[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } Printed for the use of the
2nd Session } Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
======================================================================
Transatlantic Relations in Flux
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 18, 2018
Briefing of the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington: 2019
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
234 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-1901
csce@mail.house.gov
http://www.csce.gov
@HelsinkiComm
Legislative Branch Commissioners
HOUSE SENATE
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ROGER WICKER, Mississippi,
Co-Chairman Chairman
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. Maryland
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas CORY GARDNER, Colorado
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARCO RUBIO, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TOM UDALL, New Mexico
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
Executive Branch Commissioners
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[II]
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the
Helsinki Final Act in Finland on August 1, 1975, by the leaders of 33
European countries, the United States and Canada. As of January 1,
1995, the Helsinki process was renamed the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. The membership of the OSCE has
expanded to 56 participating States, reflecting the breakup of the
Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
The OSCE Secretariat is in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings
of the participating States' permanent representatives are held. In
addition, specialized seminars and meetings are convened in various
locations. Periodic consultations are held among Senior Officials,
Ministers and Heads of State or Government.
Although the OSCE continues to engage in standard setting in the
fields of military security, economic and environmental cooperation,
and human rights and humanitarian concerns, the Organization is
primarily focused on initiatives designed to prevent, manage and
resolve conflict within and among the participating States. The
Organization deploys numerous missions and field activities located in
Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The
website of the OSCE is: .
ABOUT THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as
the Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to
monitor and encourage compliance by the participating States with their
OSCE commitments, with a particular emphasis on human rights.
The Commission consists of nine members from the United States
Senate, nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member
each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. The positions
of Chair and Co-Chair rotate between the Senate and House every two
years, when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff assists the
Commissioners in their work.
In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates
relevant information to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening
hearings, issuing reports that reflect the views of Members of the
Commission and/or its staff, and providing details about the activities
of the Helsinki process and developments in OSCE participating States.
The Commission also contributes to the formulation and execution of
U.S. policy regarding the OSCE, including through Member and staff
participation on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings. Members of the
Commission have regular contact with parliamentarians, government
officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and
private individuals from participating States. The website of the
Commission is: .
[III]
Transatlantic Relations in Flux
July 18, 2018
Page
PARTICIPANTS
Dr. Mischa E. Thompson, Senior Policy Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation
in Europe ..................................................................................... 1
MEP Claude Moraes (UK), Chair, European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice,
and Home Affairs, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats ............................. 2
MEP Michal Boni (Poland), European People�s Party .............................................. 3
MEP Nathalie Griesbeck (France), Chair, European Parliament Special Committee on Terrorism,
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats ............................................................. 4
(iv)
Transatlantic Relations in Flux
----------
July 18, 2018
The briefing was held at 10:00 a.m. in Room 216, Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC, Dr. Mischa E. Thompson, Senior Policy
Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, presiding.
Panelists present: Dr. Mischa E. Thompson, Senior Policy Advisor,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; MEP Claude Moraes
(UK), Chair, European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice,
and Home Affairs, Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats; MEP
Michal Boni (Poland), European People's Party; and MEP Nathalie
Griesbeck (France), Chair, European Parliament Special Committee on
Terrorism, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats.
Dr. Thompson. Good morning. My name is Dr. Mischa Thompson, and
welcome to ``Transatlantic Relations in Flux,'' a briefing on the U.S.-
EU relationship hosted by the U.S. Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, also known as the Helsinki Commission. For those
of who you may not know, the Helsinki Commission is an independent U.S.
Government agency focused on human rights, economics, and security in
the 57 North American and European countries that make up the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, or the OSCE. The
commission is bicameral and bipartisan, and comprised of members of
Congress and the executive branch, including our U.S. State Department.
More on our commission can be found at www.csce.gov. You can also find
us on Facebook and on Twitter at @HelsinkiComm.
We are so fortunate today to be joined by three members of the
delegation from the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice, and
Home Affairs Committee, visiting Washington, DC to attend the
Transatlantic Policy Network's acclaimed Transatlantic Week. We thank
Jorn Fleck and his team for helping to facilitate today's briefing, and
are only sorry that they cannot be with us today as they are also
currently hosting an event. We also thank Antoine Rippel and Holger
Benzig for helping us to arrange today's event so quickly.
