of issues within the “social and cultural” issue category have changed. Republicans talk less these days about something like gay marriage or even abortion, which were the social issues of the 2000s, and talk more about issues like religious freedom and fighting what they view as the growing influence of a hyper-progressive ideology coming out of universities and media organizations.

Swing voters meanwhile remain mostly focused on their own economic wellbeing and safety. They are less animated by these hot buttons and are more interested in good governance and a strong economy. This is how Donald Trump was able to perform reasonably well with swing voters despite taking some positions and actions that are off-putting. But this was also Trump’s downfall, because he received poor ratings for his handling of COVID-19 and this was a very serious pocketbook and wellbeing issue this past year.

When Donald Trump won the Republican party’s nomination and was subsequently elected President of the United States, pundits and politicians alike commented that Trump had “hijacked” the party. Would you agree with this assessment?

Trump revealed that a large portion of the Republican voter base was not necessarily on the same page as many Republican politicians. In the 2016 campaign, of the seventeen candidates on the Republican side, sixteen ran claiming to be the most “conservative.” Donald Trump meanwhile never even bothered much with that label, and in fact won over a surprising number of moderate Republicans. He realized that what people cared more about was not who was most conservative but who was most willing to fight. It is true that initially a majority of Republicans did not like him but when it became a choice between him and Hillary Clinton, Republicans were willing to support him, and that support stayed relatively consistent throughout his presidency.

Trump revealed that a large portion of the Republican voter base was not necessarily on the same page as many Republican politicians.

What influence does former President Trump have on the Republican party, now that he is no longer in office?

Donald Trump remains influential because he reoriented the policy agenda for Republicans away from limited government and around issues like immigration, cultural issues, and China. In some ways, because he shook the GOP from its old orthodoxies, it has created an open landscape for new leaders to present policy agendas that look different than the past. However, there does not seem to be a large appetite at the moment for advancing a new agenda, as the party is still caught up in fights over whether to be pro- or anti-Trump. My colleague Patrick Ruffini put it best when he said the future of the party cannot be about fighting over pro- or anti-Trump but rather whether the party will be ABOUT Trump or will be ABOUT new leadership and new ideas. At the moment, there are not many voices rising up to propose a different path that is appealing to many Republicans, so Trump remains the de facto leader until someone comes along with something better that can lead Republican voters in a new way.

Because Trump shook the GOP from its old orthodoxies, it has created an open landscape for new leaders to present policy agendas that look different than the past.

With such vastly different political figures as Marjorie Taylor Greene, who openly embraces conspiracy theories and continues to allege that the election was rigged, and Liz Cheney, who has spoken out in favor of impeaching former President Trump, what common ground is there for Republicans? What might the future of the GOP look like?

I still believe that there are things that unify Republicans despite these overwhelming divides. For instance, Republicans of all stripes are skeptical of government as a problem-solving tool, generally favor low taxes, and believe that sharp shifts in social and cultural norms are to be viewed skeptically. And being the party in opposition is always unifying in so far as people with otherwise very different styles can agree that they oppose what the other side is doing. Being the opposition party will help unify Republicans in the near term. But simply opposing what the other side is doing will not be enough to truly rebuild the party’s standing with the voters who have drifted away during the last five years.

Kristen Soltis Anderson is co-founder of the D.C.-based opinion research and analytics firm Echelon Insights. At the end of January, the firm conducted a survey asking registered voters about their views on the presidential election, the storming of the capitol, and the impeachment proceedings. You can take a look at the survey results here.

Soltis Anderson is also a columnist for The Washington Examiner and author of the book “The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up)”. She is a regular contributor for Fox News and hosts the show „What Are The Odds?”.

Der Beitrag “Being the opposition party will help unify Republicans” 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..

Der Beitrag More Ambition, Please! erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In order to understand the Democrats’ win in Georgia, it is necessary to take a closer look at Atlanta. In recent years, there has been an influx of young liberals in the state’s capital. Democrats can now win state-wide races in the formerly staunchly conservative state. It was argued in the discussion that another factor had helped Democrats in this election: the ties of the Republican candidates to President Trump, which discouraged suburban voters and other moderate conservatives from voting Republican. While this might not signal a lasting realignment, politicians who are able to appeal to moderates from both parties will be successful in future state-wide races in Georgia.

Change in Atlanta is also due to the arrival of more African Americans and Latinos, one of the speakers pointed out. The “Get out the vote”- efforts from Democrats were successful, whereas Republicans’ outreach efforts proved to not be enough. Unless Republicans found a way to appeal to a more diverse group of people, including minorities and young people, Georgia might become a true swing state. Georgia’s general assembly, it was argued, should pass a bill to ensure that every legally cast vote in the state counts and that no illegal votes are cast, so that voters can have confidence in election results.

On the future of the two party-system, it was argued that it is easier to take over an existing party than to start a new one, a process that could be observed in both parties. Trump has taken over the Republican party, and, to some, it seems as if left-leaning Democrats around Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have done the same in the Democratic party.

The storming of the US Capitol on January 6 was also addressed in the discussion. Speakers argued that the violent mob only represented a small percentage of a large population, but that these people were spurred on by politicians who lied to them about the security of elections. The other panelist agreed that the issue runs deeper than one party and can be found with congressional leadership and certain members of congress.

For the future of the transatlantic relationship, hope was expressed during the discussion that the incoming administration will be a positive signal.

This discussion was the last event of our virtual Battleground Tour-series in cooperation with the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag All Eyes on the US – Implications of the Georgia Election erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Elmar Theveßen, Washington Bureau Chief, ZDF, Susan Glasser, Staff Writer, The New Yorker; Global Affairs Analyst, CNN, and Sigmar Gabriel, Former Federal Minister; Former Vice-Chancellor; Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke, look back at 2020, and give an outlook on transatlantic relations under the incoming US administration.

The speakers also discussed the toll of the pandemic on the US, how foreign policy might and might not change under Biden, and a central takeaway from the Trump era, namely that US democracy is made up of traditions and norms that are more breakable than many had thought.

The discussion was moderated by David Deißner, Executive Director, Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag Transition: Review & Outlook on 2021 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Will Hurd, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Sigmar Gabriel, former Vice Chancellor; Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke, Günther H. Oettinger, former EU Commissioner, President, United Europe, Daniela Schwarzer, Director, German Council on Foreign Relations, and Anna Wieslander, Director for Northern Europe, Atlantic Council, discuss the future of the European-American relationship. The election results offer a chance to reorient transatlantic relations. In the coming months, it will be important for Europe to actively shape the relationship with the United States. But even under a President Biden, there will not be a return to the status quo ante. The panelists also discuss the kind of changes Europe can expect from the new leadership and which conflicts might persist.

The discussion was moderated by Natalia Drozdiak, European Technology Reporter, Bloomberg.

This event was held in cooperation with United Europe.

Der Beitrag After the U.S. Election – What to Expect from the New Presidency? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What will transatlantic relations, and UK-US relations more specifically, look like after the Trump era and which of Trump’s policies are here to stay? Josh Glancy and Rachel Rizzo discuss how Europe can trust the US again, how the transatlantic relationship can become a true partnership, and the need for a joint approach on China.

Josh Glancy has been Washington bureau chief for The Sunday Times since 2018, covering both the midterm and presidential elections. Rachel Rizzo is an adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), working in the Transatlantic Security Program. Her research focuses on European security, NATO, and the transatlantic relationship.

The above video is a shortened version of the discussion that took place as a virtual meeting of our London Regional Chapter.

Der Beitrag After Trump: Rebuilding Anglo-European Relations in Challenging Times erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

As part of the virtual 2020 German-American Conference, Sigmar Gabriel, Chairman of Atlantik-Bruecke, and Ambassador John Emerson, Chairman of the American Council on Germany, look back at 2020 and ahead to see what 2021 might bring for German-American relations. They discuss the European and American strategy on China, the debate around Nord Stream 2, and Germany’s role in the multilateral order.

The discussion was moderated by Christiane Meier, Correspondent and Head of New York Office, ARD German Television.

This event was held in cooperation with the American Council on Germany.

Der Beitrag Reinventing the German-American Agenda in 2021 erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Guido Goldman was born in Switzerland in 1937, the son of a Jewish father and a German mother. The family fled to America in 1940. However, Guido Goldman never turned his back on Europe or Germany. With wisdom, perseverance, untiring dedication and, at the same time, with great modesty, Guido Goldman dedicated himself over many decades to understanding, exchange and mutual understanding between Germany and the United States of America. As founding father of the Minda de Gunzberg Center for European Studies at Harvard University and initiator of the German Marshall Fund, he created and shaped outstanding institutions of transatlantic dialogue. With the loss of Guido Goldman, we are not only losign an advocate of the transatlantic partnership , but also a good friend and valued dialogue partner who was closely associated with Atlantik-Brücke for many years. His voice will be missing.

Der Beitrag Mourning Guido Goldman erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

What does the election of Joe Biden mean for transatlantic relations and for American society? Charles Kupchan debates these questions together with Michael Werz. Charles Kupchan was Director for European Affairs on the National Security Council during the Obama administration. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Professor of International Affairs in the School of Foreign Service and Government Department at Georgetown University. Michael Werz is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and Senior Fellow (2020/2021) at Stiftung Mercator. He is a member of the board of Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag What Can We Expect from a Biden Administration? 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..

The second stop of our Battleground Tour was the state of Michigan. Garlin Gilchrist, Lieutenant Governor of Michigan, analyzed the impact of COVID-19 on the elections, as well as the impact of ethnic differences on voting behavior, in conversation with James J. Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan and former U.S. Ambassador in Canada. They also discussed whether the presidential election might have an impact on Senate and other down-the-ballot races.

https://vimeo.com/473479930

Wisconsin was the focus of our third Battleground Tour event. Mark Pocan, Member of Congress (D-Wisconsin), U.S. House of Representatives, and moderator Scott Klug, former Member of Congress (R-Wisconsin), U.S. House of Representatives, debated which voter groups might play a decisive role in Wisconsin and the impact of the Black Lives Matter movement on voting behavior in the contested battleground state.

The five-part “Virtual Battleground Tour” is a cooperation between Atlantik-Brücke and the Association of Former Members of Congress (FMC).

Der Beitrag Michigan, Wisconsin, and the Presidential Election 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..

General Harrigian, from your point of view and capacity, what are the key aspects of connected leadership in today’s complex foreign and security environment?

[related]In my role as the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Air Forces Africa commander, I find the key aspects to “connected leadership” include targeting communications, balancing inclusiveness, and strengthening relationships.

As a leader, it is essential to carefully target your communications and engagements in a way that builds buy-in from your people and ensures the team understands how they fit in the big picture. In today’s digital age of email and social media, one-on-one communication is imperative to build trust and empower individuals.  You have to take the time to make a personal connection.

The second key aspect is inclusiveness. Leaders often face the dilemma of who to bring to the table, and in our case, this is a challenge because we have a wide range of stakeholders and partners.  The key is to maintain an inclusive environment that brings together a diverse group of talented individuals and different perspectives to solve problems.

Taking the time to build personal relationships and keep open lines of communication has helped me more times than I can count.

The last aspect of connected leadership is building and strengthening relationships. In the military, we often focus on relationships up and down the chain of command.  I find that reaching outside your organization and building support relationships is equally important. For example, during my time as the AFCENT commander, I experienced the importance of strong relationships in our daily operations. Taking the time to build personal relationships and keep open lines of communication has helped me more times than I can count.

Which security challenges for Europe and the European Union concern you the most at the beginning of this new decade?

We operate in a dynamic security environment and face a diverse set of challenges. As we look to the next decade, we must acknowledge that we’re already engaged in a global power competition. China and Russia are actively challenging international norms, democratic values, and our collective security interests. Additionally, the threat of violent extremist organizations, compounded by destabilizing social and economic issues, remains a persistent global problem. In the face of these security challenges, the air component must continue to evolve and provide decisive capabilities alongside our joint and coalition partners.

Trusted partnerships remain the key to successfully meeting these challenges head-on. I have often said you cannot surge trust. I truly believe the relationships between our people will serve as the cornerstone of our ability to operate together in a dynamic environment. I am confident our actions over the next decade will succeed through the efforts of our people.

Could you give us an overview of the current difficulties Africa is facing and how these challenges influence the U.S. strategy for Europe and Africa?

Africa presents a complex environment with many challenges but also an abundance of partners who are interested in working together to improve the security landscape. Our core mission on the African continent remains one of helping our partners strengthen their defense capabilities. We concentrate our efforts on assisting African nations and regional organizations build capable and professional militaries that uphold human rights, adhere to the rule of law, and more effectively contribute to stability in Africa.

AFAFRICA takes a comprehensive approach to the complex security challenges in Africa. We work closely with African, U.S. interagency, and international partners to develop capabilities necessary to ensure Africans can collectively address regional security challenges. Our primary tools for implementing this strategy are security force assistance programs, exercises, military-to-military engagements, and joint operations with partner African Air Forces. With all this said, the foundation of our partnership will continue to be the trust we have built over time.

What makes you confident that the transatlantic relationship is on a positive track as to foreign and security policy within the great power competition that we face?

I have the unique distinction of wearing three commander hats as the Commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe; Commander, U.S. Air Forces Africa; and Commander, NATO Allied Air Command. Being responsible for the air and missile defense of 29 NATO alliance member nations while commanding U.S. airpower across Europe and Africa affords me the opportunity to work closely with various partners.

It is through my experiences working with NATO forces that I have seen firsthand not only the importance of personal relationships but also the strength of our combined capabilities. Taking time to get to know our coalition counterparts helps us improve interoperability, gain basing and overflight access, and develop the trust and confidence to act decisively as a coalition.

Der Beitrag “As a leader, you have to take the time to make a personal connection” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Professor Daniel Ziblatt, political scientist at Harvard and co-author of the bestseller “How Democracies Die” and Donald Wise, former CEO of Metzler North America, discussed the state of democracy in the US. Wise and Ziblatt explored whether American democracy is merely facing a temporary crisis or a fundamental threat.

Wise emphasized that the American public is not as deeply divided as politics may make it seem. The existing cultural divisions, he stated, can be overcome – starting at the local level. Ziblatt on the other hand warned of the deep level of polarization and argued that the damage to the unwritten rules of democracy could only be surmounted by institutional reforms.

The speakers also touched upon current debates such as the nomination of Supreme Court Justices and answered questions from the audience, for example on Trump’s long-term legacy and how he has changed foreign policy.

Der Beitrag American Democracy in Crisis? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Clarissa Ward is one of the most renowned foreign correspondents in the USA. In a conversation with Simgar Gabriel and members of Atlantik-Brücke, the award-winning journalist discusses whether, after significant Russian meddling in the last US presidential election, foreign interference will once again be a factor this November. Other foreign policy dimensions of the election are also topics in this conversation.

Der Beitrag Foreign Interference in the Upcoming U.S. Election? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The 2020 election will decide many things beyond just the presidency of the United States. If Joe Biden wins, it is very likely that the nation will continue to be divided into the identity groups that have emerged in America since the 1970s. If Donald Trump prevails, we may see a segmentation based along traditional social-class and cultural interests.

[related]The left’s groups are based on “identity politics.“ which divide society into groups based on race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc.—anything that confers a degree of victimhood on group members. They can then use their status as victims to demand attention, respect, rewards or restitution.

For political leaders of the left, however, the most important thing is that this victimhood breed resentment, which can then be turned into a catalyst for change. The ultimate goal is to transform America.

A traditional division of the country along social-class interests under Trump would scramble these identities. If Trump wins, and this realignment takes place, it would be the first turning point in American politics since the 1960s and 1970s.

Under this scrambling, a poor black person would be seen as having more in common with a similarly situated white person than with, say, Oprah Winfrey, a black celebrity said to be worth $2.5 billion.

President Trump is making a very clear bid for the vote of African-Americans.

President Trump, for example, is making a very clear bid for the vote of African-Americans, especially the young and male. There is some evidence that he is having some success.

Data collected by a project led by the University of California-Los Angeles’s (UCLA) Democracy Fund, working with the Democracy Fund, discovered that Trump is astonishingly popular with young blacks, compared with previous Republicans. Among black voters aged 30-44, 29% found Trump “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable,” while 21% of the 18-29 did likewise. GOP presidential candidates usually get less than 10 percent of the black vote.

The gap is not just age-oriented, but sex-oriented as well. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll discovered earlier this year that “There is a significant gender gap in views of the president; among black men, 24 percent approve and 72 percent disapprove, while among black women, just 6 percent approve and 93 percent disapprove.”

None of this is to say that 24 percent of black men will pull the lever for Trump in November. If that happens, it will be a watershed event. But even if this gap means that many young black men decide not to vote, that would make it harder for Biden to unseat Trump.

As for the so-called Hispanic component of the Biden coalition, that may be easier to scramble. Hispanics are an artificial category created by the Office of Management and Budget in 1977. They are not homogenous in race, culture or history—and that is even truer in politics.

Cuban-Americans, a powerful force in Florida (a key “swing” state in the presidential race), have always been conservative. In 2016 they voted for Trump at a 52 percent rate, helping him win the state. This year, Bendixen & Amandi, a Democratic-leaning polling company, conducted a poll with the Miami Herald that has struck panic in liberal circles: Trump is winning Cuban-Americans with a 38-point margin. Venezuelans are also supporting Trump in large numbers.

And on September 13, with only seven weeks to go before the elections, a Fox News poll showed Trump winning 41 percent of support among all Hispanics, just short of the high-water mark of 44 percent won by George W. Bush in 2004, the highest since the Hispanic category was created.

The main group that will lead Trump to victory, if he gets one, are non-college educated whites.

But the main group that will lead Trump to victory, if he gets one, are non-college educated whites, a growing force inside the GOP. As I explain in my book, The Plot to Change America, “In 2016 white noncollege voters made up 60 percent of Republican voters, but just 29 percent of Democratic voters.”

This is a huge gap, and one that should worry Republicans going forward, as more and more Americans are getting college degrees. We will see in 2021, as the parties realign, what will happen to both the Republican and Democrat Party. That re-shuffling of the pack will come no matter who wins on November 3.

Mike Gonzalez, the Angeles T Arredondo E Pluribus Unum Senior Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, writes on national identity, diversity, multiculturalism, assimilation and nationalism, as well as foreign policy in general. He spent close to 20 years as a journalist, 15 of them reporting from Europe, Asia and Latin America. He left journalism in 2005 to join the administration of President George W. Bush. He joined Heritage in 2009.

Der Beitrag The Republican Strategy for November erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The US and Germany are friends and partners, regardless of any political tensions. People on both sides of the Atlantic are closely connected through personal relationships, through business contacts, through friendships formed as exchange students or through the military. German-American relations have developed over decades and run deep. America has supported Germany tremendously at crucial points in its history.

In view of the dramatic situation, we asked ourselves what we could do. How can Atlantik-Bruecke provide direct help to those in need? How can we send a signal that the transatlantic partnership will hold even in difficult times?

The organization Save the Children has launched a program to help children in poor rural areas of the United States who have no access to education and are threatened by hunger due to the pandemic. We would like to ask you to come together and donate to this important program. Our help here really reaches those who are suffering immensely from the pandemic and whose future is at risk.

We appreciate your donations, and we thank those of you who have already donated generously!

You can make your donation here using the form set up for Atlantik-Bruecke on the Save the Children website. The form allows the use of credit cards and PayPal. Comprehensive information about the program and Save the Children can also be found on this website.

If you prefer to wire the money to the donation account, please use this information:
Save the Children Deutschland e.V.
Bank für Sozialwirtschaft
IBAN: DE92100205000003292912
BIC: BFSWDE33BER
Keyword: Atlantik-Bruecke

Der Beitrag U.S. Corona Relief: Donate Now! erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The German debate on NATO’s nuclear sharing agreement is not new. Germans’ hesitations with regards to the topic sometimes appear to lack in rationality. Professor Neuneck observed: “The current debate works on fears and emotions, but not in consideration of the wider context, facts, or the weighing of alternatives.” It also does not consider the effects on the cohesion of the Alliance and the credibility of NATO’s nuclear deterrent.

“The current debate works on fears and emotions.” [quoter]Götz Neuneck[/quoter]

General Hodges emphasized: “Germans need to regain trust in themselves, because it seems that Germany doubts itself: it’s foreign and security policy is timid, and often seems like cherry-picking. It is time for Germany for a much larger debate about its foreign, security, and defense policy.” Another point that was raised in the discussion was that the arguments being exchanged are those that dominated the debate during the Cold War, while the technological and political circumstances have changed profoundly since. Of particular concern in this respect are violations and withdrawals from the non-proliferation agreements that have provided strategic stability and greatly reduced the risk of nuclear war. While the view that the non-proliferation regime is in dire need for adaptation is widely shared, the trend to further undermine these regimes and increase the sharp end of deterrence, the second pillar of NATO’s strategic duality captured in the Harmel doctrine is hardly visible: diplomacy.

“German doubts in the Alliance can and will be exploited.” [quoter]Ben Hodges[/quoter]

For the German debate, all these aspects ought to be considered. Instead of picking and choosing in its foreign and security policy, Germany ought to consider the entire spectrum. To this end, a much wider review of Germany’s foreign, security and defense is required, a review that is careful to not rely solely on fears and emotions, is serious about its intent, and about leading transparently. General Hodges warned: “German doubts in the Alliance can and will be exploited by the adversaries.”

Professor Neuneck provided an outlook for a more constructive approach to a shared foreign and security policy: “A key initiative is the extension of New START and much more efforts to preserve the nuclear Arms Control architecture. A new arms race must be prevented through the much less expensive instruments of arms control, talks on strategic stability and reanimating treaties. This gives all parties more confidence, predictability and stability without spending gigantic amounts of money.”

The discussion was moderated by Cathryn Clüver Ashbrook, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School.

Der Beitrag Beyond Location: Germany’s Debate on NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Agreement erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The world is in the midst of a unique crisis with what will almost certainly prove to have long-term social, economic and political ramifications. However, there seems to be a silver lining to this cloud: the private sector, including the technology and innovation ecosystem, seems to be voluntarily mobilizing in order to mitigate the crisis. The panel discussed what role the technology ecosystem can play from an academic, corporate and startup perspective.

Featured Panelists:
Linus Dahlander, Professor and Lufthansa Group Chair in Innovation, ESMT;
Joann Halpern, Director, Hasso Plattner Institute New York;
Shaun Stewart, CEO, Newlab;
and Gülsah Wilke, Head of Portfolio, Operations and Business Development, Axel Springer SE; Young Leader Alumna (2019).

Moderator:
Joshua Cohen, Managing Partner,  GIANT Innovation; Young Leader Alumnus (2009).

The event was a cooperation between Atlantik-Brücke, GIANT Innovation and ESMT.

Der Beitrag Tech to the Rescue? erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In this deep global crisis, many nations turn inward. Who will take up the banner to defend liberalism? Will the transatlantic partnership prevail? Ambassador Victoria Nuland, Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State, and Omid Nouripour, Member of the German Bundestag, Foreign Policy Spokesperson of the Green Parliamentary Group, and Member of the Board at Atlantik-Brücke, discuss coping strategies of the West and whether China can be contained.

The discussion is moderated by Dr. David Deißner, Atlantik-Brücke.

The discussion is part of Atlantik-Brücke’s and the American Council on Germany’s German-American Conference.

Der Beitrag Global Order in Crisis Mode – Coping Strategies of the West erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Last Sunday, Orthodox Christians all over the world celebrated Easter. Most of them did so in the seclusion of their homes: isolated yet safe. But not for Alexander Lukashenka. The president of Belarus personally went to mass in a small village church and encouraged his compatriots to follow his example, saying: “People with strength […] and guts will come to church.” This is but one of many memorable quotes recently produced by Lukashenka, who has also promoted tractors, ice hockey and baby goats as possible remedies to COVID-19.  To date, Belarus is the only state in Europe which has not yet introduced any quarantine measures, despite rightful criticism from the country’s closest EU neighbors Lithuania and Latvia. In an interview on April 3^rd, Lukashenka made clear that in his view, the economy of Belarus – which is highly dependent on Russian oil export – simply cannot afford a quarantine. Yet many observers believe there is another reason behind the Belarusian nonchalance. Later this year president Lukashenka will be running for his sixth term in office (the elections are set for August 30). And in the faux democratic theater of his authoritarian state, Lukashenka does not want the show to be stolen by some virus.

Der Beitrag COVID-19 in Russia and Belarus erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Mr. Rough, what is your takeaway from the Democratic primaries so far?

From the debacle of the Iowa caucuses to the resurrection of Joe Biden, the Democratic primary has turned into a great drama with major plot twists. Underlying it all is a fairly sharp shift to the left in the party relative to previous election cycles, with each of the Democratic candidates embracing identity politics and rolling out new initiatives that add up to trillions of dollars in spending.

The shortage of viable candidates in their 40s, 50s, and 60s speaks to how badly the Obama years decimated the party: aside from Buttigieg (30s) and Klobuchar (50s), the finalists for the Democratic nomination have all been in their 70s. This is remarkable for a party that claims to represent the young.

[related]These factors may explain why turnout has disappointed thus far, falling short of thresholds that would signal high enthusiasm in the party for the nomination process. It’s unclear what this means for the general election, where antipathy for Trump among Democrats may improve turnout.