I think today's event couldn't be more timely, in that it's simply
taking place on the heels of our president's European travel and ahead
of meetings planned for July 25th with the head of the European
Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, who will travel to Washington, DC to
meet with our president. You can find the bios of today's panelists,
who are all members of the European Parliament, or MEPs, in the blue
folders and online. Given that we have about an hour, I will begin by
asking a few questions, after which we will have time for questions and
discussion from the audience, including those with us online. Given
that we are also taping this briefing, I ask everyone to please speak
directly into their microphones. And for those of you here on the
panel, you will need to press the red button to talk.
And with that, I will begin by introducing you. To my right we have
member of the European Parliament Claude Moraes of the United Kingdom,
who's also chair of the European Parliament Committee on Civil
Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs, and a member of the Progressive
Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. To my left we have MEP Michal
Boni of Poland, a member of the Civil Liberties and Constitutional
Affairs Committees, as well as vice chair of the EU-Moldova
Parliamentary Association Committee, and member of the European
People's Party. Further to my left we have MEP Nathalie Griesbeck of
France, chair of the European Parliament's Special Committee on
Terrorism and member of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for
Europe.
And so with that, I will actually turn to MEP Moraes and just ask
if you can start by telling us why you're here in Washington right now,
what is the purpose of your delegation's visit, who are you meeting
with, and what is it you hope to accomplish.
MEP Moraes. Okay, thank you very much, Mischa, and thank you to the
Helsinki Commission for this kind invitation. I should remind people
also that you in the Helsinki Commission have regularly come to
Brussels, to the European Parliament. So this is a vehicle for really
good cooperation between the European Parliament and the institutions
here between you and Congress. So it's great to be here.
Maybe first to say that a lot of interesting things happened in
Helsinki. And maybe one of the best things was the creation of the
Helsinki Commission. And one of the reasons we're here is to do what
was in the founding principles and the signature in 1975, which is to
strengthen relationships between the European Union and the United
States. Within that very abstract statement lies a program for us which
is very specific and very focused. And it represents the difference
between perhaps what would have been a 1975 program, when many of you
would not have been born--some would--and that would be the advances in
what cooperation means.
So, our specific thematic issues include data transfers both in the
commercial and security areas. Privacy Shield, for example, the success
of Safe Harbor, the whole issue of the CLOUD Act and how it coalesces
with the Umbrella Agreement, these very major international agreements
in data transfers--the wider area, as my colleague Nathalie Griesbeck
will talk about, the whole area of security cooperation and data
transfers to make our two continents safer from terrorist attacks. So
the issue of counterterrorism cooperation, and cybersecurity, which has
taken on an extraordinarily new vista, which is now not just about
protecting our critical infrastructure but also protecting our
democracy.
We've seen the Cambridge Analytica crisis. And it's about ensuring
that we protect our democracies, our elections from interference, as
we've seen from Russia, and to ensure that in order to do that we are
cooperating, and we understand what the issues are. So these are some
of the issues that our committee in particular will be and have been
discussing with our counterparts and their detailed passenger name
records, actual international agreements. So we're highly focused and
we're regular in visiting. And we hope to make progress in all of these
areas.
Dr. Thompson. Now, we titled this briefing ``Transatlantic
Relations in Flux.'' And there's been a lot of recent focus, rightly
so, on the flux, or all of the changes that have been taking place in
the U.S. approach to relations with Europe. However, I'd like to take a
step back today and think about where it is we would ideally like to
see the transatlantic relationship. So if we were to look into the
future in a decade or two, where is it we would actually like for
transatlantic relations to be? And are we currently on the path to
getting there? And I'll actually turn to MEP Boni to ask your thoughts
on where it is you would ideally see the transatlantic relationship in
10 years.
MEP Boni. First of all, thank you very much for the invitation. I
was a student in 1975 when the Helsinki conference occurred. And after
that, it was kind of an opening in some countries. In 1976, in my
country, the committee for defending workers was established. And as a
student, I was involved in dissemination and propagation of the first
underground newspapers--it was the beginning of our fight for freedom.
So, from that time to today, when the Helsinki Commission in Warsaw, in
Poland, is very active defending democracy and freedom, I see the
Helsinki idea, the Helsinki Commission as one of the important
movements in defending democracy all over the world.
And of course, we need transatlantic relations if we want to have
and to develop the opportunity to defend the liberal democracy which, I
hope, is the core of Western values. And I think also the transatlantic
values. So this is one key point. Second, I think that this is a chance
to establish the future of transatlantic competitive advantages,
especially in the digital field. And we need to work on it. And also,
this is a possibility in transatlantic relations to create positive
reference points for global development in many areas. Global
development means economic development, but it also means ensuring that
democracy is functioning. It's one of the key issues.
And of course, when I'm looking at that time frame I need to define
some obstacles. It is difficult to develop future-oriented cooperation
when we are starting trade wars as it was in the 19th century--not
20th, 19th century. It is difficult to develop policy, to develop
policy protection and create a good global reference point for privacy
protection when we are starting to consider how many threats and
concerns the CLOUD Act, passed in the U.S., is bringing. It is
difficult to take common responsibility for global development when the
U.S. authorities decide to withdraw the signature from the Paris
Agreement, so it means that there is no possibility to cooperate for
saving the globe against the environmental collapse.
And it is difficult to build a common defense strategy in a time in
which the EU is taking a new responsibility for defense, when EU
partners are humiliated by the president of the United States, as it
was last week in the NATO summit in Brussels. And it is difficult to
develop transatlantic relations without political stability, rather
with strong uncertainty. We need to come back to the path of stability
of those relations. But there are problems not only on the U.S. side.
There are also many problems on our European side.
I'm from Poland, and I'm living in a country in which the ruling
party is undermining the democracy, the freedoms, and also the rule of
law and the independence of the judicial system. Now we are fighting
for the Supreme Court and keeping the Supreme Court independent. It's
not so easy to say that we will win this battle. The same situation is
in Hungary. One month ago, Hungary approved legislation which is full
of punishment for people who are ready to support and to help refugees.
The same situation is growing in Slovakia, where an independent
journalist was killed some months ago. The same situation is growing in
the Czech Republic and in Romania, and some countries. Also in Italy.
So, there is a big problem on both sides of the transatlantic
geography model. And I think that if we want, in the perspective of 10
years, to develop and to make many solutions much more advanced in the
digital realm, in the economic realm--we need now to start and to fight
for democracy, freedoms, and the rule of law on both sides of the
Atlantic.
Dr. Thompson. Before we go any deeper into your comments, I would
like to turn to MEP Griesbeck, and ask where do you see things in 10
years? Do you agree with MEP Boni's assessment in terms of what the
ideal relationship should be and what some of the obstacles are in
getting there?
MEP Griesbeck. Yes. First of all, thank you very much, Mischa, for
organizing this meeting. Sorry for my bad English, because I am French
and it's--I did not--my studies in United States. But I like very much.
I was an international visitor at the 20th century. It's a long time
before. [Laughs.] But it was a very marvelous time for me. And I like
very much to come. Today I come to United States in this prestigious
Congress and with the delegation. And it's for me a great pleasure.
I am with Mr. Michael Speiser, he is the chief administrator for a
different committee in the European Parliament. It's also an honor for
me to speak today to the Helsinki Commission. That reminds us of the
name of the city of the summit Helsinki 2 days ago between your
president and Mr. Putin. And it's a strange situation, because for me
the Helsinki Commission is an institution that has been created in
order to announce consideration of human rights in the formulation of
U.S. foreign policymaking, and to support democratic change in the
countries of the former Soviet bloc.
One, the principles standing at the creation of the commission have
lost nothing of their importance today. They are the expression of our
shared values, as Michal Boni said just before. And it's very
important. And principles that our countries follow, and without which
our democracies could not exist. The respect for freedom, equality,
civil liberties, rule of law, and democracy are values upon which our
societies are built. And it's, for me, to answer to your question, the
work to do for the 10 years in front of us. But it is work from the
human dimension, the Helsinki Commission also monitors developments
regarding the security dimensions.
And its activities in recent years have been included in hearings
on combating terrorism. Terrorist organizations violate the basic human
rights of people, such as the right to life and physical and
psychological integrity. As chair of the Special Committee Against
Terrorism, the fight against terrorists, these common positions are
very important. Currently we are experiencing some tensions in the
relationship between our countries, as my colleagues said. For example,
also, it was not mentioned in our trade relations, at the same time, to
our regret, the U.S. has decided to disengage from U.N. efforts such as
U.N. human rights, UNESCO, and Paris Agreement on climate change.