Irrespective who wins the primary, however, it seems clear that the Democratic party is undergoing change. If the Democrats retake the White House this fall, they will not embrace the policies of the past, from free trade to a muscular America abroad. Instead, the party is continuing its evolution from Clinton to Obama to a new era.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden in a direct contest with President Trump in the General Election?

Bernie Sanders is nothing if not authentic. For decades, he’s preached the same unbending left-wing ideology with zeal. The Democratic party’s lurch leftward and the country’s general political churn has allowed him to emerge from recluse senator to political superstar. At the same time, however, Sanders stands far to the left of the American mainstream. His rigid, unbending attitude, expressed through an outrage that borders on anger, alienates all but the most committed progressives. He has yet to win over African Americans, for example, a key moderate Democratic voting bloc.

Joe Biden likes to hype his Scranton, Pennsylvania roots. It is generally accepted that he performs well in the industrial Midwest—precisely the states President Trump must carry in order to win reelection. In a field of left-wing progressives, Biden articulated liberal yet moderate positions that appeal more to African Americans and suburbanites. At the same time, his status as the establishment’s choice may put off some left-wing voters who reject mainstream institutions. Worse, Biden is well past his prime. It’s unclear whether he has the acuity and stamina to thrive in a grueling general election campaign. Moreover, Biden’s electability is predicated on a theory, not evidence. His past forays into politics beyond Delaware have crashed and burned.

What is the current situation of the Republican Party en route to President Trump’s nomination as the GOP candidate for this year’s election?

There is no primary race for the GOP: Donald Trump has all but sewn up the nomination for president. Trump holds an iron grip on the Republican base, which remains enthusiastic about his case for reelection. His support among suburban voters is less impressive, however. To make up for this weakness, he is making a concerted play for two other demographics: African Americans and Hispanics. These voters traditionally support the Democrats but are far from progressive, providing an opening for the Trump campaign and the Republican party.

As his State of the Union address demonstrated, Trump’s argument builds off a strong economic foundation, which has delivered results for minority voters. The biggest threat to Trump’s reelection is not the Democrats, therefore, but the coronavirus and its attendant shocks. Ultimately, presidents are elected and reelected based on performance and sentiment. The coronavirus will test the president like no other crisis to date and voters will be watching.

Link to Peter Rough’s biography on the Hudson Institute website.

Der Beitrag “The coronavirus will test the president like no other crisis to date“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Königswinter, January 25, 2020

The Untold Story

Good evening everyone, my name is Karoline Klose, I was a young leader in 2017 and I am excited to be here today.

It is actually funny that I am up here sharing my story. Because I was actually thinking about not coming to the reunion because I was embarrassed to show up here empty-handed, with not so much to show at the moment among all these high-flying, over-achieving leaders.

I am currently on a sabbatical; taking time out from the rat race we call life and helping build an eco-village in northern Germany (Hitzacker). When I was asked if I want to speak I thought: maybe I should do this. Maybe I should speak up for those who don’t dare to or can’t speak up. In order to change the conversation, to break the taboo and by being open and vulnerable, allow others to be open and vulnerable rather than continuing the charade saying that everything is fine while inside you are burnt out or suffering from trauma.

Here the mandatory trigger warning, I won’t be offended if you leave the room at some point.

For the next 10 minutes – I know many of you here today have different backgrounds – I want to take you on a journey into the world of the United Nations and international development, this is my very personal journey.

I can tell you two different stories: one of living the dream of working for the United Nations, saving the world, living and working in 10 different countries over the past 10 years, including Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt, Tunisia, and a couple of others.

Here the obligatory humble brag picture every UN staff does, me in front of a UN helicopter in Haiti.

Or I can tell you the impact this kind of work had on me, something no one talked about before I started my career, or at least not in a way that would have made me listen.

So when I started, I used to feel invincible, I didn’t really pay attention to self-care workshops or online trainings. When friends or colleagues, well-meaning, said to me: “Karoline, you have to meditate, you have to do yoga to reduce the stress”, I waved them off. Thinking to myself: “I have my friends, my sports, I don’t need that.”

I had done a kidnapping/war zone training with the German military and had survived being robbed and held for several hours in Tanzania, and a nightly break-in in Sudan, all without a problem.

So when it hit me in Haiti, I didn’t know what it was, I was not warned, I did not recognize it, I didn’t know what to do.

In the beginning it was the classic psychosomatic symptoms:

• stomach cramps on the day before I had to fly back;
• almost daily outbursts of crying or anger, felling helpless, like I was not in control of my life anymore, like I had given up the power over my life to someone or an entity that was failing to keep me safe.

Then halfway through my year in Haiti my first panic attack: I was back home in Germany and just could not stop crying at the thought of having to take a plane back.

But I did get back on that plane, despite all the warning signs, I pushed myself. I did not want to risk my job, the career I had worked so hard to get. I also felt guilty: I had asked for the transfer to Haiti from New York and as a specialist for fragile states, I thought I should be able to handle this!

I finished the year but I did not extend for a second.

After that I thought I would be fine the moment I left Haiti. What I did not know is that trauma knows no time. When I was safe back home, that’s when it really kicked in and things really got started:

• First, a restless mind, racing thoughts making it impossible to sleep, especially sleep in, causing stomach upsets;
• not wanting to leave the house by myself anymore;
• no energy or will to do anything.
• Wanting to hide from people, even friends. Previously an extrovert who got energy from talking to people, I suddenly dreaded the simple question: “Hi, how are you? How are you doing?” Because, what should I answer, how should I explain how I am feeling if I don’t understand myself what is happening to me?
• Everything about Haiti agitated me, but at the same time I could not let go, still checked the security alerts on WhatsApp every day.

This was over a year ago. What has helped me since: talking to ex-colleagues and finding out that I am not alone, that others were experiencing the exact same or similar symptoms.

• A former colleague started lying fully dressed in a bathtub when she got back to her home country, the bathtub being the only place she felt safe.
• Or a male colleague with secondary trauma because he worked on Syria, unable to continue with his job and suffering from insomnia since.

Eventually I looked for help. I started therapy and got diagnosed with classic symptoms of trauma, a form of post-traumatic-stress-disorder and burnout from cumulative stress. Every session left me in tears, in emotional turmoil. But I also did not want this pain to disappear, because it was the only evidence I had. I wanted the organization to take responsibility for the damage done.

Like a carpenter who breaks his back falling off a roof while at work, unable to work on a construction site in his job anymore.

I wanted it to be recognized that this is a professional risk. We are warned that we might be bodily harmed working in crisis countries, but nobody talks about the psychological harm.

We get a medical checkup before heading out to check if we are fit to deploy, but no one checks in what state we come back, your contract and health insurance just runs out.

There is a deal you enter with the organization: “I will go anywhere you need me to go, in return: you will keep me safe.“ This deal was broken.

You are probably asking yourself what happened to me. What big traumatic event caused this.

I will have to disappoint you. I don’t have that one sensational story. Actually, what happened to me is not that important, it is very subjective, it is more about how we experience things.

I blamed myself a lot, thought it was my fault that I could not handle it. I felt very alone with everything. But what helped was finding people who had had similar experiences, whether it was firsthand trauma or secondary trauma from doing interviews with refugees or handling disturbing content.

The worst that you can do when someone comes to you with something like this, wanting to share is to keep silent. Just say something, anything is better than silence, so they feel heard and understood.

So what caused my trauma?

• Was it the daily fear of being robbed at gunpoint?
• Or the question whether I should take the dog of my housemate for a run, but then deciding against it because in case I got robbed or kidnapped, they probably would shoot the dog first, so I went alone.
• Or the headlights in my rear window at night of a motorbike following me, me being afraid whether they were going to rob me at the next corner.
• Or a colleague getting killed in a robbery coming from the airport, shortly after I had left.
• Or was it the hatred of the local population against foreigners, especially the UN? A single stone thrown, smashing the window, showing you that a car is no protection at all.
• Or maybe the shots at night in the neighborhood?
• Or the dead body lying in the middle of the road during rush hour – half undressed, eyes open, bloated, flies circling – and not being able to talk to anyone about it since apparently this is normal and I should toughen up.
• Or the lack of freedom of movement? But then again, friends working in Iraq or Afghanistan seem to be better protected, better taken care of.

I don’t know what it was and I don’t want to create fear. I would probably choose this career again. I just want to break down the taboo that we can openly talk about trauma, not only of soldiers. And support each other and reach out and have an open ear and heart.

Even if you are not in the world of international organizations and development, it does not have to be a war zone but it can be a job or environment that is not good for you: get help and just don’t stay too long.

Thank you for listening to me.

Karoline Klose, founder of Trauma Talk UN
For more information: www.traumatalk-un.org
To contact the author: talk@traumatalk-un.org

Der Beitrag The Untold Story erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Read the full article here.

Der Beitrag Finding Europe’s Way in the World erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

75 years ago, Auschwitz was liberated. In the five years of its existence, almost one million Jews were killed there at the behest of Nazi Germany. What does the date of the liberation mean to the Jewish community today?

The anniversary evokes a range of intense, almost indescribable, feelings. Above all, for me, even after 75 years, I live with an anger that is quite primal, that wants to shout from the rooftops, how could people achieve such a level of bestiality and inhumanity? This is coupled with an enduring sense of incomprehension, as if to say it’s not possible that one human could commit such crimes against another. I still wonder how the administrators and the guards could go home after work, eat a normal meal, perhaps spend time with their family if their spouse and children were with them. How could they kill by day on such an unprecedented scale and live with themselves and their conscience by night? In other words, many of us still wrestle to this day with the excruciating pain and bewilderment, and questions about everything that Auschwitz-Birkenau represents. And yet, there is also a third feeling that necessarily coexists with the other two. Despite all the horrors and travails of Auschwitz, the few survivors found their faith, fortitude, and footing, built new lives after the war, and exemplified the indomitability of the human spirit, or, in this case, the Jewish spirit.

How could people achieve such a level of bestiality and inhumanity?

In Europe, but also in the U.S., populism is on the rise; anti-Semitic attacks have become a frequent occurrence. What should be done to counter this trend, by governments, but also by civil society?

I have to begin by revising the premise of the question. To be sure, antisemitism surfaces when populism mixes with illiberalism and xenophobia. That’s a real danger, as history has amply shown, and again poses a threat today. But there are two other sources of antisemitism in Europe (and beyond) that also threaten Jews. The first comes from jihadists. Indeed, with the exception of the attack at the synagogue in Halle on Yom Kippur, just about every single violent act of antisemitism in recent years on European soil has come from jihadists, whether in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Bulgaria, or elsewhere. And the other concerning source is the extreme left. Just imagine what would have happened had Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party won the recent election and governed the United Kingdom. Antisemitism, joined by anti-Zionism, is rife within the current Labour Party, starting at the very top. And what about all those other far left political parties and groups in Europe that would deny Israel, alone among the nations of the world, the very right to exist, much less to defend itself against those who seek its destruction? Therefore, any serious analysis of the menace faced by Jews in contemporary Europe must take into account each of these three sources: the extreme right, the extreme left, and jihadists. Otherwise, people are either living in denial or seeking to weaponize antisemitism for a larger political purpose, but surely not for the safety and security of Jewish communities.

In the U.S. in the last 18 months alone, we have had violent attacks from the extreme right, but also from other sources having nothing to do with populism or white supremacy, again underscoring the point that anti-antisemites must be open-eyed and swivel-headed in the fight against this age-old pathology.

Governments must acknowledge the serious and growing nature of resurgent antisemitsm.

In terms of the response, first, governments must acknowledge the serious and growing nature of resurgent antisemitsm. In some cases, this has proved harder than I would have thought. Second, they also need to recognize the multiple sources from which antisemitsm emanates today. Third, governments should work to adopt and implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism, as this provides a common understanding of what constitutes antisemitism. Otherwise, there is no standard baseline for even defining the issue. Fourth, no one speech or statement by political leaders will solve the problem. Instead, what’s needed is a sustained, multipronged focus on combating a hatred for which no vaccine has yet been discovered. Fifth, prosecutors and judges need to get more serious in sending a message that a crime motivated by hate will result in severe consequences, and not just a slap on the wrist. Sixth, longer term, children, in our increasingly diverse and multicultural societies, must be taught respect for the other and mutual understanding. Again, this is not one lesson one time, but needs to be a consistent theme throughout their education. And seventh, governments cannot do all the heavy lifting alone. There is a clear and compelling need for civil society to stand up for pluralism and intergroup respect, and against hatred and antisemitism.

You have expressed your concern in the past that the Iranian regime will take advantage of diplomatic ties and agreements with the West, in particular the JCPOA, and intensify its threats against Israel. Now that US-Iranian relations have escalated, what could be a path forward?

I have long believed that every effort must be made to find common ground between the United States and Europe. Obviously, there remains a great deal of work to be done to achieve that goal. Meanwhile, Iran takes advantage of our own differences in the West, playing off one against the other to maximum advantage. By now, it should be abundantly clear that the notion prevalent in 2015, in the U.S. and Europe, that Iranian “moderates” would be strengthened by the JCPOA at the expense of the “hardliners” was a self-delusion. Rather, the JCPOA did not soften the regime, nor did it encourage the regime to turn inward and pursue reform and social development. Not at all. To the contrary, it only emboldened Iran, enriched its state coffers, and fueled Iranian expansionism from Lebanon to Syria, from Iraq to Yemen, and beyond. I believe that the U.S. and Europe, as a matter of priority, must redouble the search for common ground in encouraging Iranian protesters risking their lives today across the country, in sending a clear message that uranium enrichment and missile development will not be tolerated, and in challenging, not appeasing, Iranian interference in one nation after another. The threat posed by Iran centrally includes Israel, of course, but it doesn’t end there. Iran poses a threat to nations across the Middle East and North Africa, and its terrorist tentacles have reached into Europe, directly or through its Hezbollah proxy, on more than one occasion. And speaking of Hezbollah, how much longer will the EU continue the illusion of bifurcating the terror group into “political” and military” wings?

The hope is that Europe will become more clear-eyed when it comes to the threat posed by Iran, and the importance to European interests of a closer relationship with Israel.

 What is your hope for America’s European allies’ role in the unstable situation in the Middle East?

I have a short-term hope and I have a longer-term hope. The short-term hope is that Europe will become more clear-eyed when it comes to the threat posed by Iran, and, separately, when it comes to understanding the importance to European interests of a closer relationship with Israel. It is clear that there is no single view of Israel within European Union member states. That said, deepening ties with Israel should not be seen as a “gift” to Jerusalem. Rather, it serves the highest strategic interests of the EU.

I firmly believe that Europe can serve as a model for creating a new interstate paradigm in the Middle East.

Longer term, as far-fetched as it may seem today, I firmly believe that Europe can serve as a model for creating a new interstate paradigm in the Middle East. What’s needed are people today with the vision that Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet brought to post-WWII Europe 70 years ago. We are beginning to see the first elements of this in the Eastern Mediterranean around energy. Greece, Cyprus, Israel, and Egypt are forging closer links regarding natural gas, and at times they are joined by Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Whereas for Schuman and Monnet it began as coal and steel, tomorrow’s coal and steel could be energy, joined by electricity and environmentalism as the driving forces of a new era of interstate cooperation, replacing interstate conflict. Europe could and should be the North Star, the guiding light, for that alluring vision. Will it?

David Harris is the Chief Executive Officer of American Jewish Committee (AJC). Follow him on Twitter @DavidHarrisAJC.

Der Beitrag “To this day, many of us still wrestle with excruciating pain“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

In our interview with computer scientist and serial entrepreneur Alex Pentland, we spoke about his ideas for the question of data ownership, but also about fake news and disinformation campaigns.

Der Beitrag “Journalism today is fundamentally clickbait” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Jamie, do you think that the shift of public discourse into cyberspace and the rise of tech platforms and social media requires a new legal framework?

A legal framework needs to deal with the potentially monopolistic effects of these platforms. There are strong arguments to be made that Facebook and Google are monopolies. In that sense they should be regulated. But as far as regulating what they can and cannot publish, declaring certain content to be hate speech, that is something I would oppose.

Looking at the new German law that we have, the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz” or Network Enforcement Act, do you think that the institutions which are responsible for determining what is hate speech or not are the problem?

[related]Donald Trump is insulted by millions of people a day on the internet – including comedians. How would we ever police that in a free society? Why would you want the government telling people that they cannot insult others? I do not see how you can legally distinguish the notion of insult from satire, humor, and political critique. These are all forms of speech. Harassment could be something different. If you are a private citizen and someone is standing outside your door shouting at you, I am not sure that falls into the realm of free speech.

But an insult could potentially also be the beginning of actual violence. There are German politicians, who have fiercely criticized the AfD party and have then been insulted in cyberspace in a way that it was threatening.

In the United States we have the most permissive free speech laws. By the way, we are founded on the idea of freedom and are really the only country that was founded on an idea. We are not a nation based on a particular race, a particular language. Direct threats of violence are not protected by our law. We need to be very specific. If you are clearly calling for violence against an individual, that should be punished. But that happens very rarely.

If we look at German history, the Weimar Republic had very stringent hate speech laws. “Der Stürmer” was one of the most luridly antisemitic newspapers at the time. It was prohibited from publishing or actually had its copies confiscated by the government about three dozen times in the years between 1922 and 1932, the ten years leading up to the Nazi seizure of power. This did not do anything to stop the Nazis. There were much larger forces at play. To attribute political violence or the breakdown of democracy to speech is not historically accurate. We cannot protect democracy by limiting the rights of individuals.

We cannot protect democracy by limiting the rights of individuals.

One of the main arguments of people who advocate for hate speech laws is that this legislation leads to a more civic public discourse which has to be protected.

But Germany has had these sorts of regulations for many years. And now you have an AfD party which you hadn’t had in decades. Maybe that has something to do with a culture where the lines of what was considered a permissible debate were drawn too narrowly.

The usage of Nazi symbols and the denial of the holocaust is prohibited in Germany for good reasons. This is a formative aspect of what we think is in accordance with the constitution and our idea of democracy. Where would you draw the line?

I can only explain the American perspective on this. Has banning holocaust denial resulted in less people believing in it? We can see that antisemitic beliefs are quite high in Germany and they have probably been rising over the past couple of years. I understand that there is no political will, no political benefit to be gained in calling for repealing these laws. Obviously, the circumstances of this country are unique. You had a new constitution written after the devastating war. It was also heavily influenced by the United States. You were basically starting over. Today, and I say this as a Jew, banning holocaust denial is not going to stop people from believing in it. Banning speech or certain ideas does not do anything to limit their appeal, unfortunately. If it did, I would not change my mind because I believe in the principle.

Banning speech or certain ideas does not do anything to limit their appeal, unfortunately.

In one of your recent articles in the Washington Post you wrote that it is a hopeless task to define fake news, differentiate it from different pieces of news and then ban it. However, there are tools to identify fake news that have been artificially generated by a social bot. We know that fake news can seriously harm the processes and formation of the political will before a democratic election. Shouldn’t we do something about it?

The effects of fake news on society have been vastly exaggerated. Studies have shown that most voters had made up their minds. Understandably, people were looking for explanations why Donald Trump became President of the United States. No one could grapple with the real reasons for his victory. Fake news was something that people settled on as an easy explanation.

Do you really think so?

What if Donald Trump says climate change is a Chinese hoax? Do we ban the reporting of those statements? The mere fact that we are having this conversation shows how difficult this is. Aside from outright defamation or slander, which are things that are legally defined and described.

But it is possible to identify the origin of fake news, people who artificially generate these pieces of misinformation.

The platforms have moved into the direction of trying to limit the effects of foreign government sponsored disinformation websites or, at least, to identify them as such.

Which is a good thing.

Right. It is something that the platforms are doing mostly voluntarily. They should be encouraged to do that. But at the end of the day that is like sticking your finger in a flood and trying to stop it. Ultimately, you need an educated citizenry that knows how to distinguish legitimate news sources from those that are not.

Ultimately, you need an educated citizenry that knows how to distinguish legitimate news sources from those that are not.

Consequently, freedom of speech can only be limited in case of expressions that clearly trigger violence.

Yes, in case of direct threats of imminent violence.

What do you find most irritating about the “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz”?

I am worried that authoritarian countries are learning from this and will use the same tools that are provided by this law in a democratic country and use the same justifications to go after their own citizens in dictatorships. We already see evidence of that. And it frankly makes it harder for us in the West, in the free world to criticize those sorts of policies and actions by dictatorial governments when we adopt similar policies.

James Kirchick is a Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Institution and an Atlantik-Bruecke Young Leader Alumnus. A widely published journalist and a leading voice on American gay politics, he is familiar with the tension between hate speech and free speech and a staunch defender of the latter. His expertise includes both American and European politics. He is the author of ‘The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues and the Coming Dark Age’ (Yale, 2017). You can find his profile at the Brookings Institution here.

Der Beitrag “The government should not declare what is hate speech” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Nik Nanos

In a world marked by political volatility and uncertainty, many wondered whether Canada was an outlier. In 2015, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau swept to power on his proverbial “sunny ways” campaign, advancing a moderate, progressive, inclusive vision for Canada firmly fixed on helping Canada’s middle class. In the period between the 2015 and the 2019 federal elections, Canadians were unsettled by U.S. President Donald Trump’s drive to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement and to remake the North American relationship. Indeed, for Trump, it was not just about remaking America’s role in the world, it was about shaking up the world order ranking from NAFTA, to NATO to America’s relationship with China.

[related]This brief will examine the political context in Canada ranging from the domestic political situation as manifested in the 2019 General Election through to the perceptions of Canada’s major allies. Together they paint a picture of domestic uncertainty coupled with a reaching out to economic and security partners that have a potential to provide stable positive relations.

Leading up to the 2019 General Election, the Liberals enjoyed a comfortable 10 to 15 point advantage over the Conservative Party. This consistent and prolonged honeymoon in the first three years of the mandate was more of a political Potemkin Village than a continuation of the warm embrace of Trudeau’s sunny ways. The two major opposition parties, the right wing Conservatives and the New Democrats which are a left-wing social democratic alternative to the Liberals were both leaderless for a significant portion of the mandate of the Liberals. In the absence of a clear counterpoint or alternative, the Liberals, on paper, looked strong. Fast forward to 2019, and the resignation of two senior women cabinet ministers over perceived interference in the SNC Lavalin legal proceedings which deal with corruption charges and the ‘sunny ways’ of the Trudeau Liberals turned into dark days. Indeed on the very first day the election writs were issued and the campaign began the Liberals were on the defensive responding to new revelations in the SNC Lavalin Affair.

With the Bloc surge in Quebec and blockbuster revelations about Trudeau wearing a brown-face 19 years ago, the Liberals scrambled to hold on to government.

The structural game changer for the Liberals was the rise of the separatist Bloc Quebecois in the French-speaking province of Quebec. Ahead of the campaign, the popular wisdom was that the Liberals would lose seats in many of Canada’s regions but gain in the province of Quebec at the expense of the sagging New Democratic Party. However, Bill 21, Quebec Provincial Legislation banning the wearing of religious symbols for public employees like civil servants, teachers and police officers, reignited Quebec nationalist sentiment which rallied around the Bloc Quebecois. With the Bloc surge in Quebec and blockbuster revelations about Trudeau wearing a brown-face 19 years ago, the Liberals scrambled to hold on to government.

Over the course of 37 campaign days of nightly tracking done by Nanos Research for The Globe and Mail and CTV News, the Conservatives led on 22 evenings and the Liberals led on 15 nights. The seesaw battle continued – with Trudeau being on the defensive and the Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, also, on the defensive over his personal position on abortion, same sex marriage, holding dual citizenship and fuzziness about his professional accreditation as an insurance broker.

The Conservatives won the popular vote but the Liberals won the greatest number of seats and held on to power largely on the inefficient distribution of Conservative support which was highly concentrated in the energy rich Prairie provinces in the West. With that the Liberal majority was lost and the Liberals now have to work with other parties to stay in power.

The other major shift over the course of the last four years has been in the views of Canadians of their major allies. For the first time in memory.

Setting aside the election and the Liberal set back from majority to minority, the other major shift over the course of the last four years has been in the views of Canadians of their major allies. For the first time in memory. Among the key shifts is a lack of confidence in the ability of Canada to have a positive relationship with the United States. Views of Mexico are currently more positive than views of the United States with is in contrast to the historical public opinion trend. Canadians are more likely to self declare a greater affinity for Europe as a place of shared values, commitment to the rule of law and outright stability. The views that Canadians have of Germany, over the course of the past 15 years are steadily becoming more positive when it comes to perceptions related to shared business values and shared values on human rights.

The message for the Trudeau minority government is that with an uncertain domestic political situation and an unsettled relationship with the United States, greater and closer engagement with Europe represents a potential anti-dote to the anxiety that Canadians have about the future, who our partners will be and where Canada should look. Driven by geography and history, the relationship with the US will continue to be the foundational bilateral focus of Canada. However, given the current situation, Canada is at a moment in time where an increasing number of Canadians would welcome a diversification of Canada’s outward view of it’s economic and security partners. On that front, Europe now more than ever is positively on the radar of Canadians.

Professor Nik Nanos is the Chief Data Scientist at Nanos Research.