Despite this, speaking here today as the chair of the Special
Committee on Terrorism, I would like to stress that the U.S. is one of
our most important partners in the fight against terrorism. I went
yesterday to the terrorist training center. And we have a very
interesting meeting with the intelligence services, with the FBI, and
we have to work together in the fight against terrorism because it's a
global threat--it's a world, global threat. And we need to be together
to fight against these bad things. And it was very, very interesting to
speak with your intelligence services, because they are extraordinarily
well organized.
I want to say this today, we are guided by the shared concern for
the security of our citizens and face the same threats. Some of the
recent attempted terrorist attacks in the EU have been thwarted thanks
to information received from U.S. intelligence services. And without it
would be most difficult to fight against them. And the cooperation in
this field has increased very much in recent years to mutual benefit.
The Committee of Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament recently
adopted its report on EU-U.S. relations, according to which the
European Union and the United States building on the strong foundation
of shared values and principles should use all available channels of
communication in order to strengthen the transatlantic relationship.
The U.S. Congress and the European Parliament should, with regard
to this, use the full potential of the cooperation to preserve the
democratic, liberal, and multilateral order, and to promote stability
and continuity in the 10 years on the continents and in the world, even
if the winds are sometimes bad. I don't know if this situation is able
to explain something in my bad English, but in French it's something
very clear as the winds are sometimes bad. And we are in this sequence
today since several months. Even in the European Union, not only here
or there.
These efforts are even more needed as we face new challenges in the
multipolar world. I can only agree with these conclusions. I would like
to use this opportunity to express my hopes that our cooperation in the
areas in defense of peace, freedom, and democracy will continue for
world stability.
Thank you. And excuse me for my bad English, but you seem to
understand.
Dr. Thompson. Thank you so much. I will say, your English is so
much better than my French. [Laughter.] So thank you. We appreciate
that.
There were a number of issues that were just raised in terms of
where we would see ourselves in the next 10 years on both sides of the
Atlantic. I think what obstacles we would have to address--everything
from the CLOUD Act to where the U.S. stands on a number of U.N. bodies
regarding the Human Rights Council, as well some other multilateral
agreements including climate change, and then, of course, our recent
comments made at the NATO summit.
But before we actually turn things over to the audience, I will say
one of the things that we didn't hear about just yet is actually Brexit
and where we would--[laughs]--see ourselves in the next 10 years. And
since we are lucky enough to have someone from the U.K. on the panel--
and I apologize, I know you must get this question all the time--but
just given what we see in the next months where----
MEP Moraes. So I got the boring first question and then I get the
Brexit question. Thanks, Mischa, very much. [Laughter.] My colleagues
get all the really cerebral, sophisticated questions. I get what are
you doing here and tell us about Brexit. [Laughter.] Thank you very
much. I'll see how I can make this really imaginative as well. So let's
see how I can weave this into something interesting. Yes. Anyway, what
do you want to know about Brexit? We're leaving. [Laughter.] So, yes,
OK, moving on.
Dr. Thompson. [Laughs.] I'll ask you two questions. So what does
that mean for the U.K. in 10 years, what does it mean for the EU in 10
years? And then I'll even say, most recently, what will it mean for the
European Parliament next year?
MEP Moraes. Yes, like I said, we're leaving. [Laughter.] So--well,
you never know. [Laughs.] Oh, that's being recorded.
Well, yes, it's a bit of a mess. And one of the reasons it's a mess
is because, first of all, the European Union is a good thing, as people
are learning. And the process of leaving, as always happens when one
leaves, is you start to understand what the good things are about your
partner and how you might miss them. Well, that's certainly what
happened between me and my partner. And we're still together, so
everything's fine. I'm just making that very personal.
But the issue about Brexit in terms of the issues that Nathalie and
Michal have been discussing are actually quite serious ones. If you
think about, for example, the issues at stake, if you look at security,
for example, it was always thought that we could just walk into Brexit
and there would be an easy kind of accommodation between what is a
major economy, the United Kingdom, a major security asset country like
the United Kingdom, with some of the most mature intelligence and
defense assets anywhere in the world, and the European Union. And that
would be easy to do. Remember, the United Kingdom is part of Five Eyes
with the United States, just to give you one aspect which is also of
interest to my colleagues here.