Hier sehen Sie die Präsentation der Studie von Professor Nik Nanos, auf der dieser exklusive Text für die Atlantik-Brücke basiert.

Der Beitrag Domestic instability and uncertainty with the U.S. may propel Canada closer to Europe erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Listen to the conversation:

Interview: David Deißner

Joshua Walker, on October 9th of this year Turkey launched a military offensive in northern Syria which is directed against the Kurdish YPG militia. This step was facilitated through the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region. What does this mean for the credibility of the United States in the Middle East?

American credibility and foreign policy have suffered not just in the Middle East. Although you could shrug and say American credibility has been suffering for a long time, not just under the Trump presidency, but ever since the so-called red line that was set by the previous administration in Syria. Nobody should have been surprised. The U.S. has sold out the Kurds numerous times. This was inevitable in coming, but it is still tragic to watch all the human suffering. It was not a matter of if but a matter of when. The surprising nature of this is how quickly it escalated and became a global crisis. To see the way in which the power vacuum that the United States has left in Syria has been filled by Russia, Iran, and now Turkey which used to be on different sides is particularly interesting to watch. October 9th joked at our military officials who have been working so closely with our Kurdish allies.

Which role does NATO member Turkey play in this situation in northern Syria regarding the Kurdish forces?

[related]From the beginning, the Turks have been the main protagonist. Turkey is the second largest military power in NATO in terms of the number of forces, and it is a sophisticated fighting force. The fact that it is also the Muslim majority power has always led Turkey to have a larger seat at the table. Turkey shares one of the longest land borders with Syria. From the very beginning of the Syrian uprising, Turkey has been very clear about its position: It is against Assad, but it also believes that the YPG or the PKK is a terrorist organization that represents an existential threat to the republic of Turkey. Turkey has been waging a war against this group for a good thirty-year period from the eighties onward. Thousands of lives have been lost.

There is a domestic context here for Turkey as well. President Erdogan, who has been flagging with his popularity, needs to find a reason to continue his policy given on what happened with the Istanbul municipal election recently. There is no political party in Turkey, with the exception of the HDP, that does not believe that this is the right course of action. There has been a steady drumbeat of war. Erdogan seized the opportunity.

There has been a steady drumbeat of war. Erdogan seized the opportunity.

What happens if Turkey invokes Article 5 of its NATO membership if it is attacked by some Kurdish forces?

First of all, a lot of us thought that because Turkey is a NATO member, perhaps it would not take these actions in Syria. Invoking Article 5 could cause an internal crisis in NATO. The bigger discussion in Washington is the following: With allies like this, what should we be thinking of NATO as we know it is no longer a relevant force inside of Turkey because of Turkey’s behavior, not just in this particular case with Syria, but also with the Russian S-400 weapon systems that have been bought? We as transatlantic friends struggle with this question.

Will Russia and Iran, which both protect the regime of President Bashar al-Assad geopolitically, benefit from the new reality on the ground in Syria?

Absolutely. The Astana process by which Russia, Turkey, and Iran have been negotiating these issues, even when there was a more adversarial relationship between the three capitals, has picked up to be one of the main deciding factors. If I am Syrian today, unlike in the past when I would need to go to Switzerland or New York to try to figure out what my fate would be, increasingly this is beginning to flow through Moscow and Teheran and to a lesser extent through Ankara. Because Ankara is playing much more like a regional player. Turkey seems to be focusing its energies on its regional aspirations and particularly protecting its sovereign territory, versus Russia, who is playing the role of a spoiler. Wherever it can really stymie unity or international efforts, it is doing so in a powerful way. It is really breathtaking to watch how Russia, which is from a purely numbers point of view a very weak power, is punching well above its weight. The difference between Russia’s actions and Iranian actions is that Iran has a much larger regional game here that is playing out with Hezbollah, Lebanon, and its antagonism of Israel.

It is really breathtaking to watch how Russia, which is from a purely numbers point of view a very weak power, is punching well above its weight.

Syria that has been in a civil war for more than eight years becomes once again a site of further combat operations. These cause an ever-increasing number of deaths and force tens of thousands of people to flee. Which responsibility does the West bear for this tremendous humanitarian crisis?

It is easy to point fingers. The West did not inspire the movements that led out of the Arab spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria. However, if the West had lifted a finger and put it on the scales in the Syrian War on one side or the other, we would have clearly made a difference and changed the outcome. If we had had even half or a third of the political will, that the Iranians or the Russians had in protecting Assad, in eliminating him, it would be over. Ultimately, we are all to blame for where we are. We are in the worst of both worlds.

Where do you see the qualitative difference between the Obama administration’s approach to this issue and the current administration’s policy?

There is an amazing amount of continuity with our policies. Even when Obama decided not to enforce the red line, there were still American forces there: State Department, U.S. Aid, intelligence, and defense. With the “New Beginning” speech in Cairo, the Obama administration put the rhetoric out ahead of its actions. When the actions did not meet up to the rhetoric, there was a real disappointment and cynicism that developed about America’s intentions in the region.

When Trump came in, there was an initial honeymoon period. Trump does not seem to have any appetite for foreign intervention and seems to want to get everybody out of the so-called endless wars. Yet many of the agencies I described continued to do business as usual in the region. Until last month, when Trump telegraphed Erdogan that he is not doing anything more and pulling American soldiers out. Now you see a real anger and backlash when you look at the Republican response to President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds. Almost all foreign policy professionals were uniform in saying this is a pretty significant and bad move on Trump’s part. This is a lose-lose situation in a worst-case scenario.

Now you see a real anger and backlash when you look at the Republican response to President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds.

German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer suggested to establish an internationally controlled security zone along the Syrian-Turkish border in cooperation with Turkey and Russia. What is your take on this?

I am disappointed about what I am seeing because it seems like it is too late. If there is one silver lining, it is to see that Germany is realizing it has to play a larger role. But while this proposal sounds really forceful and it is a great talking point and headline, the Europeans should have been more proactive and focused on Turkish concerns beforehand. That is not even to mention the EU membership, which we do not even talk about anymore. That used to be the biggest driver of Turkish foreign policy. I am concerned that clearly the EU does not seem to feel like a real foreign or security power when it comes to Turkey.

If there is one silver lining, it is to see that Germany is realizing it has to play a larger role.

Is the EU at least to some extent prepared for new high numbers of refugees seeking shelter in the European Union? Or is this rather not the case, and Europe is very much depending on the agreement it has completed with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan so that more than three million Syrian refugees living in Turkish camps do not enter the European Union?

The EU is clearly dependent on Turkey. The EU has simply made the short term negative case of saying: We will pay you to keep the refugees there. There is no long-term solution. Turks are now literally piling refugees into trucks and driving them into Syria. Generally speaking, it would be a mistake to give up on Turkey. The Europeans are in danger of losing their relationship with Turkey over their fears related to national security concerns.

What are the ramifications of the latest developments for a potential reinvigoration of ISIS in the Middle East?

First of all, the killing of Baghdadi was a real blow. The fact that other top ISIS deputies were being knocked out may be the one positive silver lining. The broader ramifications are that there is a power vacuum. Russia has no interest in stopping a reinvigoration of ISIS, and Assad doesn’t really control all of his territory yet. If the Kurdish forces, which were fighting ISIS do not see any incentive to continue doing this, extremist forces like ISIS and al-Qaida will come back. I just worry, that we are so reactive at this point in time that we are just one terrorist attack away from something major.

I just worry, that we are so reactive at this point in time that we are just one terrorist attack away from something major.

What kind of overall strategy would you recommend to the transatlantic partners with regard not only to Syria but to the whole region in the Middle East?

One of the challenges we have for an overall strategy is that all of us are very distracted at home. You have to start at home. We as transatlantic partners have to focus on our core interests that we still share as a community of nations. NATO as the largest and most powerful and historic military alliance still has a role to play in protecting us and also in terms of working together. We are stronger together than individually. Turkey is a perfect example for us to cooperate with. Nobody has an interest for Turkey and its economy to go off the ledge. We need to find a way to reorientate our relationship with Turkey in a realistic manner. There are bright spots that we should be looking at, particularly in the economic sphere, when it comes to the Turkish youth and education system.

Here you can find Joshua Walker’s profile site at Eurasia Group.

Der Beitrag “The U.S. has sold out the Kurds numerous times” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

A potential impeachment against U.S. President Donald Trump keeps Washington in suspense. Has it become more likely due to this week’s developments?

Michael Werz: Yes, public support for an impeachment inquiry has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few weeks and is now at 58%. More interestingly, 49% of all Americans now want President Trump to be convicted in the Senate and removed from office. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives will insure the initiation of the process. However, two thirds of the Senate have to support the motion to impeach a President. That means, in addition to the Democratic votes, 20 Republican Senators would have to vote against President Trump.

[related]So, it’s unclear, as always. What is clear is that vulnerable Republican Senators who face reelection next November will have a near impossible choice: vote for Trump and alienate independent voters and some moderate Republicans or vote against him and potentially lose his hardcore supporters. This is important, since the Democrats need only four seats to win the majority in the U.S. Senate and vulnerable Republicans include Cory Gardner in Colorado, Martha McSally in Arizona, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Joni Ernst in Iowa, and Susan Collins in Maine.

Peter Rough: The political fundamentals surrounding impeachment have not shifted over the past week. The Democratic party leadership, led by Speaker Pelosi in the House of Representatives, is overwhelmingly in support of impeachment. The Republican party, led by Senator McConnell in the Senate, vociferously disagrees. As things stand, this sets up a collision that will play out over the next year.

Prominent voices from the Republican Party have fiercely criticized the President‘s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. What does this tell us about the overall situation of the GOP?

MW: Several things: that there may still be some life left in the Republican Party; and that military retrenchment in the Middle East stirs more unease than putting Latino children into cages at the U.S.-Mexico Border, the reversal of important environmental protections, or the corrupt enrichment of the President and his family. It remains to be seen if this is a watershed moment for the Grand Old Party, if the past two and a half years and the massive support of registered Republican voters for Donald Trump are any indication, the latest crisis will pass and the party will only re-discover its traditional moral and political bearings when facing electoral defeat.

PR: So much for the criticism that Republicans in Congress are poodles of the president! In all seriousness, though, these objections show just how much esteem Turkey has lost over the past decade amongst both parties. The distrust of President Erdogan is visceral in Washington; by contrast, the Trump administration believes it has no choice but to lean on Turkey if it is to build a stable Middle Eastern order without large-scale American troops.

Many argue that from a strategic point of view it is highly risky for the Democrats to push forward with an impeachment. Does the Democratic Party fall victim to its internal dynamics with regard to the Presidential Election in 2020?

MW: It might or it might not—but that’s not the point. Congress has the obligation to defend the Constitution of the United States and sanction behavior by the President that defies the law of the land. Donald Trump openly asked for—and in the case of Ukraine, extorted—the help of foreign countries in investigating his domestic political rivals. He even asked China, perhaps the United States’ primary geopolitical rival, to meddle in American politics. By taking these steps, Trump crossed a line that made it impossible for Congress to stay silent.

Just as a reminder: Impeachable conduct is not limited to criminal behavior. There are several kinds of conduct that warrant impeachment, including 1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; 2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and 3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. The Congressional Research Service notes that Alexander Hamilton described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” Simply put: In a democracy, the sovereign may not act arbitrarily, nor abuse his office for his own personal gain.

PR: The Democrats are convinced that President Trump is a highly vulnerable incumbent on a glide path to defeat. If that assumption is correct, introducing a highly combustible external variable like impeachment is a risky proposition. In my view, the odds that the Democratic party overreaches is 100 percent. The extent to which that shapes the presidential election – and does so decisively – is anyone’s guess.

Der Beitrag Two perspectives on impeachment and northern Syria erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The United Kingdom is in political turmoil these days. The terms of withdrawal from the European Union are a bone of contention between the political factions as well as between Parliament and the government. Lord Stephen Green, Member of the House of Lords, former Minister of State for Trade and Investment during the Cameron administration as well as former CEO of HSBC, talks about the current situation in Great Britain, the consequences of the conflicts on the political mood in the UK and about transatlantic relations.

Do you think the United Kingdom will leave the European Union on the 31^st of October?

[related]The chance of Britain leaving on the 31^st of October has declined in the light of recent developments. If no deal has been successfully negotiated by the 31^st of October, I think there is likely to be an extension. Britain will ask for it and I think the EU is likely to agree it. If there is a deal, then it depends on whether that gets through British Parliament. Any deal would have to include some provision for the situation on the island of Ireland. It would not be possible to get a deal with the EU that has no backstop, and it would not be possible to get a deal through the British Parliament that has the comprehensive backstop that was in Theresa May’s deal. If there is a deal with some modifications to address the Irish border question, then I think there is a reasonable chance of that getting through Parliament. And if that happens, Britain would leave on the 31^st of October.

What will be the consequences of Tuesday’s decision by the Supreme Court declaring the suspension of Parliament unlawful? Do you expect long term effects on the political climate in the UK?

The Supreme Court’s decision was hugely significant historically, and not just in the context of Brexit. This is a new step in the continuing evolution of the British constitution. Famously, the British constitution is not written down, it evolves by practice over the centuries. But this is a significant decision by the Supreme Court, because it was very precise, it looked at the historical precedents for the justiciability of advice from the Prime Minister to the Sovereign, and it took the view that this advice is subject to review by the courts under certain principles. Those principles were clearly defined, and it was a unanimous judgement. So it has strengthened the legislature against the executive. For the Supreme Court, itself a fairly new institution, to have made such a clear decision on this, is a remarkable constitutional development.

What the effects on the Brexit process will be is hard to see at the moment. The next few days will be quite significant. I don’t think it is going to lead to the fall of the government, I don’t think it will lead to a change in the present government’s strategy for negotiation, and I don’t think it will make much difference to the way in which this all plays out in late October. In all likelihood, it will not change the timing of a general election. Most people still believe that there will be a general election, but not before November. However, there is a lot of uncertainty about all of this. This is all completely unprecedented. We are seeing history in the making in this country, day by day.

Is there any chance for a second referendum?

Yes. The Labour Party’s official position is that they would seek to negotiate a new deal, which they would then put to a referendum, where the choice would be between the deal and remaining in the EU. The Liberal Democrats are clearly committed to remaining in the EU and they’ve taken the view that they would do that by revoking article 50 without a referendum. The Conservative Party is opposed to a referendum. But I think the probability of a referendum has increased in light of recent developments. It would not come before a general election, though.

President Trump and Prime Minister Johnson have demonstrated unity at a press conference at the UN General Assembly, and there has been talk about a comprehensive trade agreement between the US and the UK after Brexit, with President Trump promising to quadruple the trade volume between the partners. What is your take on the relationship between the UK and the US at this moment?

I don’t think that the special relationship that British governments have always talked about is as important to America as it is to Britain. I think the trade relationship could certainly benefit from a trade treaty. But it will be more difficult to negotiate it than many people believe. The areas of interest to the British are obviously the growth of particularly financial services, where there are all sorts of restrictions in the American market that will be hard to deal with in the context of trade negotiations. The Americans will want to see substantial opening of the British food market, and that would run into difficulties in Britain. So this will not be an easy trade deal to negotiate. There is a fair share of naïve optimism on the part of those who believe that Britain will be so much more strongly placed once it’s out of the EU to negotiate favourable trade deals. We should expect it to be a long, drawn-out process with plenty of obstacles on both sides. In the short or medium term, it will be difficult to achieve any significant change in the amount of trade done between the two countries.

What does this mean for the European-American Partnership?

The American interest is shifting away from Europe towards Asia. Their relationship with China is now their most important strategic issue, and their relationships more generally in the Far East and South Asia are now significantly more important strategically for the coming decades than Europe. Trump clearly wants to weaken the European Union. I don’t think that’s widely shared among the American establishment; but what is shared among the American political spectrum is a sense that Europe is losing significance, and that Asia is gaining significance. As far as their relationship with the British is concerned, I believe that it is less significant to America than the British think it is. In the area of NATO and of security, there are of course important common interests. But if you’re looking at wider geopolitics and at commerce, the Americans will be very hard-nosed in their approach to any negotiations with the British. As far as the EU is concerned, they don’t mind if it weakens, because that is not their primary area of interest anymore.

Der Beitrag “We are seeing history in the making in this country” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Interview: Robin Fehrenbach

Mr. Fanusie, you analyze the implications of cryptocurriencies such as Bitcoin for the U.S. national security. To give us a better understanding of this issue: What challenges regarding cyber security do free Western societies face in this context?

The biggest concern right now is that cryptocurrencies are an evolving technology that have already taken hold among a certain niche population. Illicit actors are experimenting with them. Some of this experimentation are attempts at fundraising or new ways to launder money. It has not run the full course, but it is something that these actors are adapting to. That is why it is very important for national security actors, whether they are financial authorities, law enforcement or intelligence agencies, to be as smart with this technology as our adversaries are. Terrorist financing is still small but we see terrorists are gaining knowledge of this technology, and that is a concern.

It is very important for national security actors, whether they are financial authorities, law enforcement or intelligence agencies, to be as smart with this technology as our adversaries are.

To what degree does the funding of international terrorism and illicit finance occur today through new financial technologies such as blockchain?

[related]I can’t quantify the degree. No one really knows. I would generally say the scale is small. What terrorists are gaining from other methods of fundraising and moving money is much more than what they are probably gaining through cryptocurrencies. Because cryptocurrencies are still a very small sector, they are less available. It is a new additional niche to their mix. It is not providing them millions of dollars of funding. But they are becoming more familiar with them and they are innovating and developing new schemes that we cannot detect because we don’t follow every new payment method that closely. Their ability to adapt is the real problem.

How sophisticated and elaborated is the level of transatlantic cooperation when it comes to cyber security measures surrounding digital currencies and sanctions to maintain the geopolitical order?

We are still in the beginning stages because on both sides you only have a few people who understand this technology. So, it is hard to cooperate when you only have a small number of experts. There has to be an increase of sophistication on the government side. We have to do more.

We are still in the beginning stages because on both sides you only have a few people who understand this technology.

You have coined the term “crypto rogue” in your publications. What types of terrorists belong to this kind of criminal group?

I used that term actually for rogues who are state actors. You have states that are really trying to circumvent the global financial order and international sanctions from the European Union and the United States. That is the case for Iran, Russia and Venezuela and to some degree China.

Facebook plans to introduce its own cryptocurrency called Libra. China is also seriously carrying out its cryptocurrency plans. Do you think that this is a growing market and that new technologies will be common tools in the international economy and finance world to the disadvantage of regular currencies such as the U.S. dollar and the euro?

It is too soon to say because it really depends on how these stablecoins are implemented and get adopted. The projects that already exist won’t undermine major economies like the USA. I don’t envision a total undermining of our order.

Der Beitrag “Terrorists are adapting to cryptocurrencies” 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..

The Relationship between Germany and Canada:
An Inspiration for the World

Lieber Herr Dr. Deißner, Geschäftsführer der Atlantik-Brücke, lieber Herr Michael Klaus, Partner am Bankhaus Metzler, lieber Herr Jürgen Conzelmann, CEO bei Haus & Grund Frankfurt am Main, sehr verehrte Atlantik-Brücke Mitglieder, Gäste und Freunde.

I am the other North American Atlantik-Brücke Ambassador. I am quite jealous that I do not receive as much coverage in Germany as my esteemed US colleague. But what can I do about it? The fact is that one would have to work hard to find provocative or controversial issues between Germany and Canada. Our relationship is like a blue sky, both bilaterally and in global affairs.

One can only dream of a world where all countries would be as friendly as we are. But Germans and Canadians should not take the excellence of their relationship for granted and always work to preserve and improve it. This is why I thank you so much for inviting me to join you at your annual summer party here in Frankfurt.

Over the next fifteen minutes or so, I will try to take a comprehensive – and I hope optimistic – view. My main point is that Germans and Canadians know that they appreciate each other, but increasingly, they realise that they need each other.  I think that sentiment bears repeating:

Wir haben uns in der Vergangenheit sehr geschätzt, sind uns aber zunehmend bewusst, wie sehr wir uns brauchen. Nous savons que nous nous apprécions, mais maintenant nous réalisons que nous avons besoin les uns des autres.

Inspired by the German-Canadian blue sky, allow me to inject a bit of cautious optimism about the challenges that we are facing. I think that we need this positive view, as the stories that are so often repeated are excessively gloomy.

Let’s start with the state of the EU. Canada strongly believes in the EU and you may know that Prime Minister Trudeau appointed me his Special Envoy to the EU and Europe in addition to serving as Ambassador to Germany.

It is worthwhile to recall the extent of Europe’s divisions and difficulties only some few years ago. The EU was deeply preoccupied with its internal efforts to forge and maintain Member State consensus in response to a series of grave and unforeseen threats to EU unity: the Eurozone debt crisis, prolonged recessions in large parts of Europe, chronic high unemployment, mass arrivals of refugees, the trauma of the Brexit referendum result and the rise of identity-based, populist and anti-EU parties.

Some of these threats remain, but the state of the EU in my view has improved considerably. The turning point for the EU came… when the EU successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada! Since then, the Greek crisis has been addressed, economic growth in Europe has returned to some extent, and the unemployment rate across the Union is at the lowest level since January of 2000. No other country has followed the UK to try to leave the EU, and solidarity amongst its members remains strong – if not stronger as a result of the never ending Brexit saga. According to polls, the image of the EU amongst its citizens is more positive now than in the past 35 years, and the EU has surpassed the popularity of national governments and parliaments, including in Hungary and Poland.

Yes, the populist and Eurosceptic parties have made their presence felt, but support for them appears to have plateaued since the major impacts of 2015 migration crisis are behind us.

So, I think there are reasons for cautious optimism as to the state of the EU.

But what about trade. Can we be cautiously optimistic about international trade? Are we not facing a strong global protectionist mood?

Well, I would say that Canada, Germany and the EU can be proud to have made such progress on trade, despite growing protectionism. If you invest in Canada, you now invest in a country which has free trade with the EU, continued free trade with the United States and Mexico, and a newly concluded free trade agreement with 10 other countries of the Pacific, including Japan and Korea. Doing business in Canada means having access to 2/3 of the world economy, almost entirely duty-free. The EU has been equally active in opening its markets, as in addition to CETA it concluded agreements with Japan, Ukraine, Singapore and the Mercosur just in the past two years.

Since provisional implementation of CETA in September 2017, the two-way trade in goods between Canada and the EU has increased by 9.4% over pre-CETA volumes, and trade in services went up 5.9%. But this is only the beginning, there is a lot of room to increase the volume of trade between us.

The European Court of Justice released its decision on CETA in April, and it was positive, as anticipated; we look forward to a decision by the German Constitutional Court to follow. This opens a window of opportunity for ratification by EU member states. Thirteen EU countries have ratified already, and most recently France is moving forward. Clear leadership from Germany along with France is important in this critical phase.

Some Länder in the Bundesrat may have concerns about CETA as their coalition governments include the Green Party. But in my country I am known for being quite green myself, and I am making the point in Germany and elsewhere in Europe that CETA will facilitate the spread and implementation of the types of green innovation that Europe and Canada need. CETA includes ambitious environment provisions that commit Canada and the EU to uphold high levels of environmental protection as we liberalize trade, and to cooperate on issues of mutual interest such as climate change.

In fact, CETA is a major landmark in the development and global articulation of an inclusive Trade Agenda – an agreement that will improve free and fair trade between the EU and Canada and includes high standards for consumers, workers and the environment. CETA is an opportunity to convince our populations, and the world, that it would be a mistake to think we have to choose between trade and social progress. We can, and we must, pursue both.

More united than ever, Germany and Canada must work together to facilitate progressive trade around the world and to avoid protectionism and harmful tariffs. For example, we must prevent new tariffs especially on the auto industry and rebuff the surreal notion that our countries could be national security threats to the United States.

These tariffs are damaging each of our economies, including that of the United States. We should not sanction each other as friends and partners through damaging tariffs or extra-territorial sanctions. That much is clear.

As Germany and Canada watch the trade negotiations between the US and China, we hope that these negotiations will result in the protection of intellectual property, and ward off non-tariff barriers, the misuse of technology and massive public subsidies. These negotiations would be more likely to succeed if everything was done to strengthen, and not weaken, the WTO.

For our two countries, in fact for the world, China is an opportunity and a challenge. According to the IMF, China now accounts for 15% of global GNP and 14% of global military spending, versus just 1.7% and 1.6% respectively in 1990, a phenomenal increase.

For the first time since 1945, the second-ranked country on the list of the largest military and economic powers is not a liberal democracy.

That is an additional reason for liberal democracies to work together to strengthen rules-based trade.

China is not only a big economy, it is also an authoritarian regime, which raises many issues around human rights and the rule of law. If China is putting the freedom and security of our business people, diplomats, and other citizens at risk, then this is bad for all of us, including China.

The rule of law is essential for human rights, but it is also essential for a sound business environment. We as liberal democracies must work together, and not in a disjointed way, for inclusive rules-based trade. Strong cooperation between Germany and Canada will be key to successfully meeting this challenge.

I would apply the same cautious optimism about the future of multilateralism. Allow me to say a word about that issue.