And we see that this is not the case. And it's not the case because
the European Union is a very sophisticated and added-value concept,
which has both benefited Europe and it's benefited the United States.
Why? Because what has happened over that period is that the security
aspect has become a more complicated and important issue. For example,
data has led it. So when you deal with terrorists, very often you're
not dealing with terrorists through hot pursuit and enforcement and
machines. You're dealing with it through information, data. Europol,
one of the most successful agencies anywhere in the world--it's a very
small agency but it's a huge added value--is not an enforcement agency.
It's an intelligence agency. But it's so successful because it takes
its intelligence capacity very seriously and it's good at it. And it
shares its information very well and it has the correct priorities.
Now, the United Kingdom, through Brexit, will want to share in
Europol afterwards. But because of the legal constraints, the U.K. will
be a third country. That will be tough. Now, that also has an impact on
the United States. Why? Because the U.K. is in Five Eyes. And it's
difficult to divide what is happening in the European Union from what
is happening in intelligence sharing generally, because these are not
divisions that people can make very easily. So Brexit has all sorts of
difficult and unintended consequences because the European Union's
development has happened in such a way to impinge on the real needs and
values of the transatlantic relationship.
What Britain got from the European Union was a magnification of its
role and its relationship with the United States, not a diminution. And
I think people are realizing that now. It's a less-special relationship
when you're on your own because you don't have the added value, you
don't have the economies of scale. So, what we had in our intelligence
services and our defense assets, and so on, don't have the
magnification by not being in the European Union. So, the other thing
is the simple question of a security treaty with the EU legal
constraints on our access to databases. We'll need adequacy agreements
and so on.
So the European Union, as you may have gathered from what I'm
saying, is a good thing. But it's a good thing for the United States.
And the United States is a good thing for us. What will constrain
that--and Brexit has thrown everything into sharp relief--is an
understanding that the relationship must be nurtured. And that means
that the United States is much more than who might be president today.
It is a long-lasting relationship where the fundamentals need to be
nurtured.
So today, when we look at the issues that Nathalie has raised, one
of the things that we have to get very much right are the big issues of
safety, how we keep our people safe, counter terrorism, and then the
big issue of how that has managed to impinge on the areas of commercial
transfers of data. Because data is data, but it can be transferred for
many reasons.
And there are two big reasons--one is security. So, when we
travel--and I want to mention this in the context of Brexit because
it's to illustrate how important these areas are for this generation.
And there are many young people here, so this is the future. And this
is the difference between 1975 and today.
The qualitative difference is that the future will be about massive
data transfers both within domestic countries--there won't be the high
streets that we have been used to; everything will be online--but
between countries there will be massive commercial transfers. But if
there are security exemptions and so on to these transfers, of course
we have to sort out what they have to be. And then we have to
understand security data transfers to ensure that we are keeping people
safe. Of course, we have to ensure that our privacy is protected when
that happens--hence, the Umbrella Agreement, hence all of the
international agreements that we have between us.
Now, you mentioned Brexit. Of course, when a country leaves two
things happen, when a big country leaves, particularly. One is, we
realize the importance of many of these things. Passenger name records
was an agreement which the United Kingdom was very much leading and
wanted. And of course, no doubt will keep involved in. But many other
agreements, perhaps not. So, when you look at the headlines--there are
headlines and then there are the realities of what it means to leave
such a unique and extraordinary association as the European Union.
There's nothing like it in the world. It is quite a unique association
of countries. And I think the security aspect of that was very
underestimated. And at some point, there will be an impact on the
United States because of that.
We'll see how the Brexit story goes. The Brexit story is not
finished. As you're all keen students of politics, you will be
watching. You probably know more about it than I do. I've been here in
Washington without wi-fi. You probably have access to wi-fi. But I'd
like to know a bit more about what happened in the last hour, for
example. It's an hour-by-hour story--our Brexit story. So let's see
what's happened so far. But there are only negatives for the U.K. of
Brexit, because we are the ones who are leaving. Getting a deal not in
the conventional sense. We are leaving, and the terms are with the 27.
And I think this was the big, big, big problem about the idea, that
there would be some kind of equal negotiation, which was never to be
the case.