For one thing, there has never been a golden age in which practising multilateralism, as a way of addressing bilateral and global challenges, has not faced headwinds. The end of the Cold War sparked hope that the difficulties were behind us and that multilateralism would henceforth be unimpeded, used by all. But states have always been inclined to follow those international rules that benefit them while ignoring or bending those they do not like. In a world fundamentally governed by state sovereignty, multilateralism will continue to be a system that cannot be taken for granted, one that requires constant attention, especially from committed countries like Germany and Canada.

It is a safe bet that multilateralism and its institutions such as the UN, the WTO, NATO and the European Union will survive today’s pressures just as they have overcome past challenges. Canada will do everything toward this aim, starting by engaging our US friends, whose leadership is so needed. In the United States itself, nearly 9 out of 10 Americans (88 percent) want their country to continue playing an active role in the United Nations. Eighty-three percent want their country to continue working with its allies. Two thirds of Americans prefer a foreign policy that draws them closer to Europe rather than a more independent policy.

Canada and the United States enjoy a unique and interdependent relationship, forged by shared geography, similar values, common interests, deep connections and powerful, multi-layered economic ties. Close to 400,000 people cross the shared border each day for business or pleasure or to maintain family ties.

On the trade side, the new Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico: CUSMA, will maintain the tariff-free market access from NAFTA, and includes updates and new chapters to address modern-day trade challenges and opportunities.

The strength of our transatlantic relationship and the common commitments of our three countries to international peace and security are evident in our important contributions to NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Europe. Germany leads NATO’s military deployment in Lithuania. Canadian soldiers are leading a NATO battle group stationed just to the north in Latvia, and the US is leading the NATO deployment in Poland. As our Foreign Minister recently said, “we may not all be neighbours geographically, but we are actually neighbours in those NATO deployments.”

Canada is on the front line in supporting multilateralism along with Germany, but not just to defend it, to improve it as well. Canada is campaigning for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for 2021-2022 and also plans to make promoting multilateralism one of the major objectives of its potential mandate. No country would be a better successor to Germany, on the Security Council.

The relationship between Germany and Canada may have never been more positive, true, but we need to make it even more effective, about trade, of course, but also among a range of other issues like climate change, international security and the Artificial Intelligence. Recently, Foreign minister Maas came to Toronto and Nunavut to strengthen our cooperation in key issues like digitalisation, climate change and the Arctic. This past spring, in late April and early May, the Deutsch-Kanadischen Parliamentariergruppe criss-crossed Canada, traveling from British Columbia to Yukon to Ontario to deepen the dialogue between our respective national parliaments. But is not only our politicians who bring us together, but our family, business, cultural and even sporting ties. For example, Germany and Canada have one of the oldest and most successful bilateral youth mobility programs, which brings our countries even closer together.

In all of this, Atlantik Brücke and you all here tonight have an increasingly important role to play and let me conclude on that. Just as we are doing tonight, the importance of our meetings of high-level groups of business leaders, political figures and academics, committed to strengthening the Germany-US-Canada relationship cannot be overstated.

Our Executive Director, Dr. David Deißner is responsible for the 35^th annual Germany-Canada conference, to be held in Germany next year – and dear David, no pressure, but you have our full support in meeting the challenge, from the Canadian Embassy and myself, and as well, I know, from your excellent Ambassador in Ottawa, Sabine Sparwasser.

Abschließend wünsche ich Ihnen allen einen schönen Abend, einen tollen Sommerausklang und die besten Wünsche für den Herbst und das bevorstehende Jahr.

Danke sehr, thank you very much, merci du fond du coeur.

Der Beitrag “An Inspiration for the World“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Mr. Hodges, free and safe international shipping routes are essential for peace and stability in the globalized world. Now the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz poses a severe threat for international oil tankers. Are you disappointed about the German government’s decision not to join a combined British-U.S. naval mission?

Yes, I am.  Germany is a long-time, reliable ally, so I’m a bit surprised at their reluctance, thus far, to join this mission. German leadership is essential for stability in many of the critical regions of the world, including the Middle East. The brand name, “Made in Germany”, is respected around the world and other nations take note when Germany decides to act or not. Whether in the construct of a multilateral coalition, NATO, or a European construct, Germany would add real value to this mission in terms of diplomatic, information space, and economic value as well as military support.

Surprisingly, Germany is also a “Non-participant” in the four EU PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) projects that are directly related to maritime security. This seems unusual for a leading nation in the EU and NATO and a global economic trading power that depends on freedom of navigation for its economic security and prosperity.

Is U.S. President Trump’s “policy of maximum pressure” vis-à-vis Iran and the future of the Nuclear Agreement (JCPOA) an effective way to guarantee peace in this region?

[related]I would have preferred that the USA remain in the JCPOA. Not because it was a good or the best agreement, but because I believe in the value of having and working with strong allies towards a common objective. The JCPOA was inadequate to address all of the key security issues. And the current Iranian regime has clearly been creating instability in the region in support of various extremist organizations for years. Many American soldiers died in Iraq as a result of EFP (explosively formed penetrator) IED’s (improvised explosive devices) which were manufactured in Iran and supplied to insurgent forces. But by working closely with the leading nations of the international community, especially Germany, I believe we could have continued to press Iran using all the elements of national strength and of the coalition’s power. This is what we call the DIME construct (diplomacy, information, military, and economy).

Stability in the region is a necessary precursor for prosperity in the region and, because of the importance of energy resources, much of the rest of the world. The best way to guarantee stability in the region is to involve all the parties interested in the process, to enforce international law, and to maintain a united front.

What are your hopes for transatlantic cooperation in the Middle East in the upcoming weeks and months?

Transatlantic cooperation is essential, there is no other way to achieve meaningful, lasting results. NATO is the most successful alliance in the history of the world. There is a reason it has continued to grow since its founding in 1949. As Secretary General Stoltenberg recently said, NATO means that every member has 28 other friends with common values and shared interests.

None of us has adequate capabilities in any of the DIME domains to go it alone. And we are indeed much stronger together, when we can prevent potential adversaries or the relevant regional parties from driving wedges between us.

Germany has a key role to play in the region not only because of its economic requirements and the need for energy for customers of the German auto industry, but because of its moral authority. Germany is respected around the world and currently has a key seat on the UN Security Council. This, combined with its leadership in the EU, make it the nation that I believe is America’s most important ally. I hope that my country will pursue Germany as our most important ally. I also hope that Germany will step up to accept a leading role in the region.

Learn more about Ben Hodges on his CEPA-profile site.

Der Beitrag Hodges: “Germany’s reluctance surprises me” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

It really is an era coming to an end. After ten years, Friedrich Merz as the chairman is leaving and John Emerson has already left – but not really. Let me start with you, dear Friedrich Merz. You are looking back on ten important and successful years. What was your biggest success, the most positive transatlantic event?

[related]FM: First of all, I am really happy to co-host the biggest German-American Conference we ever had at Atlantik-Brücke together with the American Council on Germany (ACG) tonight and tomorrow. It is a great honor that we are attracting so many people to our conference. Sitting here and looking over to the Adlon Hotel, I am reminded of one of the best meetings I had in my capacity as chairman of the Atlantik-Brücke with John’s predecessor Bob Kimmitt. At the very beginning of my tenure, I invited him for dinner there. It was not an easy conversation because cooperation between the ACG and the Atlantik-Brücke had been a little fraught before. I said: Bob, let’s talk about what has happened and let’s look forward to what we can do jointly in the future. We came to the conclusion that we should leave the past behind and restore our cooperation. This was the continuation of a very fruitful collaboration between our two organizations, which we should make sure we continue in the future.

Which moment worried you the most?

FM: The biggest disappointment was the failure of TTIP. When I see what is happening in the US these days, I wish that we at least had TTIP. But to be honest, I am not so sure if this would really help as long as the American President is not willing to stick to the agreements the US government entered into. Nevertheless, we should come back to a rules-based cooperation between Europe and the United States. A transatlantic free trade agreement is one of the most important things we could and should achieve in the future. We all worked very hard on TTIP and we met in several places in Germany to fight for TTIP.

The biggest disappointment was the failure of TTIP.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

John Emerson, you said the two of you were working together for six years. You were trying to achieve TTIP, and you are still true friends. Can you describe your cooperation and what is the key to this special friendship?

JE: I have to say what a great pleasure it is to sit up here and look into this room and see so many friends. Old friends, new friends, but particularly friends from our time in Germany. Secondly, I have to say, that there was probably no one I enjoyed working with in Germany more than Friedrich Merz. Friedrich hosted the opening dinner at which I spoke when I got introduced to some in this room and many in the German public the day I presented my credentials to President Gauck. And then literally the last speech that I gave and the last event that Kimberly and I and our girls attended, Friedrich hosted with Atlantik-Brücke again. He threw an incredible party for us. On behalf of all of us, we are really sad to see you go.

I have to say, that there was probably no one I enjoyed working with in Germany more than Friedrich Merz.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

There are three levels to the German-American friendship and relationship. There is a government to government level – and sometimes there are things that we agree on and sometimes there are things that we don’t agree on. There is also the business to business level. There is no reason in the world that we cannot continue negotiating a great trade agreement. And then there is the people to people level, which is very much reflected by what we see tonight in this room.

Friedrich Merz, you recently said, and I quote you directly: We are eyewitnesses of a fundamental political and economic shift. You underlined that change while mentioning the election of the 45^thU.S. President and the party convention of the Communist Party of China in October 2017. What exactly are these tectonic changes that we are facing?

FM: I mentioned a third date, which was the 23^rdof June 2016, when the majority of the British decided Britain should leave the EU. These three events, the Brexit vote, the American election and the party convention of the Communist Party in China mark a fundamental change in our history. When we look back at these events some time from now, we will realize what really happened. Let me quote Professor Heinrich August Winkler, who said: We are in the midst of a cultural fight about the future of our liberal order. He concludes that it is really uncertain whether we will win. But there is something that makes me optimistic: when I travel to the United States, my experience is that in these complicated times, more Americans than ever before are willing to defend what we achieved over the last seven decades. Let’s preserve our freedom and our liberty.

These three events, the Brexit vote, the American election and the party convention of the Communist Party in China mark a fundamental change in our history.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

John, what do you think about this?

JE: If you talk to most Americans and tell them that there is a real crisis in the German-American relationship, they say: What are you talking about? We love Germany. Angela Merkel still is probably, if not the most, one of the two most respected foreign leaders in the United States of America. The multilateral institutions that were created over the last 70 years, as creaky and in need of reform as some of them are, have been largely responsible for helping to create 70 years of peace and prosperity, growth and national security throughout the West. As we move away from working in and through those institutions towards a more transactional nation to nation approach, we risk moving away from the values that hold us together.

As we move away from working in and through multilateral institutions towards a more transactional nation to nation approach, we risk moving away from the values that hold us together.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

John, Sigmar Gabriel, the possible next chairman of Atlantik-Brücke, said Europeans only care about themselves, for world issues they rely on the United States.Is this description true?

JE: Absolutely. President Obama got a lot of heat for an interview with The Atlantic, in which he talked about free riders in terms of the whole burden sharing concept. In fairness to Sigmar Gabriel’s commentary on Europeans, Americans didn’t necessarily mind that we were running things. That wasn’t a role that the United States of America shrunk from, particularly during the Cold War. However, those issues that Friedrich talked about are significantly growing. Particularly in relation to China and to the rise of nationalist populism around the world that has much more of a cultural genesis than an economic genesis, particularly here in Europe where immigration is the jet fuel for that movement. Those are issues that we can confront best when we are working together.

Friedrich Merz, you are one of the voices who constantly mentions that, let me put it in my words, Germany is punching below its weight. Where exactly should Germany step up?

FM: It is not only the Trump administration which is complaining about our defense budget. When former defense secretary Robert Gates left office, he gave a public speech on the deficit of funding and the NATO budget. Still, the majority of Germans is not aware of the fact that the U.S. is paying 70 percent and that Europe is only contributing 30 percent to the NATO budget. On the other hand, the question is: What is the right answer from the European side of the Atlantic to these challenges we are facing? The bigger problem within the transatlantic relationship is on our side of the Atlantic. The member states of the European Union have to start speaking with one voice.

The bigger problem within the transatlantic relationship is on our side of the Atlantic.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

Can you give us an example?

FM: When Jean-Claude Juncker travelled to Washington, D.C. in July of 2018 and had a debate with President Trump in the Oval Office, he gave a very clear statement about trade. He could only convince the President not to implement more tariffs on European goods because he had a letter signed by 28 European heads of state backing his point. Europe has to be clearer and we have to be united. That brings me to another point: The Germans have to take on more leadership within the European Union. Germany has a big responsibility to bring all Europeans to the table to agree on a common European position.

Germany has a big responsibility to bring all Europeans to the table to agree on a common European position.[quoter]Friedrich Merz[/quoter]

Do you agree with that, John?

JE: That’s a very fair statement. Thinking about the effort to get the EU member states agree on sanctions against Russia as consequence of the illegal annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine, I do recall Angela Merkel being very insistent on making sure everybody is lined up. But we were constantly talking to Germans about investing more in the southern part of Europe where we have all this youth unemployment, and not worrying so much about the Schwarze Nullin our budget. If Germany does not take a lead in investing in national security and in other areas, no other country is going to do it.

If Germany does not take a lead in investing in national security and in other areas, no other country is going to do it.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

In 2015, Atlantik-Brücke presented President Bush Senior with an award. You, Friedrich Merz, were invited to Bush’s house in Kennebunkport, Maine. Please share those moments and describe why exactly you awarded President George H. W. Bush.

FM: That was one of the most moving events in my tenure at Atlantik-Brücke. We had a very long Saturday in their private home in Kennebunkport. It was very encouraging to see that the President was still very interested in Germany. We had a deep conversation on German reunification and the events that led up to it. He was very interested in hearing how the country is governed from Berlin now, a city which was very close to his heart because of its  history.

JE: At least Germans of a certain age never ever forget that the man is absolutely revered here. Angela Merkel did not go to his funeral because of protocol. She went to his funeral because she wanted to be there.

Talking about the future, we have to jumpstart a dialogue with the America of tomorrow. The majority of the Americans soon won’t have European roots. What would you recommend, how can we start this dialogue?

JE: We underestimate the impact and the importance of youth. When you see the impact of the kids in Florida, who were the survivors of that school shooting or when you see the girl from Sweden who’s led the grassroot effort on climate change, it actually gives me great hope. For organizations like us both having Young Leaders programs, we have to keep building on this asset and maintaining it. We ought to empower our young people more and to listen to them more.

We underestimate the impact and the importance of youth.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

We will come to an end. Chancellor Merkel said in her commencement speech recently at Harvard University, I quote: Nothing can be taken for granted, democracy is not something we can take for granted, neither is peace, neither is prosperity. What should we do to fight for these shared values?

FM: The most important point is to show people in our respective countries that we are still sharing these values. I would like to give you one clear indication that this is really working. We are going to the US with our annual delegation in October every year. Last year we went to Oklahoma, a state where we had never been to before. The people there were so enthusiastic about the German-American cooperation and their hospitality was outstanding. It’s quite simple: People have to meet people.

What can you add, John?

JE: Living in Los Angeles, which is Berlin’s sister city, I couldn’t agree more with that. Look at the Paris climate change agreement for example. The reality is: We are actually doing quite well. Because the state level, the local level, the business level and the people to people level are realizing this plan. The federal government isn’t that important. And that can happen on issue after issue. Additionally, democracy and the values that we hold dear are like a marriage – you’ve got to work on it. You have to always be thinking about it, you have to be flexible and willing to grow and change. I want to give a shout-out to the members of the press, because you are having a tough experience in today’s world. The fact is, it is your responsibility to hold the rest of us accountable to live up to the values that we claim we are living up to.

I want to give a shout-out to the members of the press, because you are having a tough experience in today’s world. The fact is, it is your responsibility to hold the rest of us accountable to live up to the values that we claim we are living up to.[quoter]Ambassador John B. Emerson[/quoter]

This conversation was moderated by Tina Hasselwho is the Berlin Bureau Chief of ARD German Television.

Der Beitrag In conversation with true Atlanticists Friedrich Merz and Ambassador John Emerson erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

[related]The 34^th German-Canadian Conference took place in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario from May 2 – 4, 2019. Main topics of discussion were German-Canadian cooperation in digital transformation, China’s rising power, engagement on trade, and cyber resilience in light of electoral interference. 60 high-level business leaders, political figures and academics from Germany and Canada came together on this occasion.

Ambassador Stéphane Dion, Ambassador to Germany and Special Envoy to the European Union and Europe, Embassy of Canada in Berlin, kicked off the conference, stating: “At a time when relations between Germany and Canada are as good as they have ever been, when they are a patch of blue sky in a turbulent world, when our respective partnerships are presenting the same challenges, when our two countries have so much to do together, bilaterally and in the world, the importance of assembling this delegation committed to strengthening the Canada-Germany relationship cannot be overstated.”

Digital Transformation: Impact and Outcomes

Discussion leaders on this panel were Iain Stewart, President of the Canadian National Research Council; Steffen Kampeter, Managing Director and Member of the Presidential Board, Confederation of German Employers‘ Associations; State Secretary Dr. Mark Speich, State Secretary for Federal, European and International Affairs, State’s plenipotentiary to the Federal Government; Karin Mostler, Regional Vice President, OpenText and Hans Raffauf, Chairman & Co-Founder, Clue. The session was moderated by Dr. PG Forest, Director and James S. and Barbara A. Palmer Chair in Public Policy, The School of Public Policy.

Technological innovation creates both winners and losers. While winners enjoy significant benefits, losers find themselves on the wrong end of stronger competition, heightened job churn and shifting skill requirements. While there is little agreement among experts today on the likely net impact of digitalization, Artificial Intelligence, robotics, blockchain and Internet of Things, on employment, one thing is clear: technological innovation is not just an economic, but also a social issue.

The interface between people and technology is problematic for both countries. People entering the workforce today will have to adapt to the fact that the amount of available jobs will decrease significantly during their lifetimes. Workers also should prepare to be more “agile” as hiring models are changing and are becoming more digitalized.

This panel discussed that work will have to be continuously redefined, requiring a constant adaptation of skills. Intelligent automation will boost the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, but will also require a high readiness for lifelong learning on part of the work force.

When comparing German and Canadian adaptation to new technology and digitization, it seems that German companies are better at coming to terms new technologies. While Canada has 15 research universities and the Canadian government helps with venture capital, often working closely with university faculty and students, Canadian companies seem to be slow to react to innovation. In comparison, Germany has 40 high tech clusters, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) partner with municipalities to train workers.

The China Question

Discussants on this panel were Goldy Hyder, President and CEO, Business Council of Canada; Dr. Thomas Bagger, Director Foreign Policy, Office of the Federal President, and Dr. Olga Petricevic, University of Calgary. It was moderated by Ali Aslan, Moderator and Journalist.

China simultaneously serves as partner and systemic competitor to Canada and Germany. Its rapid economic growth offers great opportunities, yet its state-dominated economy and single-party system differ from the liberal democratic system that has brought peace and prosperity to the West. Significant differences have led to disputes over intellectual property, the detention of foreign nationals, 5G technology and the definition of a level playing field for business.

Implications for Canada could be that the country is left behind in the event of a U.S.-China trade deal. On the German side, the relationship to China is no longer only economic. While Germany sold technology and machine tools, China is becoming a geostrategic competitor. China is Germany’s largest trading partner outside the EU, having overtaken the U.S.

In order to tackle these new developments, Germany should be open for investment, with exchange of high-tech and open markets for each other’s products. When nearly half of the Volkswagens in the world are made and sold in China, it becomes obvious that Germany has to adapt to the situation at hand. While the relationship with China is rules based partially, it is a matter of Chinese power and size on the other hand. German-Canadian Cooperation, as well as with the European Union, has to be more unified to counter this leverage.

How do we engage on Trade?

Canada’s Chief Trade Commissioner Dr. Ailish Campbell, Burkhard Balz, Member of the Executive Board, Deutsche Bundesbank, Dr. Michael Hüther, Director and Member of the Presidium, German Economic Institute, Dr. Marie-Claire Weinski, The Association of German Women Entrepreneurs and Jason Langrish, Executive Director, Canada Europe Roundtable for Business, discussed the implications on trade on this panel, which was moderated by Ali Aslan.

Many of the most pressing economic issues we face are the result, at least in part, of segments of our societies feeling they are on the wrong end of a rigged economic system. Brexit is a symptom of this sentiment and CETA faces substantial hurdles to its ratification despite being pitched as a driver of inclusive growth. Furthermore, the perception by the American public that they have been treated unfairly by the Chinese has enabled a trade war with blowback felt in Germany and Canada.

Although free trade raises aggregate wealth on the one hand, it does not benefit everyone on the other. Consequences are the reduction of wages or the elimination of some jobs. Although there is a bigger pie, there is the issue of uneven distribution. The panel discussed that protectionism is not the solution to the distribution problem. Discussants saw possible solutions in a higher level of education and creation of a more flexible labor market as well as better protection of intellectual property rights.

Cyber Resilience and Electoral Interference

This session’s discussants were Nik Nanos, Chair, Nanos Research; Dr. Tobias Lindner, Security Policy Spokesman of Alliance’90/ The Greens, Deutscher Bundestag and Jan Neutze, Senior Director, Digital Diplomacy Corporate, External and Legal Affairs (CELA), Microsoft. The panel was moderated by Dr. David Deissner, Executive Director, Atlantik-Brücke

Standing together on defense and security is critical for Canada and Germany in order to counter hybrid warfare threats and act as champions of democracy and open markets. With a Canadian federal election set for fall 2019, countering attempts to weaken Western democratic institutions is top of mind.

Interference in elections by nation states has increased over the last 10 years. While their targets have been businesses, the military, and general espionage, they now increasingly target the democratic process. This is not just affecting the U.S., but also France and Germany. It has been proven that 40 countries have been the target of election disruption. While there have been discussions at the UN since 1998 on ways to reduce interference, cyber intervention remains a serious problem. The panel discussion made clear that global cooperation is needed in order to strengthen German-Canadian resilience in this matter.

The German-Canadian New Bridges Program

At this conference, Atlantik-Brücke launched the German-Canadian New Bridges Program, a program for young Canadians and Germans to carry the transatlantic partnership to the next generation. The group of 10 participants took part in an in-depth, week-long exchange on current and future challenges on both sides of the Atlantic. Topics of discussion included technology’s disruptive impact on politics, the economy and society, changing geopolitical realities, and the future of economic progress and the transition to a low-carbon economy. The program ended with the participation of the group in the German-Canadian Conference. The New Bridges program is carried out in partnership with the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany in Canada and the Embassy of Canada in Berlin.

Thank you to Rudolph Houck for his input for this report.

Der Beitrag A signal of closeness from Canada erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Interview: David Deißner

Der Beitrag “We can’t afford not to be part of the future“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Hans von Spakovsky

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s full report has not yet been released, but according to a letter submitted to Congress by U.S. Attorney General William Barr, the special counsel uncovered no evidence that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it coordinated or colluded with any Russian officials to influence the 2016 presidential election.

President Trump’s political opponents cannot argue that Mueller failed to conduct a wide-ranging, comprehensive, and thorough investigation. As Barr’s March 24 letter to Congress noted, the special counsel issued “more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.”

The failure to turn up proof of coordination or collusion should surprise no one. The Intelligence Committees of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate conducted their own, separate investigations, and came to similar conclusions in reports issued in 2018 and 2019, respectively.

Democrats can no longer use the Russian collusion hoax as an excuse for losing the 2016 election.

[related]From a political standpoint, this means that Democrats can no longer threaten to impeach the president over alleged misbehavior – that never occurred – during the 2016 election, and they can no longer use the Russian collusion hoax as an excuse for losing that election. If they continue to push this unfounded narrative, the public may well see them as engaging in an unfair, overtly-partisan persecution – so a perception that may well hurt them in the next election.

The second half of Mueller’s report addressed possible obstruction of justice by Trump.  Because of the difficult legal and constitutional issues involved, Mueller did not present his own conclusion, leaving that up to his boss, the attorney general. Instead, Mueller presented the facts he uncovered without either exonerating the president or accusing him of violating the law.

After reviewing those facts and consulting with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (who appointed the special counsel) and other senior Justice Department officials, Barr told Congress that the evidence “is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that it is difficult to charge someone with the requisite “corrupt intent” to obstruct an investigation when there is no underlying crime.

Former FBI Director James Comey made derogatory remarks about Hillary Clinton.

In other words, it is almost always (but not invariably) the case that someone will try to obstruct an investigation only when he knows that the investigation is likely to conclude that he did, in fact, commit a crime. That is a concept the public – as well as lawyers – can easily understand.

One of the matters that Mueller and his team likely reviewed in this regard was the President’s decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey. Comey was dismissed, based on the recommendation of Rosenstein, because of his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal.  Comey had called a press conference to announce there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute Clinton for mishandling classified material in her emails and home computer, but then made derogatory remarks about Clinton.

As Rosenstein stated in a May 9, 2017, memorandum to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Comey’s misbehavior violated long-standing Justice Department protocols about releasing “derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation.”  It was, according to Rosenstein, “a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.”

No Justice Department official interfered with Mueller’s investigation.

In any event, Comey’s termination had no effect whatsoever on, and did not obstruct, Mueller’s investigation. In fact, General Barr told Congress that no Justice Department official interfered with Mueller’s investigation.

Trump’s political opponents who continue trying to make something out of the obstruction-of-justice claim may be making a political mistake, if members of the public see it as unfair and unjust.

The Mueller Report has three implications for the 2020 presidential campaign. First, the president’s political opponents will not be able to credibly use any collusion/obstruction claims to criticize him. Second, if they do so, they are likely to suffer political harm from a public that believes they are attacking the president unfairly, even as they avoid addressing the myriad of legitimate, pressing problems that we face. Those issues range from a growing immigration crisis to an expanding budget deficit that endangers our economic health.

Third, however, and most importantly, Mueller found that the Russian government did try to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. They did so through a disinformation campaign using social media platforms intended to “sow social discord” and by hacking into the computer networks of both the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. They then used WikiLeaks and other “intermediaries” to distribute the internal communications they stole.

Again, we should not be surprised by this. The Soviets ran these types of disinformation campaigns against America and Western Europe throughout the entire Cold War. The only change is their use of new technology: social media and the Internet. It is something that the U.S., Germany and other democracies need to guard against in future elections.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former Justice Department attorney.  He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk”and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

Der Beitrag Democrats can no longer threaten to impeach erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Max Bergmann

The first round went to Trump. Instead of just releasing the Mueller report, Attorney General William Barr released a four-page summary, highlighting the Special Counsel’s “top findings.” In the letter, Barr quoted a part of a sentence which showed that Mueller did not find grounds to bring a conspiracy charge against Trump or his campaign for coordinating activities with the Russian interference campaign. And so American newspaper headlines led with “no collusion” while Trump and his associates vigorously attacked their opponents.

However, in round 2, the momentum of the fight is against the President. Barr’s continued refusal to release Mueller’s report, which was recently revealed to be around 400 pages long, underscores the urgency of transparency. If the report was as exonerating as Barr implied, why hasn’t he released it? And that’s likely because the report is quite damaging to the president.

After Watergate, the Special Counsel produced a full report to Congress.

[related]The Attorney General says he needs to vet the report for classified material, redact information from the grand jury, and even cut information that might be embarrassing. This sort of aggressive redaction stands in stark contrast to previous investigations of this type. In 1998, Ken Starr published his 500+ page report with lurid details of an affair, and after Watergate, the Special Counsel produced a full report to Congress.

As a result, Democrats are describing Barr’s actions as a cover-up. This isn’t the first time Barr’s motivations have come into question. At his confirmation hearing in January, Democrats in the Senate raised concerns about his impartiality, as he had written an unsolicited 19-page memo to the Justice Department the year prior attacking the Mueller investigation.

Overall, the fight over the release of the Mueller report will be long and drawn out. But given Barr’s summation, what can we expect in the report? There’s a lot that we already know.

Mueller has proven that there were two campaigns to elect Donald Trump.

From a transatlantic perspective the most important (and also most overlooked) are the revelations related to Russia’s interference campaign. Mueller has in effect proven that there were two campaigns to elect Donald Trump – one run out of Trump Tower and one run out of the Kremlin. The charges Mueller brought against the GRU intelligence officers and employees of the Internet Research Agency for running what amounted to a digital influence campaign exposed the breadth and depth of the Russian campaign to elect Donald Trump. The IRA had roughly same number of employees as the Clinton campaign. The hack and release of emails dominated news cycles with negative stories about Clinton, resulted in the resignation of the leader of the Democratic Party before the convention, and provided the “October surprise” that significantly impacted the election. In other words, Mueller has proven that Russian interference was real, significant, and designed to help Trump.

The next question for Mueller was whether these two campaigns conspired. Although Mueller ultimately decided not to bring a criminal charge of conspiracy, the report itself is still likely to be highly damaging.

Barr’s summary left a lot of unanswered questions about the investigation.

Charging a criminal conspiracy against the President and his campaign would have required Mueller to have evidence of an “agreement – tacit or express,” which is an extremely high legal standard. But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t “collusion” between Trump and the Russians. There were more than 100 contacts and at least 28 meetings between Trump associates and Russia-linked figures. The Trump campaign provided internal polling data to a suspected Russian agent. There was a suspected Russian asset on the campaign as a foreign policy advisor. And the Trump campaign was informed of the hacking and theft of emails months before the information was released. That is collusion.

Despite all we already know, Barr’s summary left a lot of unanswered questions about the investigation. These include whether Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey, the results of an unprecedented counterintelligence investigation into the President of the United States, what witnesses like National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and UAE lobbyist George Nader were cooperating about, and so much more.

With all these outstanding questions, Barr’s summary increasingly looks like a whitewash of the report. At first, this seemed like a public relations master stroke designed to harden Congressional Republicans’ support of Trump and win the opening battle over public opinion. However, a week later, opinion polls showed the public unmoved in their views of Trump’s criminality and almost unanimous support for fully releasing the report.

The fight over Trump’s involvement with Russia is just beginning. The Mueller report will likely contain explosive and damaging information. But the question now is: Will we ever see it? That will likely be decided in court.

Max Bergman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Founder and Director of The Moscow Project.

Der Beitrag The fight over the Mueller investigation in Washington has just begun erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Ms. Taussig, is there a war between liberal and autocratic systems and ideas?

Great power competition today is not only a competition over security, economic and technological interests; it is also a struggle over the role and influence of democracy in the international order. Both Russia and China, using different means and with different strength, seek to weaken democratic institutions and norms that challenge their own internal power and legitimacy. This contest of ideas runs across states and also through them, as illiberal and authoritarian-leaning leaders and parties are consolidating control within democratic states. Current governments in Hungary, Poland and Turkey represent the forefront of the illiberal challenge in the EU and NATO. Their advancements are emblematic of the separation of liberal principles – individual liberties, and legislative and judicial checks on the executive – from democratic processes and elections. Even more than democratic setbacks, these developments highlight a crisis of liberalism in the West.

Current governments in Hungary, Poland and Turkey represent the forefront of the illiberal challenge in the EU and NATO.

Has the West lost its credibility due to its own internal political turmoil?

Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic must engage in a meaningful debate of democratic renewal in order to compete with increasingly confident and powerful authoritarian states such as China. First and foremost, to strengthen democracy internationally, it first must be shown to work. This means reinforcing basic democratic fundamentals on the rule of law, minority protections, free and fair elections and free media across western and non-western democracies. This also means developing policies of inclusive growth to tackle rising economic inequality and pro-growth policies to address societal and rural-urban imbalances across advanced democracies.

Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic must engage in a meaningful debate of democratic renewal in order to compete with increasingly confident and powerful authoritarian states such as China.

How can the transatlantic partners counter expanding military and economic influence by autocratic states?

[related]Militarily, burden sharing will remain a critical component of NATO’s ability to counter Russian aggression in Europe. In addition to higher European defense spending, strong and principled American leadership is needed, as well as stronger responses to democratic backsliding within NATO’s ranks, which hurts cohesion and trust in the alliance. In the Indo-Pacific, European partners should invest greater resources in upholding the rules-based order. Positive examples include Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) carried out by the British and French Navies in the South China Sea, while more is needed from Germany. Economically, corruption is a primary vehicle for authoritarian influence in democratic states. This is why strengthening the rule of law and shining a light on corrupt practices and networks can counter outside influence, as well as internal practices that weaken trust in democratic institutions and free market economies.

Are Western democracies well equipped to react to external interferences with their institutions?

Recent examples of Russian political influence have garnered significant attention. Examples include Moscow’s interference and disinformation efforts in the 2016 U.S presidential election, attempts to influence the Brexit referendum, and ongoing financing and tactical support for far-right political parties throughout Europe. Russia’s efforts are primarily opportunistic, as they exploit existing vulnerabilities within societies and political systems. Chinese influence is more strategic and subtle. How Chinese economic engagement across Asia, Europe, Africa and Latin America may result in political influence that hinders good governance and transparency is still a little understood phenomenon that will require more focus in the years ahead – particularly as it becomes more technologically advanced.

Russia’s efforts are primarily opportunistic, as they exploit existing vulnerabilities within societies and political systems. Chinese influence is more strategic and subtle.

Is the liberal multilateral international order beyond saving?

The liberal international order developed in the wake of WWII has very much been a U.S.-led order. American withdrawal of its support for longstanding military alliances, political partnerships, democratic norms, and the rules-based trading system would weaken the order, regardless of whether other nations were willing to “pick up the slack.” That being said, critical progress must be made on burden sharing and institutional reform if this order is to withstand new and evolving transnational challenges and the rise of powerful authoritarian states that seek to make the order less liberal.

You can find Torrey Taussig’s detailed curriculum vitae here.

Der Beitrag A Crisis of Liberalism in the West erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Peter Rough

Since the end of the Cold War, the strategy of German foreign policy has been a twin reliance on multilateralism and the United States. Of course, there have been notable exceptions to this approach. Today, Germany insists on proceeding with Nord Stream 2 over the objections of its allies. And who can forget Berlin’s campaign against the American-led war in Iraq last decade. Such exceptions aside, however, Germany has mostly embraced both pillars, convinced that together they would facilitate the grand denouement of liberalism’s triumph.

Today, however, a key pillar in German grand strategy is showing cracks. A bevy of issues is chipping away at the relationship with the United States—and with no apparent end in sight. This is all the more worrying because current disagreements between the U.S. and Germany appear to be structural and enduring rather than discrete and temporary. Unlike in the past, the reason for today’s disagreements is a basic misalignment between the two countries: in contrast to Germany, which still issues peace dividends in the form of military cuts, the United States has left the post-Cold War era behind. In the process, it has shifted from accommodation to competition, intent on confronting revisionist actors like China in various venues. By now, it seems improbable that the U.S. will snap back to the status quo ante in the coming years.

The talk has been of replacing the American pillar with one designed in Paris

[related]For Germany, which wishes to sustain the post-Cold War setting for as long as possible, this is a sobering prospect. Today, German leaders are casting about for ways to defend an order within which they had grown peaceful and prosperous. Of late, the talk has been of replacing the American pillar with one designed in Paris: European strategic autonomy.

There are few, if any, American defense officials who take such a prospect seriously, however. And for good reason: Europeans have talked of strategic autonomy for years without taking the necessary steps to make it a reality. Just this week, news broke that Germany’s defense budget may decline to 1.25 percent of gross domestic product by 2023. And last week, Germany’s presumptive next chancellor floated the idea of building a European aircraft carrier as a symbolic gesture, apparently without considering the fact that no European navy exists. Aside from concerns about economic protectionism in the defense sector, European defense initiatives are greeted in Washington with an eye roll and a shoulder shrug.

Similarly, eastern Europeans have watched the debate in Berlin and Paris with skepticism. Unless Germany manages a near miraculous strategic transformation, Europeans living within the shadow of Russia will prioritize their relationship with the United States over all others. The implication is that a hasty campaign for strategic autonomy risks isolating Germany (and France) more than the United States. But if strategic autonomy is merely an ornate pillar with a hollow core, how can Germany support the multilateral order on which its values and exports depend?

A fool’s errand to construct multilateral structures on the quicksand of revisionism

As it has for decades, the answer lies in the transatlantic alliance. The first step is to recognize that the United States and the multilateral system are interwoven like hair in a braid. It is no coincidence that multilateralism thrived most during America’s unipolar moment. Relatedly, the challenges to it today are the direct outgrowth of a shift in the global distribution of power. Sensing that their moment has come, Russia and Iran have issued major regional challenges to the United States. And globally, China is increasingly testing the system as it charts its own path to superpower status. From theft of intellectual property to annexations of territory and sectarian campaigns of aggression, these actors have demonstrated a basic hostility to the values that underpin the American-built framework. It is a fool’s errand to construct multilateral structures on the quicksand of such revisionism. To do so creates awkward, even dubious arrangements. Instead of the Iran deal, Nordstream II, and Huawei, Germany is better off aligning with the United States in its attempt to hold bad actors to account and inject accountability into the system. Only with the combined strength of Europe and the United States can a true multilateralism gain momentum again.

In the Financial Times last summer, Henry Kissinger argued that a divided Atlantic would simply turn Europe into “an appendage of Eurasia,” which would be at the mercy of China seeking to recapture its ancient role as “the principal adviser to all humanity.” Undoubtedly, the Trump administration is a difficult partner for Berlin. As the Atlantik-Brücke/Civey survey this winter showed, almost 85 percent of Germans view relations with the United States as bad. But Germany faces a choice: it can either support a pugnacious yet fundamentally liberal and democratic partner in the United States or back a diplomatically adept but fundamentally illiberal and authoritarian challenger in China. That is not much of a choice at all. It’s time to rededicate ourselves to the transatlantic project.

You can find Peter Rough’s detailed curriculum vitae here.

Der Beitrag Time to Realign with the United States erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

On February 27, Andrea Rexer, Handelsblatt, spoke to the former WTO Director General for Atlantik-Brücke’s Transatlantic Call. The following transcript has been edited and shortened for better readability.

Mr. Lamy, last July President Trump and the President of the EU Commission Juncker agreed to restart negotiations regarding a free trade agreement. US trade representative Robert Lighthizer still has the trade promotion authority. The most urgent question right now is: Will the EU Commission really receive a mandate?

My own guess, is that yes, the EU Commission will get a mandate from the member states, although with a number of conditions where some member states will express sensitivities in some areas. I think this is doable, which does not mean that anything like what was projected to be this big, transatlantic trade partnership a few years ago will be revived. I believe if anything is concluded in the coming years, it will be a more limited agreement. There is limited remaining protection for producers in areas like cars, trucks or agriculture for the Europeans or textile for the US. But that’s only 20 percent of the problem we have to solve if we want to further level the playing field. The 80 percent that remain are in areas which protect consumers. And this is where there are serious transatlantic differences , the leveling of which would be very positive for more open and more efficient transatlantic trade relations.

You said that some areas are very controversial and complex. In the last round of the negotiations, one of the most difficult areas has proven to be agriculture. Do you think agriculture might be the predetermined breaking point within these trade talks?

I think the Europeans do not want agriculture to be part of this negotiation. This is what was explicitly agreed between the President of the EU Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Trump last July. It seems, however, that in the meantime the US administration has changed its mind. In agriculture, we have to distinguish between producers protection, such as tariffs on sugar in the case of the US, or poultry and beef in the case of Europe, and regulations about sanitary and phyto-sanitary food quality, the biggest issue seen from the US side. The impression on the US-side that the EU is surrounded by regulatory fences, which are there to protect producers, is only partially true. The reality is that EU-consumers and US-consumers have different preferences. We have seen that with diesel cars. The EU was reasonably tolerant, and the US had a big problem. It may be the other way around in other areas. The environment is another issue. Seen from Europe, trade growth should protect the environment to some extent, whereas from the US side, and notably for the Trump administration, this is not an issue.

As the US has a comparative advantage in the agricultural field, a free trade agreement might only work if the EU is willing to discuss a partial opening of the common agricultural policy. But as you said, Mr. Lamy, France has repeatedly stopped any discussions around this. How do you think the EU or Germany can persuade France to agree to negotiations including agriculture?

[related]France is not the only problem when it comes to agriculture. And I’m not saying this because I happen to be French. Ireland for instance is against any sort of opening that would impact its beef production. If you look at agriculture on both sides, there is a big difference between the US and the EU. Both support agriculture heavily, either with tariffs or with subsidies. The problem here is that tariffs are something you can negotiate bilaterally, whereas subsidies are not something you can discuss bilaterally. You don’t have a multilateral chicken and a bilateral chicken, you have a chicken, which you subsidize. And this makes things extremely complex. The US are the ones that blocked the DOHA round negotiations in 2008 because of agriculture. They did not want to reduce the amount of subsidization which they give to their farmers. On top of that, there is also quite a bit of difference in the fact that the US export mostly farm commodities like beef, soy, corn or wheat, whereas the EU exports more agro food products such as ham, cheese, wine or spirit. Of course the value-content of what you export is quite different in both cases.

Another sensitive field, at least for Germany, is import tariffs on cars. Do you think that official negotiations are the only realistic way to solve this conflict?

Frankly speaking, it is not a conflict and the German government has been quite right to explain that large parts of German cars in the hands of US consumers are produced in the US. Also, the pretension by Trump that European car imports are a threat to US national security does not make any sense. But, knowing Mr. Trump, he believes that he has leverage here, and that threatening to put tariffs on cars will bring the Europeans into a worse negotiation position. I think this will not work. If he puts tariffs on car exports from Europe, Europe will retaliate and seriously hurt some very specific US export interests exactly the same way as China did when Trump raised tariffs on Chinese exports. The real solutions would be a zero for zero for cars, SUV’s, trucks and car parts. We often talk about German cars, as if the whole market and the whole trade was about Mercedes or BMW. The reality is, however, that a large part of the transatlantic market is about car parts and also SUV’s, which are heavily protected in the US. The reality is that the reason why the US exports very few cars to Europe has nothing to do with protection but with consumers preferences.

Another question where France and Germany are not exactly on the same line is the timing. When do you think the EU will receive a mandate? The French want to postpone it until after the European elections and the German car industry is very interested to start the talks right away to get the tariff topic of the table as soon as possible.

I don’t know. And I can see why Trump has chosen cars, a product where he has a bigger leverage on Germany. He divides Germany and France given their export interests on the US market, which is a clever tactic short term, but which I think long term will not pay out. Whether there will be or will not be a mandate before the European elections I don’t know. Since the French clearly object giving a mandate right now, it will probably drag on for some time. I personally believe it will not be very good to let these two be divided by a clever tactic by an unclever US president.

Let’s talk about the China and US talks. The political and economic conflict between US and China seems likely to continue even if Trump and Xi reach a deal in the coming months. How do you expect this conflict to affect transatlantic relations?

The US-China trade relationship is part of a much more complex, much bigger geopolitical rivalry which is here to stay for the decades to come. Whatever US administration we have in the next 20 or 30 years, there will be an issue with China, simply because China is getting bigger and the US are getting relatively smaller. On top of that, very hard technological competition, notably in artificial intelligence, is on the rise between the US and China. The transatlantic relation is traditionally more stable. However, Trump has a very specific sort of anti-European bias. Europeans have an interest in the US and China moderating their present aggressiveness.

The US-China trade relationship is part of a much bigger geopolitical rivalry which is here to stay for the decades to come. [quoter]Pascal Lamy[/quoter]

As a European, I prefer a China which is more open than a China which is closing under a very aggressive US push. What would probably happen is some sort of disconnection between the US and China. A partial disconnection, notably in the area of technology, will probably offer opportunities both to Europe and to other Asian countries. This is the big picture, but again, the level of importance, the size of the challenge and the dangers are very different whether you look at the US and China or at the US and Europe, the latter two still having an architecture of security with NATO. NATO may not be as solid as it was, but it still makes a major difference.

Let me end with a question regarding the WTO itself. Do you think it is possible to actually reform it and which specific element would be your ideal WTO reform?

I think the WTO is in need of reform, I’ve said that for a long time. Although the WTO rulebook remains valid in many areas, I think Trump is right on one thing, which is that the WTO disciplines are not fit for today’s world, especially given the huge size of China. One area where the WTO rulebook needs reform is the agreement on subsidization, especially to cope with the Chinese state sector, which is basically about subsidizing production. So, the one major area where the WTO needs reform, it’s not the only one, is re-levelling the playing field with China. This is something the US and China cannot do bilaterally. If China subsidizes its industry or its services, it doesn’t subsidize bilaterally. This is why this is an issue not for a US-China deal, but for a structural, multilateral and global negotiation around the WTO table.

Der Beitrag Lamy: „If a US-EU trade agreement is concluded, it will be very limited“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The Juncker Commission in Perspective at the End of its Term

As his term as Commission President of the European Union comes to an end later this year, Jean Claude Juncker still has time to add to his European achievements. Juncker should propose to the Trump Administration a mini-summit that could take place in the Spring, April preferred, but he must move quickly to get it in the calendar. The summit could, at the least, set the stage for more meaningful interaction with the US administration before and after European Parliamentary elections in late May.  Following those elections, the campaign to choose Juncker’s successor will begin in earnest. The summit agenda could be modest but should include trade, tax, and national security issues, with or without Brexit in mind.  In any case, the US administration and the EU Commission will both need to adjust to the UK no longer being part of the EU.

[related]When Juncker was chosen by European party vote President of the Commission, the head of the executive arm of the European Union, he was arguably the most qualified candidate who had ever taken the office. During his presidency, he has kept a low public profile but through the mandates of his Commissioners has made measurable progress on the priorities in his 2014 campaign platform. Unlike his predecessor, Juncker has generously yielded the Commission press spotlight to European Council President Donald Tusk, even though the Council President is a recently created, largely ceremonial position. This is both a gesture to Tusk, the one-time President of Poland, one of the key Member States in the east, and to enhancing the relevance of the Council President position itself, a position Juncker once sought. During his Commission term, President Juncker has found less opportunity to leverage his Atlanticist credentials, however, with the exception of his July 25, 2018 meeting in the White House with President Trump, their first and only meeting to date. At the July meeting, Juncker seemed to capture the attention and respect of President Trump in alleviating the US threat to impose tariffs on EU goods, especially higher tariffs on European automotive imports.

Juncker announced early on that he would not seek a second term as Commission President. That means that we already know today there will be a longer transition period between Commissions than would be the case had Juncker sought and achieved a second five-year term. Thus, the strategic opportunity for a summit this spring would be to advance discussions on these key topics and stabilize the US-EU working relationship before the lag created by an entirely newly appointed Commission taking office in the fall. Moreover, by the time the next Commission gets settled next year, the US administration will likely be even more focused on the 2020 US presidential election.

Jean Claude Juncker: European and Atlanticist

In Europe, Juncker is seen as the last of the generation of European statesmen (that must include German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, French President Francois Mitterand, and EU Commission President Jacques Delors) who were responsible for an unprecedented period of harmony within the European Union. During that period, the Maastricht Treaty was agreed which, among other things, launched the Euro, led to the Schengen Agreement which eliminated border controls for most of the Member States, and accelerated a significant increase in the size of the EU with the addition of former Soviet states, thereby expanding sustainable peace and prosperity eastward.

Before he became European Commission President in 2014, Juncker served 18 years as Prime Minister of Luxembourg (interestingly, he replaced the then Prime Minister Jacques Santer when Santer became President of the European Commission). As Prime Minister, Juncker was a key European ally of every US administration from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, and his administration supported the US behind the scenes during the second Gulf War. As Finance Minister and later Prime Minister of Luxembourg, he was known in Brussels as a successful, behind the scenes political negotiator on European issues. Juncker’s credibility with European leaders derived from a deep knowledge of subject matter, cultural political intelligence, and fluency in the German, French and English languages in addition to his native Luxemburgisch. His personal relationships to German and French leaders as a result of his lengthy service as Prime Minister was also an advantage in knowing how to get things done with those leaders. Finally, as the head of Luxembourg, a small but fiscally significant member state, he could spend much of his time in office on European issues. Juncker cleverly served as both Finance Minister and Prime Minister for most of his premiership. This dual state role allowed him to represent Luxembourg on both the Council of State and the Council of Finance Ministers, the two most powerful member state executive decision-making bodies in the EU.

What a Summit Agenda Should Look Like

On trade, the EU needs to at least offer a timetable to resolving the dispute over the level of agricultural imports from the US to Europe and, as needed, set expectations that there is not likely to be any substantive agreement before a new Commission is in place. US business groups and the US Congress have complained publicly that the EU Commission deliberately targeted large US digital companies in connection with state aid investigations and digital tax legislative initiatives under Juncker. Recent correspondence from the Senate Finance Committee to the US Secretary of Treasury has reignited the threat of a US-EU tax war.  President Juncker is as knowledgeable about the evolution of the US digital revolution in Europe as any European politician given Luxembourg’s strategy, through active marketing and fiscal incentives, to attract and retain significant direct US investment in Luxembourg while he was Luxembourg Prime Minister.  For an encore, Juncker set as a priority of his Commission the development of multiple legislative proposals to reform the kinds of tax planning opportunities that were used to his home country’s economic advantage under his premiership.

He should be able to articulate why the EU and the US have differences in how to modify the taxation rules for digital business models and why the EU’s actions are legitimate and necessary from an EU perspective for the purpose of principled policy discussions going forward. This is not a difference with the US to leave to the next Commission to solve. On national security, the EU will want to share lessons learned from the success of the much anticipated 2018 launch of the upgraded European privacy law legislation, the GDPR. The GDPR was greeted with skepticism by the US from the time the first draft of the legislation was published in 2012. Now, less than a year after the GDPR took effect, there is serious discussion in the US Congress and the US business community regarding a reform of the fragmented US approach to privacy law along the lines of what the EU has done. As predicted, GDPR is becoming a template for a privacy law reform movement globally. Greater attention is being given to potential security threats from Chinese industry on the cybersecurity front and whether there is a growing urgency for the EU,the US, and the other usual allies to craft a concerted approach to deal with such a threat.

The Dynamics of the EU-US-GE Relationship post-Brexit

A Juncker summit may also remind the US what its relations with the EU Commission will be like without the UK in the EU. President Juncker can demonstrate to the US the value of directly engaging the EU, and not always through public rhetoric, on issues of common interest, as he understands the US as well as any European leader today.  At the same time, as the UK exits the EU, the US will want to find an ally, like it had in the UK that can help it navigate an increasingly important EU relationship. Among the potential candidate countries, Germany is the most likely successor to the UK for the key EU partner of the US. There are many Atlanticists in the US and in Germany who would support the restoration of this key alliance that has a long record of success forged during the threat and intensity of the Cold War. Jean Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg Atlanticist, could help make this happen before he leaves the European political stage.