And I think, as far as the United States is concerned, the United
States wanted the U.K. to stay within the European Union. I think that
was a cross-party sense and analysis, if we remember the history of
Brexit. Whether you were a Democrat, whether you were a Republican,
whether you were independent, you tended to think that it would be a
good thing if the United Kingdom stayed within the EU. And I think
people would tend to think that still. I don't think there are many
people who think that's not a good idea. I think there is one person
who thinks it's a good idea. But I think the broad swath of opinion is
probably not the case. And I think there's plenty of evidence now to
show that.
There are people who like Brexit, by the way. You may have noticed
I'm not one of them. So does that answer your question about Brexit?
Good.
Dr. Thompson. So--and I think we could easily take all of today's
time to discuss Brexit. But we won't. [Laughs.] I have a number of
questions I do want to raise with the panel. But just given the time, I
do want to turn to our audience, and also just let people know that we
are still expecting Senator Wicker. He had a conflict and is coming
from another meeting. So with that, we have a microphone that is going
around. If you're interested in asking a question, please raise your
hand. Please introduce yourself.
Questioner. Hi. My name is Elias Passis [ph]. I work in Senator
Duckworth's office.
I had a question regarding here in our Congress, there are a number
of bills addressing beneficial ownership, illicit economies, and tax
evasion. But with so many of the top earners in the world having stakes
in economies across the transatlantic and elsewhere, I was wondering
what kind of structures any of you have considered or see as being
beneficial in making sure that illicit economies are something that we
can address?
MEP Boni. Thank you very much. First, I would like to address and
add something about Brexit. Could we imagine the situation that in the
perspective of 3 years the delegation of the European Parliament will
go to London and will discuss with the U.K. Parliament the Privacy
Shield, as we are now discussing with the U.S.? Because it will--of
course, I hope that the U.K. will keep the solutions which were
approved in the European Union, but it's not so clear? So, Brexit
creates many, many new challenges. And I think it will not be so good
for our common future.
Coming back to some economic issues, I think that there is a big
opportunity to create--when we are talking about data protection and
personal data protection--to create the global reference point when we,
European Union and U.S., also we are working with Japan and South Korea
on some agreements on proper conditions for data flows. If we will
create this reference point, I think it will be easier to discuss also
with China and with Russia on those issues. So we need to make it
together.
Second, when we are talking about artificial intelligence, the U.S.
is much more advanced. But in the European Union we have started the
work on it. This is the first step in investment, 1.5 billion euro. But
on the other hand, we are discussing the ethical aspects of the
functioning of artificial intelligence. We are discussing the future
labor markets. We are discussing what interactions between humans and
artificial intelligence will look like in the future. It requires some
changes in education that require some new skills and solutions in the
area of attitudes and competencies.
So, we need to be much more adaptable, if we will make it together,
the European Union and the United States, I think that we will go
forward. And when we are looking at China's program to be the first, to
be the leader in 2025 in the area of artificial intelligence, I think,
unfortunately without those considerations for ethical issues--I think
it will be much stronger, it will be better for creating the strategy
for artificial intelligence, which will be human-centered, because this
is very important.
When we are talking about cybersecurity, in the European Union we
are now working on cybersecurity act. What does it mean? That we are
working on certification schemes and the model of shared responsibility
between states, the companies or institutions responsible for critical
infrastructure, but also all companies, including small and medium
companies, and individuals, because this is some kind of cybersecurity
hygiene which is needed also for us as individuals. If we make them
together, and if standards important for certification schemes become
common in the European Union and in the United States, both sides will
benefit. On the one hand we will be much more secure, on the other
hand, we will create our economic advances in that area.
So if I'm considering many, many issues, I think that there are
common goals. And we need to go in this way, especially also when we
will back commonly--the U.S. and European Union--to the track of the
Paris Agreement, because this is an opportunity for us as humans to
live in a better world. But on the other hand, this is an opportunity
for businesses, yes? For a new model of development.
So the list is very long. And I think that beyond the linguistic
problem, as it was presented yesterday by President Trump--beyond many
tensions existing now, I think that we need to have this list and we
need to start cooperation because the future belongs to us.
Thank you.