Rick Minor, a US lawyer with Womble Bond Dickinson, advised the Luxembourg Government on fiscal policy and GDPR issues when President Juncker was Prime Minister.

Der Beitrag Why the Timing is Right for a EU-US Summit this Spring erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Interview: Tyson Barker

Dr. Polyakova, when we talk about disinformation campaigns and political warfare the year 2016 stands out. The presidential election in the United States and the Brexit referendum were the wake-up call for the West. What has happened since and what is the next iteration of this threat?

[related]What happened in 2016 was not new in terms of Russia’s global desire to undermine influence politics in other countries like Ukraine, Georgia and countries closer to Russia that it considers to be the legitimate testing grounds for these kinds of operations. This tool kit has become so diffuse. We are seeing other state actors using these kinds of techniques. Iran, North Korea and China will eventually enter this space in a significant way as well. If you look at what the Russian intentions and activities have been in places like Ukraine, we can make some assertions about what we might expect.

First of all disinformation campaigns especially in social media have not stopped. Secondly they have certainly evolved in the sense that we now see a lot of content that we can identify as disinformation from the Russian side jumping across platforms and being amplified by Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Google results are being manipulated when it comes to certain search terms. The social media companies have responded to a certain extent. In my view, their response is relatively superficial and minimal. They have started taking down disinformation networks and reducing automated accounts in rank. However, we are quite far behind in truly addressing this threat.

The social media companies have responded to a certain extent. In my view, their response is relatively superficial and minimal.

Ukraine has been the laboratory for these kinds of tools and techniques. Do we see new mutations of these tools being used in Ukraine?

The positive outcome of the exposure to these influence operations in the information space has been hyperawareness. There has been a general acknowledgement that Ukraine has been the primary victim and target of Russian efforts. There have been attacks on critical infrastructure systems, especially on electrical grids. We are going to see much more of these kinds of aggressive attacks. The presidential elections in Ukraine in March are just around the corner. This is going to be an event to watch.

You wrote an excellent report at Brookings entitled “Weapons of the Weak” in which you highlighted the return on investment of so-called Deep Fakes. What exactly are we talking about here?

‘Deep Fakes’ has become the term of a catch-all-concept for manipulation of audio and video content online. Deep Fakes are A.I. driven and produced, incredibly advanced and original content. Doctored videos and images are nothing new. But this concept is profoundly different because our ability to detect manipulated video and audio has not caught up with the ability of these algorithms to produce this false audio and video material.

Deep Fakes are A.I. driven and produced, incredibly advanced and original content.

Can you give us an example?

Here is a quick and famous one: If you google Obama and Deep Fake, you will see four videos of President Obama speaking. I regularly show these and give talks about them. I always ask the audience: which one is the real Obama? People pick one, but of all them are fake of course! This signals to us that AI is closely linked to Big Data. If you can feed a huge amount of data into this algorithm, it can produce a new video. It looks so real and so convincing that we can’t detect it is false content.

If you can feed a huge amount of data into this algorithm, it can produce a new video. It looks so real and so convincing that we can’t detect it is false content.

Frankly, some implications of this phenomenon are frightening. An audio voicemail being left for troops serving in the Baltic states or an e-mail coming in with a video of the commanding officer sharing what is actually false and misleading information take some time to verify. Meanwhile, that will subserve the role of disorientating potential military operations. Fake videos are often much more fun to look at because they are more sensationalist than accurate content. They are spread much faster than accurate content, and it takes longer to debunk their false narratives. It is open source based, so it is out there. We have to prepare ourselves for this.

Russia will probably not be the developer of this technology but more of an early adopter and weaponizer of it. Who is developing this technology?

Russia has great military capacities and of course a nuclear arsenal. But if you look at its financial capabilities, its struggling economy and its declining demographics, Russia doesn’t look like a great power. From the Russian perspective, investing in these kinds of technologies and asymmetric threats is a great way to balance out the other inequities that the country experiences vis-à-vis Western Europe and the United States.

From the Russian perspective, investing in these kinds of technologies and asymmetric threats is a great way to balance out the other inequities that the country experiences vis-à-vis Western Europe and the United States.

Well, who are the innovators? Certainly, it is a global market. If we look at a few different indicators, it becomes very clear who is going to be an innovator. Obviously, you need well trained, sophisticated, highly skilled individuals in machine learning. You also need access to massive amounts of data. A.I. has been around for decades, some of the first A.I. algorithms were written in the 1950s. In fact, the new algorithms are not that different. However, the critical change has been that we now have the ability to process data and that we have a mass availability of data. China will consequently lead in this sphere. Whoever controls the data, will control the world.

Another leader in this space is the United States. How should governments regulate A.I. to protect our democracy from these kinds of technologies being weaponized in the civil society?

I haven’t seen any serious regulatory and legislative efforts in the United States so far to grapple with this problem. Mainly because we don’t see a clear technological solution. On the regulatory side it is very difficult to see where this will go. There is a general reluctance among policy makers in the Republican and Democratic parties around regulatory efforts for the big tech firms who are driving so much of the economic growth in the United States and are also funding many congressional campaigns.

There is a general reluctance among policy makers in the Republican and Democratic parties around regulatory efforts for the big tech firms who are driving so much of the economic growth in the United States and are also funding many congressional campaigns.

We have to start from the very beginning. This means policy makers need to know what they are talking about before they start legislating. Right now, there is a serious gap between tech and policy regarding the understanding of technology. There is some precedence showing how to deal with big new industries and big revolutionary changes, like forcing these companies to have common terms of use. This is something that the U.S. Congress has forced on credit card companies, it has also forced regulatory efforts on big tobacco back in the 1960s.

Is there an increasing pressure on the companies to take more responsibility?

The pressure is certainly there. Facebook and Twitter have made some efforts to deal with this. If I had to rank them in terms of how cooperative they have been with researchers and government, Twitter is most transparent in sharing data on some of the networks that are identified as being malicious. The companies now call this kind of manipulative behavior an offensive coordinated activity. We have heard a lot of very highly publicized takedowns of networks on Facebook and pages associated with Sputnik for example. But we don’t have a good sense whether this really makes a difference. We are very much at the tip of the iceberg. The platforms are perfectly designed to be the vectors of the diffusion of disinformation.

The platforms are perfectly designed to be the vectors of the diffusion of disinformation.

How do you deter an authoritarian state where a civil society doesn’t really exist?

That is where governments can be most effective. They should send very clear messages via intelligence as to the consequences to specific actions on our critical infrastructure. You have to convey that there is a price to pay if you attack our societies. There has to be an economically punitive component. Others have suggested not so much a defensive strategy but an offensive strategy. But this is very dangerous.

You have to convey that there is a price to pay if you attack our societies. There has to be an economically punitive component.

Tyson Barker is Deputy Director and Fellow at the Aspen Institute Germany. He is a foreign and economic professional with in-depth experience working at senior levels in government and the think tank community. He is a 2014 Young Leader Alumnus of Atlantik-Brücke.

Der Beitrag “At the tip of the iceberg with regard to disinformation” 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..

Frank Lavin regards U.S. president Trump as the driving factor for a solution in the escalating conflict between the United States and China. Moreover, the CEO of the Export Now Incorporation based in Shanghai and former Under Secretary for International Trade in the U.S. Department of Commerce criticizes the reaction from the USA and the EU to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In the short interview Lavin argues in favor of a transatlantic free trade agreement – also for energy policy reasons.

Mr. Lavin, with its Belt and Road Initiative China follows a very clear economic and geopolitical strategy. Is the reaction from the USA and the European Union (EU) to this large-scale project sufficient so far?

The United States and the EU have both been taken by surprise by the project’s scale. There has been some response, but it has not been adequate. For example, the largest and very promising opportunity for the United States to improve its economic connectivity in East Asia was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement with twelve countries anchored by the United States but also by Japan. It would have allowed all the smaller countries of the region to at least have an alternative to China. The American withdrawal from TPP was a step backwards.

The United States and the EU have both been taken by surprise by the project’s scale.

[related]The EU has not been active in this space and has not risen to the challenge of the Belt and Road Initiative. However, the EU has several strengths: One is the enormous size of its home market. The second is its soft power. This means that in their home markets, countries in Africa and Central Asia have an enormous need of a better connectivity to Europe. They want to establish a settlement market and an investment market. The EU should look for ways to reduce trade barriers and the costs for a lot of the countries participating in the Initiative.

Along with the Belt and Road Initiative, China is becoming a rising energy superpower. What could a consistent transatlantic response to this endeavor look like?

The core of a transatlantic response to China in general should be a EU-US free trade agreement. We should be able to create a market that includes the EU and the United Kingdom with a global GDP of about 35 percent. This market would also include the USA embedded in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) contributing approximately 25 percent of the global GDP. This would be an enormous step towards prosperity. But even more important vis-à-vis China is that a free trade agreement would set a global template. Think of countries like South Korea, Australia, Egypt or Turkey which are very decent economies. They would adapt their standards in order to participate in this EU-US-NAFTA common market. Consequently, there would also be global norms for specific energy sector areas such as automobile fuel efficiency, electrical usage of home appliances, labeling and testing standards.

The core of a transatlantic response to China in general should be a EU-US free trade agreement.

The trade war between the United States and China has escalated this year. The IMF has just revised its global growth forecast downwards. Do you see any chance to find pathways to a constructive dialog?

Yes. This trade war is driven by Donald Trump’s view. In some respects, he has done a reasonably good job in identifying problems with China’s feasance of trade issues. But he has done a reasonably bad job in developing a policy response to this. He has increased friction in trade and costs of trade. There are contradictions in his approach: If China is the main problem, why do you spend 18 months in arguing with your NAFTA partners? 99 percent of the trade within NAFTA is not a problem. You are spending your political capital, all of your energy and time on NAFTA. And why do you have the conflict with the EU on steel tariffs?

I suspect the trade war with China will be resolved within six months. Not for trade reasons, but almost for stylistic and psychological reasons. I can tell you two things about president Trump. One point is that he gets fatigued, he gets bored. His two most important issues when he was running for president were immigration, including building a wall to Mexico, and president Obama’s health policy. He makes some efforts on both issues, and he has limited success on both. But after a year he didn’t even talk about the wall, or only occasionally. The same applies to Obama’s health care. For Trump, China is now the greatest threat to America. But in a couple of months it will be something else. Trump is very interested at the moment.

One point is that president Trump gets fatigued, he gets bored.

The second point is that he has to be the hero of his own story. He alone determines what is successful. On trade issues, Trump is both the power maniac and the fire marshal. He lights the fires and he puts them out. Then he declares victory. This has been the case with NAFTA. This will happen again in the trade war with China.

The U.S. administration accuses the Chinese government of trying to influence the upcoming midterm elections by fake news and cyber attacks. China is denying the accusations. What consequences could this development have both in America and in China?

China is playing more of a role in American civic life than it has ever played. I am not concerned when this is transparent. If the Chinese foreign ministry puts Xi Jinping’s speeches in English on a web page, this is not a camouflage of a secret project. This type of activity is a constructive use of diplomacy. But if China is suppressing thoughts and words of Chinese students in American universities, this is very harmful and an inappropriate intervention in the United States. The USA should provide human rights guarantees to anybody who is studying in an American university. I would encourage US civic organizations and universities to watch out. We have a responsibility to protect open discussion in the United States. We should not allow any foreign power to intervene in our society. No one should try to alter outcomes of an election.

We should not allow any foreign power to intervene in our society.

Der Beitrag “The trade war with China will be resolved within six months” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

By Peter Rough

By virtually any measure, the American economy is booming. In the second quarter of this year, economic growth eclipsed 4 percent—a number derided as impossible just a few years ago—while consumer confidence recently reached an 18-year high. Moreover, the jobless rate has fallen to 3.7 percent, the lowest since the 1960s, reflecting the millions of jobs that have been created in the past eighteen months. Today, almost two-thirds of American voters view the economy as excellent or good. If James Carville’s adage, “It’s the economy, stupid,” is any guide, Republican incumbents should be coasting to victory in next week’s midterm elections.

[related]And yet, by consensus, the Democratic party is poised to retake the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. How to explain the discrepancy? For one, Republicans face strong historical headwinds. Since the end of the Civil War, the president’s party has lost seats in 35 of 38 midterm elections. Worse, when the president’s approval ratings have dipped below 50 percent, his party has generally lost two dozen seats or more. The proof is in the pudding: with only a 23-seat majority at present, several Republicans have announced over the past year that they will retire at the end of their terms. Better to go out as powerful committee chairmen, so their thinking, than languish in the minority.

Historically, opposition parties have performed well in midterm elections for the simple reason that they enjoy a clearly discernible target: the president. In the case of Donald Trump, loathed by progressives and liberals alike, this is especially true. The Democrats’ agenda remains a loose amalgamation of ideas, at best—sufficiently vague to allow persuadable voters of varying stripes to project their own ideals onto the party. But over the past two years, by defining themselves in opposition to the president, the Democrats have massively outraised Republicans and built a consistent enthusiasm lead on the generic ballot. The Republican effort to tag Democrats as the party of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a deeply unpopular figure across the country, has been only partially successful in reminding conservatives of why they voted for Donald Trump.

The Democrats’ agenda remains a loose amalgamation of ideas, at best—sufficiently vague to allow persuadable voters of varying stripes to project their own ideals onto the party.

In the U.S. Senate, however, the story is different. Across the country, Democratic senators are on the defensive. Of the thirty-five senate seats on the ballot (one-third of the Senate is elected every two years), a whopping twenty-six are held by Democrats. Ten of these Democratic incumbents are running in states won by Donald Trump; only one Republican candidate, Dean Heller of Nevada, represents a state won by Hillary Clinton. This lopsided map is explained by the 2006 and 2012 election cycles; owing to the then-faltering Iraq war and President Obama’s reelection, Democrats were able to make huge inroads in Republican leaning-states those years. Now, they must work to defend these seats.

While Democratic party enthusiasm remains white-hot, the tumultuous hearings to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court animated the Republican party as well. Aghast at the left’s casual disregard for the presumption of innocence, Republican enthusiasm shot upward almost overnight. If current trends hold, and the Democratic enthusiasm edge is blunted, incumbent Senate Democrats mismatched to Republican states will lose. Under such circumstances, the GOP is likely to expand its Senate majority even while losing the House of Representatives.

If current trends hold, and the Democratic enthusiasm edge is blunted, incumbent Senate Democrats mismatched to Republican states will lose.

Irrespective, American politics is undergoing an epochal shift. “I am a nationalist. Nationalist. Use that word,” President Trump said last week at a rally for Senator Ted Cruz in Houston. This brand of popular nationalism is remaking the Republican party. In one primary after another, in a tremendous winning streak, the president’s preferred Republican candidates have beaten out establishment contenders. Meanwhile, the Democrats have turned hard left, mainstreaming older socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders while elevating newer faces, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The era of George H. W. Bush’s genteel conservatism and Bill Clinton’s New Democrats is now past.

If, as expected, the Democrats take the House and Republicans hold the Senate, the next two years will settle into a predictable rhythm: House Democrats, outfitted with the powers of the majority, will launch one investigation after another into the president. As major legislation stalls between the two chambers, the president will govern through executive powers—and continue sending conservative judges to the Republican Senate. Limited at home, the president may reinvigorate his foreign policy abroad. But most of all, the midterms will serve as the starting pistol for another contest: the presidential election of 2020. And in that, Donald Trump may find Democratic control of Congress a useful foil as he campaigns for four more years in the White House.

Peter Rough is a fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He writes and comments on U.S. foreign policy toward Europe and the Middle East.

Der Beitrag Split governance: what to anticipate from the US midterm elections 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..

Three years ago, Donald Trump burst onto the political scene offering a mix of Republican orthodoxy and populist fire. While his primary opponents issued aspirational calls for freedom, Trump sounded themes like “fair trade” and “the Wall”—positions that motivated working-class voters as much as they alienated urbane elites. In the general election, Trump doubled-down on this posture, embracing American nationalism as the corrective to globalization’s ills, which he blamed on the governing class. In the end, Trump’s upset victory proved so jarring not because it was surprising but because it rested on a basic rejection of the establishment itself.

[related]Trump’s win posed the governing class with a choice. They could respond with introspection, examining why Americans had chosen an explicitly anti-establishment message. Or they could take the bait and fight a cantankerous president who regularly derided them as the “Swamp.” For the past two years, the establishment has overwhelmingly chosen the latter path—a decision that has mostly boomeranged. Nowhere is this truer than with the mainstream media.

To be sure, Trump has not made it easy for the press to rise above the fray. Republicans have long bemoaned unfair media coverage—who can forget, after all, how glowing profiles of John McCain transformed into nasty denunciations of the Arizona Senator simply because Barack Obama (2008) had replaced George W. Bush (2000) as his opponent. Still, no Republican of stature has openly savaged the media quite like Donald Trump, who has labeled peddlers of “fake news” the “enemy of the American people.”

And so, the press has swung into action. In August, the Boston Globe rallied over 300 newspapers to publish a rebuttal of President Trump’s attacks on the media. Moreover, an entire industry of fact-checkers has proliferated across platforms, posting corrections aimed at the president. For the most part, this approach has backfired. The seeming contradiction of “coordinated journalism” only reinforces the impression of mainstream media bias, just as the fact-checking genre has blurred the line between opinion journalism and hard news. Worst of all, by anointing itself a democratic heroine battling Trumpian recklessness, the press has made itself the story. In the process, it has imperiled its reputation as a neutral arbiter.

The press has made itself the story. In the process, it has imperiled its reputation as a neutral arbiter.

The media’s declining credibility is closely related to its uniformity. As FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver has written, “political experts aren’t a very diverse group and tend to place a lot of faith in the opinions of other experts and other members of the political establishment.” Even before Trump entered the scene, only 7 percent of journalists self-identified as Republicans. The impact of such ideological uniformity on reporting is subtle but consequential. As NBC’s Chuck Todd put it recently in the Atlantic, “A New York–based reporter may approach reporting on guns, or on evangelical Christianity, differently than a reporter in Pensacola, Florida.” From selection bias to unquestioned assumptions, too much of today’s mainstream press coverage lacks intellectual diversity. As a result, especially Republican trust in the media has declined.

Too much of today’s mainstream press coverage lacks intellectual diversity.

The information revolution has only accelerated this trend. Decades ago, three graying white males sitting atop New York City skyscrapers set the media frame for the entire country through the network’s nightly news broadcasts. That era is long past. The information revolution democratized the American media, breaking up the network monopoly by giving rise to a bevy of alternative outlets and voices. Now, however, a select few tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter have established a hold over our means of communication. This is deeply worrying. After all, Silicon Valley may be a marvel of technological progress, but it is also a shallow and ignorant ecosystem. If the establishment media can be clubby, the tech industry is outright cultish. Its disdain for conservatism runs especially deep. The prospect of a small coterie of tech executives and engineers, hostile toward the rich mosaic of American life, controlling key media chokepoints is giving many conservatives pause. From the mainstream media to our tech masters, our major institutions should strive to be more representative of the democracy they serve. The result would be better reporting and increased trust. In the era of Trump, it’s far better to leave the resistance to the politicians.

Peter Rough is a fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. He writes and comments on U.S. foreign policy toward Europe and the Middle East.

Der Beitrag The media is its own worst enemy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Friedrich Merz, Chairman of Atlantik-Brücke, said: “John McCain’s integrity, selfless dedication and political passion deserve our highest recognition and will be remembered forever. The board and the members of the Atlantik-Brücke commemorate an outstanding man and a great transatlanticist. His voice will be missed.”

Der Beitrag Atlantik-Brücke mourns the loss of Senator John McCain erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The U.S. and Turkey hit a new low this summer that caught many by surprise. Unfortunately, however, the current crisis has been a long-time coming. The relationship between the two countries has been in need of serious attention even as the broader transatlantic relations seem to be undergoing a reset under the Trump administration.

The initial honeymoon period that brought hopes of greater understanding between Presidents Trump and Erdogan has come crashing down as neither of the two leaders wants to look weak, as they depend on their strongman personas and images to govern. In both countries, foreign policy is driven by domestic politics and creating an “us versus them” rhetoric to consolidate power at home. With the Mueller investigation and upcoming mid-term elections in the U.S., Trump through Vice President Pence sees Pastor Brunson, a US national who was detained in Turkey on espionage charges, as an easy rallying cry for his evangelical base.  The new nationalist parliament in Turkey is already using a more pronounced anti-American, nationalist rhetoric kowtowing to the far-right Nationalist Movement Party MHP. In other words, both leaders, President Erdogan and President Trump, have been willing to exploit these foreign policy crises to consolidate their power at home and strengthen their leadership positions.

[related] After a chummy NATO summit together, Trump publicly warned Erdogan over Twitter that an escalation was coming as a result of a breakdown in diplomacy involving a Turkish national released from Israel at Trump’s request, but the speed at which careful behind-the-scenes negotiations on the release of Andrew Brunson broke down is still breathtaking. The U.S.-Turkey collapse of trust has shown itself again and again in recent years. There can be no doubt that Brunson’s arrest in and of itself is not the worst in the long history of Turkish-American relations that has whether the 1974 Cyprus fallout and 2003 Iraq War. Still, its consequences have had immediate repercussions for bilateral relations and may be far worse on broader transatlantic relations in the longer-term.

There are many nuances that make reporting on this relationship particularly difficult. From a Turkish perspective, major sticking points are the fallout from the July 15^th failed coup attempt and its accused mastermind Fethullah Gulen living in Pennsylvania, as well as Turkish bankers and gold traders that have busted U.S. sanctions on Iran. From an American perspective, problems include the purchase of the latest cutting-edge fighter jet F-35s as well as S-400 Russian missiles which complicates relations with NATO that relies on interoperability and being on an American based weapons system, conflicting policies towards Syria, and finally, American Foreign Service Nationals being detained and denied diplomatic immunity. Pastor Brunson has become the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for the Trump administration, especially given the strength of the evangelical right and the absurdity of the charges he faces in Erdogan’s Turkey.

US-Turkey relations now have to be reset; there is no going back to normal.

On the political level, much like the “visa-crisis” of last year that dragged on for almost a month over a seemingly minor diplomatic breakdown, US-Turkey relations now have to be reset; there is no going back to normal. A fully-functioning State Department is necessary to deal with Turkey, given the Pentagon is far more anti-Turkey and pro-Kurdish these days vis-à-vis Syria. The imbalance in Washington between State and Defense must be righted. Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell is uniquely placed to play a role as a sensible Europe expert that must take a tough but fair line on Turkey.  In addition to a Senate confirmed Assistant Secretary, a permanent Deputy Assistant Secretary responsible for day-to-day relations with Turkey and an Ambassador in Ankara should also be a priority as tough love is applied more effectively in person than over Twitter or through press conferences.

Anti-American anger in Turkey is at a high

Turkey’s economy is at an inflection point and American leverage has never been stronger. At the same time, anti-American anger in Turkey is at a high, and balancing these two trends will be critical. The Anti-Americanism in Turkey has increased mainly because of continued American support for the YPG, the mostly Kurdish militia in Syria.

EU-Turkey relations are looking much better as a result of the breakdown in U.S.-Turkey relations, and Turkey’s economy depends far more on the EU than on the U.S. Turkey is increasing its focus on the EU to secure its own future, regardless of where U.S. policy ends up going under Trump. Germany is still Turkey’s largest partner for trade, and Turkey has been basing this relationship on a win-win approach. In this context, Europe continues to be a reliable partner for Turkey particularly in comparison to America these days.

Indeed, since the Justice and Development Party came to the power, Turkey has been willing to seek more partners and good neighbors around it. With Erdogan at the helm, Turkey has flirted with Russia, Iran and China, while trying to get away from Western values on different sets of issues. Because of clashing interests over the years and power struggles between the U.S. and other countries in the region, Turkey has been trying to seek alternative options for its foreign policy choices. This was abundantly clear on the most recent visit by the Emir of Qatar, which resulted in Qatar’s $15 billion promised infusion into the Turkish economy even as the lira plunged to its lowest levels yet this year.

Turkey wants to reduce dependency on Western actors, creating more partnership options to increase pragmatism and flexibility in foreign policy decisions. Another current example is the first high-level meeting between Turkey and the BRICS countries, with whom President Erdogan expressed desire to further collaborate. At the first Turkey-ASEAN trilateral meetings in Singapore, Turkey indicated its approach for seeking areas of cooperation with the member countries in the region. In addition, through the Astana Process, Shanghai Cooperation Organization and many other multilateral forums, Turkey is seeking to engage with emerging powers and organizations on the global stage, leading the way for a transforming balance of power internationally.

Perhaps the most immediate concern for the transatlantic alliance has been Turkey’s turn towards Russia

Perhaps the most immediate concern for the transatlantic alliance has been Turkey’s turn towards Russia to buy major weapons system, specifically the S-400 missile defenses. This has created problems both with the U.S. and among the NATO alliance over military interoperability. Turkey also wants to build more ties with different actors or organizations in the world. Saving Turkey as a transatlantic ally is imperative in the long-term given the historic investment that has already been made by successive generations. Taking into account the shifting dynamics in both American and Turkish domestic politics and foreign policy environments, there has never been a more opportune moment to double-down on an equitable partnership of shared interests that Europe can help facilitate.

Ultimately the U.S.-Turkey relationship will be determined not just by the presidents, their war of words or even their governmental colleagues in Washington and Ankara, but by the businesses, civil society, educators, entrepreneurs and leaders from Istanbul, New York, Izmir, San Francisco, Bursa, Boston, Kayseri, Chicago, and beyond; that is why both governments and nations must make a concerted effort to expand relations and save the alliance.

Joshua W. Walker, PhD (@drjwalk) is a longtime Turkey watcher who is a proud Atlantik-Brucke Young Leader based out of Washington, DC currently Global Head of Strategic Initiatives at Eurasia Group, Executive Vice President of the American Turkish Council and a Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

Der Beitrag U.S.-Turkey Relations Hit a New Low erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

„Conversations on the future of NATO – The challenges with which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has to cope“

Table of contents:

• Vorwort
• Zwischen Worst und Best Case:
  Die Zukunft der NATO Standpunkt von Prof. Dr. Burkhard Schwenker

1 Jenseits des 2-Prozent-Ziels der NATO

• „Verlässlichkeit in der NATO ist ein hoher Wert“
  Interview mit Dr. Géza von Geyr
• „Diplomatie bleibt heiße Luft ohne militärische Fähigkeit“
  Interview mit Botschafter Wolfgang Ischinger
• „Wir müssen mehr Mittel bereitstellen“
  Ein Pro zum 2-Prozent-Ziel von Henning Otte …
• „Mehr Geld ist nicht gleich mehr Effizienz“
  und ein Contra zum 2-Prozent-Ziel von Rainer Arnold
• Uneinigkeit bei fairer transatlantischer Lastenteilung
  Hintergrundartikel von Robin Fehrenbach

2 Die Rolle der USA innerhalb der NATO

• “A demonstration that we stand together”
  Interview with Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller *
• “NATO is the most successful Alliance in world history”
  Interview with Lieutenant General Frederick B. Hodges *
• “The goal is to normalize the relations with Russia”
  Interview with Dr. Michael E. O’Hanlon *
• „Wer bei Wiederaufbau und Entwicklung kürzt,
  muss hinterher mehr Geld ausgeben“
  Interview mit Dr. Marco Overhaus
• “‘America first’ does not mean ‘America alone’”
  Interview with Dr. Richard D. Hooker Jr. *
• “Doubts about America’s commitment to Article 5 are removed”
  Interview with Dr. Magnus Nordenman *
• “Sometimes nastiness is more effective than soft power”
  Interview with Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. *

3 Der europäische Pfeiler der NATO

• „Absurdes Ausmaß in der Vielfalt von Waffensystemen“
  Interview mit Dr. Norbert Röttgen
• “The EU is now motivated to take real action”
  Interview with Dr. Julianne Smith *
• „Europas Streitkräfte stehen an einer Weggabelung”
  Interview mit Dr. Gundbert Scherf und Dr. David Bachmann
• “Russian challenges tire out our population”
  Essay by Ambassador Darius Semaška *
• * In English

Burkhard Schwenker’s standpoint as PDF

The publication as PDF

Der Beitrag “Conversations on the future of NATO“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The three American college students Sophie al Mutawaly, Samuel Rahlke and Krister Lansing are currently doing internships in Germany. During a visit to Berlin, they discussed the state of transatlantic relations with Atlantik-Brücke, giving the perspective of a younger generation. They all expressed hope that the United States and Europe will overcome their current differences and focus more on the long-term strategic objectives of their partnership.

What does the transatlantic relationship mean for your personal life?

[related]Sophie al Mutawaly: For me it is very important and a big piece of my life. Being born in Germany and having grown up in the United States in a German household, my life has been very transatlantic. I am majoring in Government and Legal Studies, so the transatlantic topics that are being discussed and change every day are very relevant to both my personal life and what I am studying.

Samuel Rahlke: I am in a similar role to Sophie. I have been coming to Germany my entire life. I have family here. I was less than one year old the first I was here. Studying German as a foreign language helps me to connect with my family and other Germans. I really want to come here and work here for a few years. Or who knows? Maybe I will even end up living here for the rest of my life.

Krister Lansing: I definitively echo Sam’s sentiment of how much I appreciate this opportunity of coming back to Germany. I have some German heritage – as many Americans do. And there is the option to study German in Germany and also to go deeper into subjects like politics. Germany and the United States share a lot of history. So, it is important to learn from each other. We can act together and solve problems since the United States and Germany have been allies and partners in so many issues for decades.

We can act together and solve problems since the United States and Germany have been allies and partners in so many issues for decades.[quoter]Krister Lansing[/quoter]

The world order is changing rapidly if you think of China’s rise, Russia’s attempt to expand its spheres of influence and the growing number of populist movements and illiberal, authoritarian states especially in the West. Do you have any suggestion how to maintain the transatlantic values that guided America and Europe for more than seventy years?

Krister Lansing: Germany and the United States should definitively emphasize what they have in common, especially those qualities that are not really dependent on any current administration or ideology. Climate change is a good example. You could also mention the securing of the sovereignty of nation states, world peace and international aid. These things should be held in high regard. Ideology should be pushed aside. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic should rise above these short-term issues. This partnership is indelible.

Sophie al Mutawaly: I agree with that. Keeping in mind that Germany and the US are major world powers, remembering what is important for these larger goals, and keeping the relationship strong, alive, and positive will really help in the long term rather than losing or weakening it over small disagreements.

Samuel Rahlke: We should really be looking to solidify our alliances rather than focusing on policies that primarily put the needs of a single nation first. When you are destroying alliances over small trade issues, you are going to be left behind big time in the international economy. That is not worth it.

We should really be looking to solidify our alliances rather than focusing on policies that primarily put the needs of a single nation first.[quoter]Samuel Rahlke[/quoter]

What is your take on the EU’s reaction to President Trump’s “America first” policy?

Sophie al Mutawaly: It was interesting to look at the local side during the presidential election in 2016. Trump was able to win over people who felt like they had been abandoned by the government. Trump’s idea is to bring jobs back to America and to help those people. Although I don’t entirely agree with his philosophy, he managed to get a lot of votes that way. A lot of people within the United States do recognize that “America first” is not the policy that they want. They want to keep alliances strong and to see a united Europe. “America first” is not what all Americans think and accept.

Krister Lansing: I would like to talk about the punitive tariffs and trade measures that Trump has imposed. They go against every single tenet of the international multilateral system. This is essentially a political tactic to make good on promises made during Trump’s campaign. These promises are impossible to follow through. You can’t simply just impose tariffs and expect people to get better jobs in industries that are now becoming defunct. The European Union can’t just allow tariffs to be imposed. Because otherwise you bring negative effects onto the population of the EU. Like Heiko Maas said it has to be a Europe united. Chancellor Merkel is doing a very good job in being very sober, strong and reliable and not turning over on any questions.

Samuel Rahlke: It is definitively important that Europe doesn’t accept these tariffs. That could encourage Trump in the future to continue to use bully tactics.

“America first” is not what all Americans think and accept.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

Will the United States have structurally changed forever once Donald Trump has left the Oval Office?

Krister Lansing: There is evidence that can support this view. The first secretary of state we had, Rex Tillerson, came into office and fired so many experienced foreign service officers. That was not prudent because these people have years of experience in one of the fundamental policy pillars. We also have the tax bill passed that will increase the income inequality in the United States.

Sophie al Mutawaly: On the flip side you are also seeing a strong reaction to things that Trump is doing. In the past year the travel ban happened, there were protests all over the country. Also, the MeToo movement came up which is very Hollywood-based. But given our current political climate in the US it is very relevant with someone like Trump in the White House. Regarding the midterm elections a lot more women and young people are running like Jon Ossoff in Georgia. There is going to be a lot of responsibility on the younger generation to really turn out for votes and be active. It is important for them to fight back against these policies so that they don’t become permanent and don’t change the structure of the US.

Samuel Rahlke: We are going to see structural changes in political mindsets especially of the younger generation. Trump has definitively brought in his own meaning spin in the way of campaigning and operating his office. Some have called him a demagogue. His speeches very much appeal to people’s emotions rather than logic. People are going to change the way they look at politicians who are campaigning and at what they promise to do in office. I hope we will see a shift more to the middle of the political spectrum. The current parties pursue the policies that they want rather than what is necessary and best for the country.

There is going to be a lot of responsibility on the younger generation to really turn out for votes and be active.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

How excited are you about the midterm elections on November, 6?

Krister Lansing: It will be a milestone moment. We will see how mobilized people will get to show their approval or disapproval of Donald Trump’s policies. We have seen something similar with the rejection of Roy Moore. It will be very hard for the Democrats to take back the House and Senate. Trump is getting 40 percent of people who approve his presidency.

Sophie al Mutawaly: Early on in Trump’s presidency people were really outraged. But now he was able to get this meeting happening with North Korea. For some people this must feel like a setback right before the midterm elections. But I am still optimistic that there will be a strong response from the Democratic Party to get back in the game.

Samuel Rahlke: The meeting with Kim Jong-Un is tremendous! We will have to wait and see if Trump can take this to the next step to achieve bigger goals. If he can do that we may not see too much change in the House and the Senate.

It will be very hard for the Democrats to take back the House and Senate.[quoter]Kriser Lansing[/quoter]

What hopes and fears do you have regarding domestic American policy?

Krister Lansing: Trump has hired Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) knowing that Pruitt has sued EPA for supposedly overbearing environmental regulations. It does not surprise me that Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord. And the funding of National Parks in the United Stations decreases dramatically now.

Sophie al Mutawaly: What also scares me is that Trump is getting through to people feeling left behind by prior administrations without a factual basis. One example is the travel ban on various countries: Trump claims all of the people from these countries are a danger to US citizens, which is not the case. Bernie Sanders was very passionate about education. He fought for the idea to make education more affordable for younger people. As a university student I really appreciate the work that Sanders did. Whereas Trump hurts the United States in various areas.

Samuel Rahlke: There is one hope, though. Early on in his campaign, Trump was talking about improving our infrastructure. This is an old discussion. But for example, if you drive over the border from North Caroline to South Carolina the roads immediately and noticeably get worse with potholes for instance. If we could invest in that and invest in public transportation at least in metropolitan areas, the boom we would get out of increased logistics would be tremendous.

As a university student I really appreciate the work that Sanders did.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

Do you think NATO is still the appropriate instrument of foreign and security policy to guarantee the stability of its members?

Samuel Rahlke: As long as Trump does not do too much with it, NATO at the current moment still has a bite. It is a great deterrent towards aggressive countries like Russia. It stands and has power.

Krister Lansing: Trump’s America first policy is dangerous for NATO. It seems like the world has gone upside down. You are leaving your alliances with Europe and Canada to rot and on the other side you are making a deal with North Korea. You can’t do that to the expense of your old allies.

Sophie al Mutawaly: Wanting other countries to get closer to the 2-percent-goal is not totally ridiculous of Trump to ask. Europe has to invest more into NATO to keep the alliance alive.

It seems like the world has gone upside down. You are leaving your alliances with Europe and Canada to rot and on the other side you are making a deal with North Korea.[quoter]Krister Lansing[/quoter]

The USA, the EU, Canada, China and Russia seem to enter a phase of deteriorating trade conflicts. What would a smart answer to President Trump’s punitive tariffs on steel and aluminum and may be on cars look like?

Samuel Rahlke: It is important for the EU to impose a few counter tariffs to even out the deficit that is being created by the new US tariffs. They should leave it with that and make sure that their reaction does not exceed the US tariffs. It really comes down to Trump. If he wants to impose another tariff especially on European cars this would be the most unwise move. It would only escalate from there. It is going to set a precedent. It is going to go back and forth continuously. He would hurt the US consumer in the long run additionally to European companies. There is no added benefit to that kind of step.

Krister Lansing: It is important that the Europeans let Trump have this win. This is political tactic being used. He made promises to his voters to stop outsourcing and bring back industrial jobs to America. If Germany and the EU fight back too hard, this leads nowhere good. People will finally see that these tariffs are unproductive.

Sophie al Mutawaly: The response on the European side will really tell us how this relationship will move forward.

If Trump wants to impose another tariff especially on European cars this would be the most unwise move.[quoter]Samuel Rahlke[/quoter]

Are you afraid of the effects that Artificial Intelligence will have on your working life?

Sophie al Mutawaly: I don’t think that robots will replace lawyers (laughs). We are seeing all around us that jobs are slowly being replaced by robots and machines. Trump is trying to bring jobs back to the United States. In a world that is moving forward with this digitization it is going to be very difficult for him to keep that.

Samuel Rahlke: As we see more jobs move to machinery and automated processes there is definitively going to be a decrease of people actually being employed. But with time, people will focus more on STEM fields which is science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. So, we are going to need more people who develop the machinery and more people who program these systems.

Krister Lansing: I used to be a huge pessimist in terms of how Artificial Intelligence and automation of industries will play out on economies. But I admit that this is a misplaced fear. This process will simply rationalize some tasks like a document search which is quite tedious for a lawyer for example. What cannot be replicated is the abstract thought, argumentation, sympathy, emotion, and creativity of humans. It is more about a supplement and help for a lot of professions.

I don’t think that robots will replace lawyers.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

What can Europe for its own sake learn from the U.S. presidential election of 2016 as to the socio-economic problems within the American society?

Krister Lansing: Two things are really evident: The power of information and misinformation in elections and how professional politicians relate to their constituents. Hillary Clinton for example has often failed to give real answers and has shown a fluid value system. Politicians should talk honestly to the people and explain what needs to be done. It is also important how people inform themselves about what the country needs.

Samuel Rahlke: It is also going to change the way people consume information about politicians. At least in America we will see less people looking at sources like Fox News, MSNBC or CNN. I think that people will use more information coming directly from the politicians rather than opinionated or interpreted coverage.

Krister Lansing: Bernie Sanders really is a big pioneer in this development. He used technology very effectively with Facebook Live conversations and a Snapchat account on which he was sharing and documenting his events.

Sophie al Mutawaly: Again: The youth needs to get more involved in politics and to be genuinely interested in what is going on. It is not enough just to complain about movements like Pegida here in Germany.

Politicians should talk honestly to the people and explain what needs to be done.[quoter]Krister Lansing[/quoter]

Final Question: Is there still enough momentum in America to save the global climate although the current U.S. administration has announced its withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement COP 21?

Sophie al Mutawaly: Exactly the same day that Trump made his announcement, various states said they wanted to stay a part of this agreement. There was a lot of backlash also on an international level to what Trump was doing. The coal industry is definitively not part of our future.

Samuel Rahlke: In the US, enough force can be generated by the population to encourage the current administration to get back in the Paris Accord. If we can get younger people to mobilize on this idea and to write to our representatives, there is still a chance to get back. This is a global effort which needs the American support.

Krister Lansing: There is a lot of hope for climate protection. The private sector is doing a lot in terms of innovative technology. However, so many fundamental things like transportation industry and agriculture need to be completely restructured by a top-down regulation just as the Paris Climate agreement. Grassroot activists are not enough.

The coal industry is definitively not part of our future.[quoter]Sophie al Mutawaly[/quoter]

The exchange students Sophie al Mutawaly, Samuel Rahlke and Krister Lansing are part of the current group of German-American Exchange e.V.’s internship program. Atlantik-Brücke-member Dr. Christoph Rückel chairs the organization. Their next event is the 9th German-American Business Day on July 16, 2018, at Literaturhaus München. At the event, short video statements by the students about their time in Germany will be shown. You can find additional information here.

Der Beitrag „When you are destroying alliances you are going to be left behind“ erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The complete interview (in German) can be seen here.

Der Beitrag “Does our model of a free society still have a future?” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

I’m not sure if Americans themselvers are talking about the same thing when they talk about “fake news.” Depending on your political affiliation you may have a very different view on what “fake news” actually is. People are generally concerned that they do not know what and whom to believe. Personally, I think this presents a great opportunity for journalists to dig in and make very clear what is fact, what is opinion, what may be fiction, and maybe to even do a better job than we’ve done so far.

What measures do you think could be useful in making people more aware of trustworthy news sources?

People pretty much decide for themselves whom they trust. If you look at Breitbart for instance, people who consume Breitbart news trust it. So, trust in itself is a difficult metric to use for the shape of media, politics or democratic institutions. As a media outlet, you need to build a relationship with your readership, with your audience, and make sure that you’re addressing what is most important to them. It doesn’t mean that you have to tell them what they want to hear. But you should make sure that you’re not focusing on topics that are utterly unimportant to them. Take food, for example: there is stuff we want to eat and then there is stuff we should eat. I personally like to eat hamburgers. But I know I should eat more broccoli. With news, there is information you want to know and then there is information you should know, and media should find that balance without being patronizing. Especially digital media that try do increase traffic by any means runs the risk that this balance will shift towards what people want to know – and neglect what should be known.

Would you say, though, that digital media outlets caused this change? Wouldn’t people in the past also pick up only the type of newspapers and magazines they wanted to read?

Whenever I hear that people don’t trust the media, I think they are right, they shouldn’t. I wouldn’t know how to trust “the media”. A healthy skepticism towards anybody who tells you “Believe me!” is a good thing. There used to be a “blame-the-media game” and now it’s turned to “blame social media.” Both blame games are missing the point: What is most important is that the concerns people discuss at the dinner table, the things that worry them in their daily lives like education of their children, social welfare, crime rates and migration issues should be taken seriously.

Do you think that some of the general dissatisfaction with institutions, as shown in our survey, has to do with the way elites act and portray themselves? Do you think it is time for those elites to be self-critical?

Yes, and many are. Ever since Brexit, ever since the election of President Trump and the rise of the AfD, there has been a lot of “Jesus! How could this happen?” and self-assertion about the importance of Western values. But look at what happened during the financial crisis: my idea of Western values does not include greed, decadence and a total lack of accountability. And yet all of those occured before our very eyes and the so-called establishment didn’t do anything to stop it. No wonder people have lost confidence in the elites. Business, academia, the financial sector, politics and the media have to live up to their responsibilities. It would help if they moved out of their self-made filter bubbles in Berlin-Mitte or Washington, DC  to talk – and listen! – to people outside. To the non-urban middle-class, which at least in Germany is the backbone of our society.

Do you think “fake news” is a new phenomenon?

There are wonderful examples of “fake news” in the past. In the GDR in the 1950s, newspapers published eyewitness reports by farmers who said that shortly after hearing planes they found potato beetles on their fields. News reports would then claim that the US was breeding the imperialist Colorado potato beetle in military labs to attack the “flourishing” socialist economy. This was, of course, nonsense and propaganda. But there are even older examples, one I was recently told by Michael Butter from Tübingen University. In the presidential race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, team Adams claimed that Jefferson wanted to reinstate monarchy in the United States and marry off his children to British royals. Team Jefferson, however, toured the country saying “No need to vote for Adams. He has died.” So, the phenomenon isn’t new at all.

What is new is the reach and velocity with which “fake news” travel. This is a technical and a regulatory challenge. Mark Zuckerberg currently has one of the hardest jobs in the world. He has given himself another two years to tackle the problem. Facebook and other companies like Google, YouTube, etc. are taking this issue much more seriously than they used to. But given that social media is only about five minutes old in historical terms, there is a lot we don’t know yet. I’m always skeptical about the ease with which people say: “Oh, this factor has led to this outcome.” Donald Trump wasn’t elected because of a bot-campaign. And as much as the Russians interfered, I think Trump’s victory had much less to do with Putin going to Facebook than with Hillary not going to Wisconsin. Yes, people can be manipulated but it doesn’t follow that they make electoral decision based on disinformation. People have this rather annoying tendency to think what they want to think – and not what politicians or journalists want them to think. For journalists, the challenge today is not just to report the facts and hold government responsible. It’s also to know what people perceive as the truth and what they feel. If you don’t know people’s emotions or if you sneer at them for having the wrong feelings, there’s no way you can gain their trust again.

Thank you!

Interview: Katharina Draheim

Tanit Koch ist a journalist and former Editor-in-Chief, BILD. She is a member of the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity (TCEI).

Der Beitrag “Healthy skepticism is a good thing” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

[related]Of course, Facebook, Twitter and other social media are just the newest of many revolutions in the way we communicate. From the first printed book to radio and television, we’ve witnessed some game changers which affected our political discourse. But today we see one major difference: access to publishing in traditional media was always restricted and thereby easier to regulate. The internet, to the contrary, allows everyone to publish at any time because its capacity is limitless. For this reason, it has been a long-cherished dream that the internet would allow us to gain access to an unimaginable range of information, leading to a new age of informed citizens.

Today, we know that autocrats still have the possibility to control political discourse. The Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte hired 400 to 500 people to distort online information and discourse during his electoral campaign. And Russia used social media to not only influence information within its own populace, but launched campaigns in other countries including Germany, Ukraine, France and the United States.

Why this works…

These campaigns have an impact because they target and reach the right people. If you are someone who is already in favor of stricter immigration policy then you are susceptible to anti-migrant content, making you a great target for that kind of messaging.

To reach the right people, one need only rely on algorithms. The amount of information online is simply not manageable for one single person. Instead of having classical gatekeepers like journalists, political discourse on the internet is structured by mechanisms which do not choose based on credibility but on our previous likes and engagements. This can be helpful for finding music or holiday destinations, but it is dangerous as soon as it touches on politics. If you’ve previously liked populist content about migrants, it is then very unlikely that you will be confronted with opposing facts in your timeline.

…and what it means

Social media companies can offer their clients the necessary information to identify the proper audience. According to Brad Parscale, the digital director of the 2016 Trump campaign, they used 50,000 to 60,000 different versions of advertisements per day on Facebook. Some of them aimed at as few as a dozen people in a specific district.

Since it is very unlikely that persons with differing points of view see the same content, data and facts, they lack an empirical foundation which could serve as the basis for discourse and compromise—they are simply working with contradictory information.

When political campaigners began recognizing the possibilities of the web in the mid 1990s, they saw a new way to equip their voters with additional content. Today, voters themselves can spread material as long as it draws attention, because attention is the end goal of sharing content; and as long as it represents the user, because we want attention for what we think and do. Content that fits with existing attitudes, worldviews and feelings has much better chances to go viral.

What to do about it

As the negative sides of the digitalization of the political discourse become more apparent, calls for regulation become louder. But many experts argue that profound regulation is simply not possible since we do not know enough about the mechanisms of social media, and companies refuse to share secrets of their lucrative businesses.

An approach which includes companies could help encourage a real political debate on the web. For example, YouTube experimented with redirecting users who watch pro-jihad videos to contradictory content.

If we are able to take steps like this, we will at least stave off polarization, if not strengthen discourse and compromise.

Andrea Römmele is Professor for Communication in Politics and Civil Society at the Hertie School of Governance. Her research interests are comparative political communications, political parties and public affairs.

Der Beitrag Digitalization of political discourse and its threat to democracy erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

That´s a good question. There is a sort of chicken and an egg element to this because the decline of trust accompanies the declining economic security of the middle of the economy, the middle skills portion of the labor force. So one obvious thing would be to have public policy that addresses those insecurities, that updates welfare systems for the gig economy, that makes them more portable, more adaptable to the 21^st century. That, I´m sure, would make people feel more invested in society and in their own as well as their children´s future and help restore some lost trust.

[related]The problem is the decline of trust has disabled the political system to take actions like this. So, it´s quite hard to say practical things that are likely to happen other than to hope and pray that we get some especially talented politicians who are able to thread this needle. Praying for great leaders is not really political science. It is just wishful thinking. But when there is a demand for statesmanship, there must be talented Macron-type figures out there, who understand this is a historical opportunity, who can get these systems to deliver those policies. That would restore a lot of the trust that has gone missing.

In the era of Trump with all his very anti-international rhetoric, do you think that there can be a constructive cooperation between the EU and the US? And if so, what would that look like from the EU-side especially?

If there is a positive impact of Trump on transatlantic relations, it is to force us on the European side to take more responsibility for our fate into our own hands and not to rely on America to do it all for us. That’s not really transatlantic cooperation, that is Europe becoming more coherent as a unit in terms of foreign and defense policy, in terms of its external interaction with the world, particularly in the face of threats from the East from Vladimir Putin and indeed within the European Union itself in the Visegrád countries. That, of course, is a challenge that makes it all the more urgent that we stand up to. I can’t overstate how important it is that Germany showed more leadership on this question.

What would that leadership look like?

Not just higher defense spending as a matter of numbers but as a matter of strategic thinking on one hand. Second, much tougher on the illiberal democrats within the European club, whether it’s Hungarians, the Polish. But in matters of upholding the values that bind the European Union together, Germany has to be tougher. I understand why it is a difficult thing to do and there are always consequences and prices to pay. But that’s what leadership is. It is paying prices. It costs to be a leader.

So, would you say that vis-à-vis the US, Europe would be well advised to shore up Western values on its own for now?