MEP Moraes. May I say one thing about what Michal said that's very,
very important that he raised just now? It is that to underestimate the
relationship between the European Union and the United States is
perilous. He gave such an excellent example of artificial intelligence
and the movements in that field that would expand in China. China will
do it. China will do all of these things. But they will do them in a
different way. And they will do them in a way which will have a set of
different values. European Union values on security, on commercial
transfer are different. There will be liberal democratic values
underpinning them. And this is critical. And that's why Brexit's bad
too, because you want to stay within this area of values. This creates
better business, it creates better security, better counterterrorism,
because it's underpinned by values.
Now, of course, there's a spectrum to that always. But China will
do this. Other countries may go down different paths, but you really
underestimate this to everyone's peril. And I think artificial
intelligence and robotics are very good examples. And that's why the
European Union is cooperating with South Korea and Japan. And it's why
the United States does as well. So this relationship is so critical for
that reason. And that's why we are more emotional about Brexit, because
it should be within this incredibly important values arc, which should
never be underestimated. And in the current context, it's why we feel
the way we do about the relationship with the United States and the
European Union.
MEP Griesbeck. [Through interpreter.] Well, just to add to what my
two colleagues just said, I'm totally in agreement with them. And let
me tell you that they are both coming from a different political angle
than myself. They are from two different parties, and I'm from a third
party. But on these--on these big lines, we basically have very similar
views and a very similar approach. And we are in Europe with half a
billion--500 million people--over there. And the United States, you are
something like 300 million. And there's on the one hand the European
Union and the United States, and on the other hand there's China.
And what distinguishes us from China is the set of values and
principles that guide us. And despite the small differences between us
and the United States, there's a dividing line between us and the
United States on the one hand and China on the other hand. We have an
ethical structure on which we are elaborating and on which we are
developing. And, yes, to answer your question on tax evasion, for
example, obviously we are doing similar--we are doing similar efforts.
But we are doing them on values and the rule of law and on principles.
And fine for China that they are developing, but they are developing on
a very different basis. And from a--and starting--setting off from a
different set of rules. So just to tell you that here we are, very much
on the same page and very much in agreement, the three of us.
[Speaks in English.] Excellent, Michael. He is from Germany.
[Laughter.] Excellent.
Mr. Speiser. One wouldn't believe that, huh? [Laughter.]
Questioner. Hi. I'm Erika Schlager from the Helsinki Commission
staff.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the excellent presentations
that you've made this morning. The transatlantic relationship has
really been built on a comprehensive concept of security, one that
includes democracy and human rights. So I was particularly interested,
and welcomed the comments that we heard this morning, about the
challenges at present regarding the rule of law and independence of the
judiciary. Now, you may know that members of Congress from both sides
of the aisle, particularly in the Senate, have spoken to some of these
issues, have written to the president and to the secretary of state
about the importance of democracy and human rights in U.S. foreign
policy. My question for you is, do you have suggestions on how Congress
can constructively engage and reinforce democracy and human rights in
the region at this juncture?
Thank you.
MEP Boni. Thank you very much for this question. And I want to
thank to the representatives of Congress and the Senate, because the
activity of those two chambers and the activity of many American
institutions, the judges' associations and so on, is very high.
And it's very important in Poland, when we have this kind of
international support for keeping the independence of the judiciary
system, for example, because it means that it is not only a topic for
political internal battles, but that this is something more, yes? And I
think it's very important for this part of society who is fighting for
those values.
And I think that because this is an ongoing story, so if you will
be involved all the time and comment, and send some information, some
suggestions, organize some pressure in a positive sense, I think that
it will be very, very useful for all of us in Poland because one of the
dimensions of the populistic model of the governing is to polarize
society. So we have two societies in our country. This part of society
who is involved in activities of the ruling party--this is some kind of
religious community, my view is that it is not the civil society. This
is the religious community, without any critical thinking about some
solutions.
But on the other hand, we have people who are fighting for
democracy, who want to keep the independence of the judiciary system.
They are attacked very often. We have no public media. Public media is
TV propaganda, and so on and so on. So your voice is very, very, very
important. And I want to just--to add just one point. When we start in
the autumn in Poland and next year when we have many elections--local
and regional elections this year, elections to the European Parliament
next year, and the election to the Polish Parliament next year, and the
presidential election in 2020.