Yes! Trump doesn’t believe in these values. There has been a lot of focus recently on how far you get if you flatter Trump. Merkel, to her great credit, doesn’t flatter Trump. She just can´t do it and I don’t blame her. Macron has been trying to flatter Trump. They have the same results, whether you flatter Trump or you don´t. On the other hand, strongmen, authoritarian leaders, don’t really flatter Trump. Trump flatters them. He wants to be like the authoritarians. That’s who he really envies. So, he doesn’t believe in these values. But of course, America does – Trump isn’t all of America and Trump isn´t forever. But while he’s president, the initiative has to be taken elsewhere. Canada is doing ok. Actually, they have a good government. The Australians in a different way, the Japanese in a different way. But really the core of the Western alliance is between the United States and Europe. And if the United States is AWOL, it has to come from Europe. And without Germany we do not get European leadership. It must be boring for Germans to hear that but it is just true.

One last question: You mentioned that you might or might not write another book in a few years on the return of Western liberalism. If you think of the future, are you optimistic or pessimistic?

I’m actually agnostic. If you had asked two or three years ago, I would have said pessimistic. I wrote another book about six years ago about the relative decline of America and I think on that I was a little bit ahead of the curve. Retreat of Western liberalism is right on time as everyone else begins to write about it. In both cases I felt sure of the direction we were going. But if you asked which is more likely: the return of resilience of democracy in the West or a gradual democratic depression I honestly don’t know. It is up to us. It’s up to our actions in the face of these challenges.

Thank you so much.

Interview: Katharina Draheim

Edward Luce is the chief US commentator and columnist for the Financial Times. He writes a weekly column on US politics, economy, and foreign policy. Previously, he served as the FT’s Washington bureau chief. He has also worked as the FT’s South Asia bureau chief in New Delhi, capital markets editor in London, and as the Philippines correspondent. Luce was previously the speechwriter for Lawrence H. Summers. His most recent book is The Retreat of Western Liberalism, and he is also the author of In Spite of the Gods: The Strange Rise of Modern India, and Time to Start Thinking: America in the Age of Descent.

A Graduate of Oxford University in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, he received his post-graduate in journalism from City University, London. He is a frequent guest on Fareed Zakaria GPS, PBS NewsHour, NPR, and C-SPAN.

Der Beitrag “Germany has to be tougher” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Looking back across the Atlantic, Europeans may understandably assume that America has lost its mind. Not only did America elect a President that is unfit for office, but now the country is obsessed with an utterly bewildering Russia scandal, seemingly pulled from a conspiratorial spy thriller.

[related]This scandal, however, is actually quite real and quite straightforward. On January 6, 2017, the US Intelligence Community issued a report that said that Russia in effect ran a campaign to help elect Donald Trump in the 2016 election. There were therefore two campaigns to elect Donald Trump in 2016 – the Trump campaign and a Russian campaign. The current investigation is focused on whether these two campaigns worked together. It looks increasingly certain that they did.

To date, 22 people have been indicted, including Trump’s campaign chairman (Paul Manafort), his deputy (Rick Gates), his first National Security Advisor (Michael Flynn), and a campaign foreign policy advisor (George Papadopolus). Flynn, Gates, and Papadopolus have all pled guilty and are cooperating with Mueller.

But there’s more, Trump’s own personal lawyer just had his office, his apartment, and the hotel where he was staying raided by FBI agents. We also now know that the FBI suspected another one of Trump’s main campaign foreign policy advisors, Carter Page, of being a Russian agent and even got a warrant to monitor him. And the warrant produced results good enough to renew that warrant three times.

While Trump rails against this being a partisan “WITCH HUNT,” this is an investigation started by a Repulican, overseen by a Republican, and run by a Republican.

President Trump has insisted that this investigation is some Democratic plot. Others have suggested that this is really about the Democratic Party trying to get rid of Trump or make excuses for their electoral defeat. But Democrats have no power in Washington. After Trump fired FBI Director James Comey last May, the Deputy Attorney General – a Republican who Trump himself appointed – decided to establish a Special Prosecutor to investigate whether there was collusion with Russia and appointed not a low level figure, but another former FBI Director – Robert Mueller, a Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush. While Trump rails against this being a partisan “WITCH HUNT,” this is in fact an investigation started by a Repulican, overseen by a Republican, and run by a Republican.

What has made this scandal so confusing is that we are watching an investigation unfold in real time. There is therefore a lot we do not know. The Mueller investigation has shocked Washington for the lack of leaks to the press. The press are uncovering information piece by piece by talking to defense lawyers and witnesses, and through great investigative reporting. So there is a lot of information coming out about different investigative threads that Mueller is looking into: Trump’s data digital firm, Cambridge Analytica; the Trump campaign’s coordination with WikiLeaks; Russians providing funding through to the National Rifle Agency; deals with sketchy UAE figures; and meetings with Russian officials in Trump Tower and places like the Seychelles. Therefore, figuring out where this scandal is headed requires reading some of the tea leaves and speculating. What has become clear, though, is that there is a tremendous amount to investigate. Trump was a shady businessman, operated a shady campaign, and looks like he’s operating an incredibly corrupt administration. The hard part for this investigation seems to be deciding what sketchy behavior not to investigate.

The Russia scandal has all the bearings of the greatest political scandal in American history.

The Russia scandal has all the bearings of the greatest political scandal in American history. It is unfolding in similar ways to the Nixon Watergate scandal, which enveloped the country for two years from 1972-74. There, a White House-directed effort to break into and bug the Democratic Party headquarters was exposed in 1972. But the question of what the White House knew and when it knew took two years to unfold.

Following Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections, America turned to Europe for guidance. Many in Europe wisely explained to Americans the nature of Russian interference – something that Europe has lived with for decades. Yet over the past year, America has done something that European countries haven’t done – it established a robust criminal investigation into the depth and breadth of Russian influence efforts and whether their efforts were abetted by Americans. The Russia investigation is exposing the depths of Russia’s efforts and the depravity of Donald Trump. Far from America losing its mind, this investigation attests the strength of America’s democratic institutions – where no one is above the law, even the President of the United States.

Max Bergman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Co-Founder and Director of The Moscow Project.

Der Beitrag Understanding the Russia Investigation erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The German press today is saturated with news from America. What was a regular stream of reporting has transformed over the past fifteen months into a tsunami of information crossing the Atlantic every single day. Little of it is substantive, however. America’s new insurgent president, Donald Trump, has dazed the media with one twitter barb after another. For much of the German press, the reaction has been to focus on Trump as the ugly American – the living embodiment of what must be stopped.

[related]Of course, the president of the United States is always news; after all, he is the most powerful person on earth. But to understand the rich mosaic of American life one must go beyond the latest presidential tweet. It is simply too easy to categorize Republicans as cowboys (Bush) or charlatans (Trump) and Democrats as magnetic (Clinton) or worldly (Obama). In truth, the powerful historical forces that shape the American psyche defy such caricatures. If one is truly interested in understanding the U.S., it is far better to grapple with what makes the U.S. an exceptional nation to begin with.

America has no state religion. Instead, its holy texts are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively. Every year, millions of Americans make the pilgrimage to the Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom at the National Archives to pay homage to the documents that draped the newly formed United States in liberty and established the checks and balances that protect it.

America has no state religion. Instead, its holy texts are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

That first American generation is held in such high esteem because the country attributes its incredible success to its founding creed. To be sure, the sin of slavery was an abomination. But in sharp contrast to the Europe of the time, the newly independent American colonies exemplified a rugged self-reliance free of government oppression linked to an optimistic frontier spirit. As a result, socialism never found fertile soil in a country brimming with opportunity. As the American author John Steinbeck described in America and Americans, in the 1930s “we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist.” In a mostly unbroken chain dating to our founding, Americans have chosen equality of opportunity over outcome so long as social mobility could be guaranteed.

In America, neither the executive nor judges should supplant the will of the people no matter what elites deem appropriate for a rapidly changing world.

Moreover, from its earliest days, the United States has embraced democratic governance. It has generally expressed skepticism of the type of technocratic safeguards found in modern Europe, judging them antithetical to America’s democratic spirit. Therefore, when the Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex partners and President Obama extended protections to certain illegal immigrants, many Americans disapproved on procedural grounds. For them, those issues should be settled by lawmakers in the states and Congress, respectively. In America, neither the executive nor judges should supplant the will of the people no matter what elites deem appropriate for a rapidly changing world.

Alas, such disagreements have led to a visceral clash in American politics that has many Germans worried about the future of the Republic – and understandably so. But America is far more resilient and cohesive than understood abroad. We share habits, mores, and sensibilities that, in the past, spread among immigrants as they assimilated into our founding ideals. Even today, those centripetal forces remain stronger than the centrifugal pressures of American politics and globalization.

America is far more resilient and cohesive than understood abroad.

As losers and victors of two world wars, Germany and the United States have also drawn different lessons from the twentieth century. While Germans recoiled from patriotic nationalism, Americans felt strengthened in their exceptionalism; similarly, while Germany shunned strategic culture, the United States was thrust into the global spotlight. America learned from the disaster of interwar isolationism that it must take up the burden of leadership. But it has always been a reluctant superpower because our patriotic nationalism and strategic culture are firmly embedded in a worldview that abhors imperialism.

Trump made the decline in social mobility and skepticism toward elites key themes of his presidential campaign. Relatedly, he pushed America’s unique form of nationalism as a solution to globalization’s negative externalities. For the foreseeable future, therefore, the United States is likely to embrace neither isolationism nor internationalism, but to stake out more competitive positions abroad. For example, over the decades, American leaders have highlighted with increasing frequency imbalances in defense spending and trade in goods with Europe. Rather than react with scorn, the transatlantic community should formulate solutions that address America’s concerns while channeling its competitiveness against truly revisionist actors. This may not be as satisfying as deriding the latest tweet, but the future of transatlantic cooperation depends on it.

Peter Rough is a fellow at Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. He writes and comments on U.S. foreign policy toward Europe and the Middle East.

Der Beitrag Lost in Translation erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

The White House’s decision on March 8^th to impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum is not without precedent: President George W. Bush did something similar in 2002 when there was a surge in U.S. steel imports. What is different this time, however, is the trade law President Trump called on to justify his decision – the little-used section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act that authorizes the President to bar imports if they threaten U.S. national security.[related]

While in principle this move is compatible with international trade rules – the World Trade Organization allows its 164 members to invoke “essential security interests” to block trade – it is difficult to see how metals imports from a NATO ally like Germany could cause political or military harm to the United States. For that reason, it is far from clear that the U.S. decision would survive a challenge at the WTO dispute settlement body.

But would it be wise for the European Union (which negotiates trade on behalf of its 28 member states) to take that step and bring a case against the U.S.? The U.S. Administration has already exempted NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico from the tariffs, and there are signs that the U.S. is willing to consider exemptions for other countries if doing so would support U.S. national security. While it may be awkward for the EU to plead with the U.S. Administration, its case is an overwhelmingly convincing one and one worth making.

“The EU should bring to Washington’s attention the considerable overlapping agenda that the two transatlantic trading partners have when it comes to China.”

It is understandable that the EU is considering all options open to it – including not just a WTO case but also retaliatory sanctions targeted for maximum political effect. At least in the near term, however, when the exact contours of the U.S. 232 action remain in flux, the EU might be better advised to focus its political muscle elsewhere: bringing to Washington’s attention the considerable overlapping agenda that the two transatlantic trading partners have when it comes to China. Before the tariff decision intervened, finding common ground on Chinese trade policies was the intended focus of a March 10^th meeting in Brussels involving EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and Japanese Trade Minister Hiroshige Seko.

What brings the U.S., Germany, and the EU together over unfair Chinese trade practices – not only its subsidies of steel and aluminum production but also issues like intellectual property, technology transfer, and foreign investment – is much greater than anything that divides them. The challenge from China is too big to handle alone, so it is in the German and European interest to strengthen transatlantic cooperation in this field. That means it is also in the U.S. interest to do so, even if the U.S. Administration may need a friendly reminder of that fact from its European partners.

Peter S. Rashish is a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Geoeconomics Program at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS). He also serves as a Senior Advisor on transatlantic economic relations to Transnational Strategy Group and the European Policy Centre. Earlier he served as Vice President for Europe and Eurasia at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he spearheaded the Chamber’s advocacy for a comprehensive trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU.
»Link to Peter Rashish’s full biography

Der Beitrag Steel Tariffs are a Distraction from Transatlantic Cooperation on China erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Here are Sir Malcolm’s five key takeaways:

Der Beitrag “The Transatlantic Alliance Post Brexit” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

Dr. Ailish Campbell, Chief Trade Commissioner of Canada and Assistant Deputy Minister, speaks about the importance of addressing the concerns surrounding the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada. She also expresses her optimism in a continued cooperation with the United States on NAFTA, and stresses the neccessity of working together to protect the environment.

Interview: Katharina Draheim

Find more videos »here.

Der Beitrag “We need to listen to concerns about CETA” 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..

Part IX of our series: Michael O’Hanlon demands that NATO’s eastward expansion must come to an end. The Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution and author of the book “Beyond NATO” suggests an alternative security architecture in Europe. In conversation with Atlantik-Brücke he insists that neutral countries should have every option to join any other organization.

O’Hanlon’s main assumptions at a glance:

1. NATO’s eastward expansion has gone far enough
2. Negotiations of Western nations with potentially neutral countries in eastern Europe would reduce the risk of war with Russia
3. Russia would have to withdraw its troops from countries like Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova
4. The neutral countries could join the European Union in the future
5. They would have complete sovereignty and self-determination

Dr. O’Hanlon, in your book “Beyond NATO” you outline the hypothesis that the end of NATO’s eastward expansion and the implementation of a “zone of neutral nations” would reduce tensions with Russia. Do you see any signs in the actual political landscape for this approach to be seriously considered?

I am not going to be so audacious as to say that this strategy is being followed now. But it has a chance. Let me add two points. First, I am not the original proponent of this kind of thinking. This architecture is mine. But the basic notion that we have to think differently about the East than we would think about other parts of Europe has a number of other adherents. Henry Kissinger is one, the late Zbigniew Brzezinski another, perhaps even chancellor Merkel. We know that going back to the 2008 NATO summit, president Bush and secretary Condoleezza Rice wanted to expand NATO and give both the Ukraine and Georgia membership action plans to join within a short time. Many Europeans held them back. We already saw foreshadowing of this thinking with European reluctance to go that far.

What is your second point?

I would not propose this architecture simply as a gift to Russia or as a unilateral concession on our part not to expand NATO further. Because for one thing we would be leaving Ukraine and Georgia in the lurch, since we did promise them eventual membership. Secondly, if we conceded this Eastern area as a non NATO zone without making any other efforts to define a new architecture this could almost seem like Jalta II where we are giving Russia its own sphere of influence suggesting, that it should have domineering powers over other countries. I don’t want to propose that.

If we conceded this Eastern area as a non NATO zone without making any other efforts to define a new architecture this could almost seem like Jalta II where we are giving Russia its own sphere of influence suggesting, that it should have domineering powers over other countries.[quoter]Michael O’Hanlon[/quoter]

What is at the core of your proposed new security architecture?

[related]The concept combines neutrality with an insistence that these countries have every option to join any other organization that might be open to them. Obviously they are not yet candidates for EU membership. If the European Union ever wanted to include Ukraine and Georgia, Russia would have to say: ‘That is okay.’ Russia also needs to solve Donbass, South Ossetia, and Abchasia, in other words the territorial disputes with Ukraine and Georgia. All these things need to be wrapped together. Or you can’t call it an architecture. If we agree on all of this, here is the additional sweetener for Russia: EU sanctions can be lifted as well, because the idea is that we will actually have created a new path forward. The goal is to normalize the relations with Russia.

In order to call it a strategy something has to happen in return, correct?

Exactly right. It has to be seen as an agreement that requires Moscow to do some things, too. That is fair and even favorable to the neutral countries themselves. I will acknowledge that most of the emails that I have received from the neutral countries since I have published this work have not been that favorable. They see this as an abandonment. I try to argue that this is not an abandonment. Because in fact right now they are being promised something that they will probably never get. I don’t see any realistic movement towards NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia or other former Soviet republics. We have left them out on a limb, exposed and with no protection. My plan is better for those neutral countries. But it will only be better for them if every other prerogative of normal sovereignty is protected.

I don’t see any realistic movement towards NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia or other former Soviet republics. We have left them out on a limb, exposed and with no protection.[quoter]Michael O’Hanlon[/quoter]

You believe that NATO’s expansion has gone far enough. Do you thereby call into question that several countries in eastern Europe have decided independently and in a self-determined way to join NATO after the end of the cold war?

This is a very difficult and delicate question. I admit I walk a very fine line. I do not believe the West can go into a negotiation for a new security architecture without any kind of apology to Moscow. I do not try to relitigate previous rounds of NATO expansion except to try to understand how Putin and Russia have gotten to where they are mentally and strategically.

NATO expansion was offered to independent countries that had often been under the Soviet yoke for a long time. Countries that the West helped consolidate their democracies, for example with civilian control of the military, and stability of borders. That was good. That all expanded the zone of peace in Europe and helped a number of these countries make remarkable progress. If you compare Poland to Ukraine today for example, they started out in the post cold war era more or less identical in size, population and GDP. Today, Poland despite its recent problems with governance is three times as wealthy as Ukraine.

Also, NATO worked very hard to reach out to Russia throughout this period creating the NATO-Russia Council and the partnership for peace. Moreover, NATO promised not to station major combat forces east of where they had been located previously. We generally kept to that promise. Now we are slightly modifying that approach but Russia gave us no choice because of the threat they have been posing to the East.

What does your analysis mean for potential future NATO member states?

People sometimes quote the Helsinki final act of 1975 which says that any state should be able to join any organization it wishes. They will say: ‘Doesn’t that mean that Moldova should be able to join NATO if it wants?’ I have three replies to that. First, the 1975 Helsinki final act was a long time ago. It did not really envision the cold war ending with one of the alliances resolving and the other going strong and expanding.

Second, the 1949 Washington Treaty that created NATO explicitly said in Article 10 that membership could be offered to other countries provided that it was seen to be in the interest of the security and strategic stability of the existing members and of Europe in general. It was not an open-ended blank check that anybody who wants in can be immediately assumed to be eligible.

My third argument is a little bit more crass. This almost sounds like Donald Trump. From our perspective one could ask: ‘Why are you assuming that I want to send my daughters to fight and die in the defense of your country?’ If I were an American diplomat I would not say that. But frankly, it reminds people of the stakes. NATO is a mutual defense organization in which the member states are sworn to each other’s protection. The United States has always taken that very seriously. We are the country that would probably bear the largest burden in terms of deployable combat forces apart from any country that has been attacked. We are entitled to ask: ‘Would it be good for us?’

Your core concept centres around a security architecture of permanent neutrality. In the best case, it would include from north to south Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and Serbia. Are these states willing to stay neutral forever?

First of all, we can’t prevent them nor should we try to prevent them from joining other security organizations or creating new ones. If the Caucasus countries wanted to create a Caucasus security organization that would help them feel like they were part of a common body, prepare for peace keeping missions overseas, handle counter-terrorism locally through coordination, and resolve their own territorial disputes, that might be good. I do not try to rule that out. But NATO should not offer membership to these countries.

If the Caucasus countries wanted to create a Caucasus security organization that would help them feel like they were part of a common body, prepare for peace keeping missions overseas, handle counter-terrorism locally through coordination, and resolve their own territorial disputes, that might be good.[quoter]Michael O’Hanlon[/quoter]

How could the neutral countries be integrated into the EU security architecture?

If these countries do join the EU there needs to be some care about the mutual defense provisions of the European Union Treaty which sound almost like the Article 5 provisions of the NATO Treaty. Maybe, those EU security provisions need to be either deleted or clarified for a new member. This would not mean that the entire EU would deploy forces as an entity to the defense of Moldova for example. Because that would violate the spirit of what I am proposing. The main idea is that NATO countries are no longer going to extend their Article 5 protections further east.

It would take huge diplomatic efforts to establish such a neutral zone in eastern Europe. You suggest the following steps: first, setting a new framework within NATO. Second, deliberation with the potentially neutral countries and, third, formal negotiations with Russia. How big is the risk that the Kremlin would perceive this kind of procedure as Western dominance once again?

Since we have the honor of sitting at Atlantik-Brücke’s office right next to the chancellor’s apartment: If someone like her with a greater diplomatic skill and experience than myself liked the main idea, but wanted to pursue it in a somewhat different way, I would be okay with that. I am not insisting that the exact sequence of what I am proposing is imperative. But the NATO members are sworn to each other’s defense. We have agreed that in security terms there is no daylight between us. Therefore, it makes sense to begin any discussion about NATO’s future within the alliance.

Then you have the question: Do we go over the heads of the neutral countries and talk to Moscow or do we involve these countries first? I am not in favor of NATO membership for Ukraine. Period. However, I am sensitive to the fact that Ukrainians are a proud and sovereign people. They deserve protection and safety. They gave up nuclear weapons after the cold war as we asked them to do. We had a promise that we would watch over their security. Arguably, we have failed in that. Rather than just go over Ukraine’s head and start talking to Vladimir Putin about how to divide up the world which is how this would be portrayed if we didn’t allow the neutral states to discuss this with us first, we have to go to them. This cannot be seen as Jalta II. It does not mean we have to keep Putin in the dark. I will send him a copy of my book, and maybe Donald Trump and chancellor Merkel could inscribe it and say: ‘Vladimir, we are trying to do something like this. We look forward to your reactions once we are a little more organized internally.’

It does not mean we have to keep Putin in the dark. I will send him a copy of my book, and maybe Donald Trump and chancellor Merkel could inscribe it and say: ‘Vladimir, we are trying to do something like this. We look forward to your reactions once we are a little more organized internally.’[quoter]Michael O’Hanlon[/quoter]

You argue that it is required that Russia commits to help uphold the security of especially Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. This means, Russia would have to withdraw its troops. For years now there is no indication at all that Russia would agree to such a step. How realistic is this option?

Let me start with the hardest problem: Crimea. Russia will not give Crimea back. And we should not make the entire idea for a new security architecture contingent on Russia giving Crimea back. The way I would finesse that is that we should tell Russia we are not going to recognize the annexation of Crimea but otherwise put the issue aside.

Secondly, in regard to Moldova and the Transnistria region I don’t have a strong view on that question. The Moldovans there may welcome or be willing to tolerate the presence of Russian troops. This issue should be solved through a legitimate mutual agreement between Moldova and Russia that is ratified by the Moldovan parliament.

What does your assessment for eastern Ukraine and Georgia look like?

I know for a fact that Ukraine and Georgia don’t accept Russian troops. Russia is going to have to withdraw its troops. Maybe there could be international peacekeepers or a creation of a temporary buffer zone. We need to establish a credible monitoring body like the OSCE which is already in the Ukraine. Then at some point, maybe give a six month grace period, Russia will have had the opportunity to make enough adjustments to its presence in eastern Ukraine that the OSCE can certify that there is no longer a Russian military presence.

Certainly, in northern Georgia you could argue that there is a Russian speaking population so that autonomy in some kind of concept could be explored. We know that the Minsk II process for Ukraine would envision political autonomy for eastern Ukraine. There are ways for Russia to get an agreement where it can say that it is partially protecting the Russian speakers in those two countries. What is hardest to describe is the resolution of the territorial problems with eastern Ukraine and northern Georgia. Those would take some negotiation. However, we already know the geographic contours of the disputed areas and we know the kinds of autonomy that could realistically be provided.

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

NATO is a fantastic organization. I want NATO to stay strong and the European Reassurance Initiative and Operation Atlantic Resolve to continue. We need to clarify to Vladimir Putin that the alliance is fully committed to all 29 member states and that there are no degrees of seriousness, no different categories of which member is truly worthy of Article 5 protection. Everybody is! Any other position would be an invitation to Russian mischief, even more than we are seeing already. I very much want NATO to continue as an Article 5 based, territorial and mutual defense organization for Europe and North America. It has accomplished that goal remarkably. That is by far and away its most important purpose. Even though I am a supporter of the mission in Afghanistan, NATO’s ability to do something like that is far less important than NATO’s ability to vouch for the security of its member states.

We need to clarify to Vladimir Putin that the alliance is fully committed to all 29 member states and that there are no degrees of seriousness, no different categories of which member is truly worthy of Article 5 protection. Everybody is![quoter]Michael O’Hanlon[/quoter]

Let me also add that I admire the European Union. Right now, the deterrence of Russia that we are accomplishing by making sure the Russians don’t come even further into Ukraine for example is largely because of EU sanctions and their ability to deprive Russia of the richest market on earth. This economic power is just as influential in shaping Vladimir Putin’s decision making as anything we are doing within the alliance. Hence, NATO needs to stay closely coupled with the EU. We need the EU to be strong to complement NATO and work together to create this overall western foreign policy of military and economic deterrence which is keeping Putin from doing any more damage than he has already done.

Der Beitrag O’Hanlon: “The goal is to normalize relations with Russia” erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..

“What is Populism?” by Francis Fukuyama

„What is Populism?“
Atlantik-Brücke Publication Series
Volume 08: An Analysis by Professor Dr. Francis Fukuyama
Berlin, 2017. 32 p.
ISSN 21979138

Der Beitrag “What is Populism?” An Analysis by Francis Fukuyama erschien zuerst auf Atlantik-Brücke e.V..