And we are organizing some kind--which is WWW, in Polish. But it
means volunteers for free elections--for fair elections. Because we
want to avoid the situation in which there will be some, delicately
speaking, misunderstandings--[laughs]--with results of the elections.
And I think if the civil society, Helsinki Commission, some
representatives of Congress and Senate will be involved in keeping the
fair elections, the [patron ?] of this action is--[inaudible]. So I
think it's also visible to our American colleagues that this is one of
the key person fighting for freedom in this part of Europe. So be with
us and be in touch together.
Dr. Thompson. As we're waiting for the microphone to get to our
next question, I did want to raise a question about the demographic
change that we're seeing in Europe. And, again, is this is one of the
other issues that we should be focusing on? A number of people noted
that the team in France, for example, that brought home the World Cup
was quite diverse. And so there have been questions of whether or not
there's a way to capitalize on increasing diversity in Europe. And I'm
actually just really pleased, again, to have you here today, because
you've been leading on the blue card initiative for Europe, that's
looking at Europe's changing work force. And I was hoping you could
talk a little bit about where things are with that and if there's
anything specifically relevant to this high skilled effort that can
also be utilized with the newer migrant and refugee populations that
we're seeing in Europe.
MEP Moraes. It's interesting that you're talking about the legal
channels for coming to the European Union. So interestingly, nobody
wants the blue card, which kind of tells you where that is. It tells
you where the United States is at the moment and tells you where the
European Union is.
But what is happening in the world is that Western countries, the
liberal democracies that we're talking about, are under relative
migration pressure. Mr. Boni talked about climate change, we talk about
refugee hot spots, Syria, Libya, what proceeded it, Iran, Iraq,
Afghanistan, the refugee crises of that period. Although, in the
Mediterranean the numbers are, in fact, falling. But the numbers that
are coming are heavily politicized, as you well know when you watch the
news.
So there's migration pressure, but at the same time--and I don't
know exactly the demographics in the United States--but at the same
time in the European Union there's a very heavily aging, ethnically
white population. So you have even in countries like Italy, Spain with
relatively high density, you still have aging populations and the need
for work in particular sectors. So you've got this conundrum. But
migration is not a simple thing, particularly in European societies,
post-colonial societies. Ethnicity, identity, race is a huge issue when
you have powers that literally were colonial powers, and still are.
Some European Union countries still have colonies. And so the
psychology of this is extremely important.
Each European Union country has had a different relationship with
immigration. And immigration has been shaped in relation to those
countries. So that's the underlying tension below all of this. Those
countries without those colonial pasts, those who have had fewer
colonies--Germany, for example--have a different immigration passage.
Those countries that have few migrants and have been accession
countries in 2004, like Poland and Hungary, have had a different
migration passage. But France and the United Kingdom, colonial powers,
their migration history is shaped by that. And then, of course, their
constitutions have shaped it. So in France the republican notion,
everyone is French. The United Kingdom, everyone is kind of British.
[Laughs.] Sort of. So this is a complicated thing.
Then this makes it difficult for the European Union to then have a
migration policy, because you're dealing with the very, very difficult
issues of sovereignty, identity, of citizenship, which are very, very
defined. However, the European Union has an external border. The
European Union needs to have the integrity of the external border and
the freedom of movement within. And that's the big paradox. So this has
been tested very heavily in recent years. And to have a settlement--
because we talk about human rights, liberal democracies--it has been
tested heavily. And the first thing, to be positive, many good things
have happened. Many countries have stepped up to the plate, have tried
to do the right thing. Germany being a good example, Sweden, and other
countries trying to do the right thing. Many other countries have been
doing good things, but they're not being identified as doing so,
because the whole issue has been caricaturized.
So this is a very big subject, as you can see from how I'm
describing it. But it should not be simplified. The big issues now that
we have to deal with are that we have to have a managed migration
policy for the European Union without us descending into populism and
moving to a situation where the fear of migration dictates how
governments are elected. And in my view--because I shouldn't have a
view on the United States, you should have a view on the United
States--but once leaders pursue the notion of fear of migration rather
than management of migration, then you are descending into the
situation we had in the 1920s, fear of invasion, fear of an enemy
rather than understanding that you should manage migration for the good
of everyone, for a win-win situation. And, second, understanding what
migration means. There are certain push factors and certain pull
factors. And the population should really be truthfully told what they
are and why people are moving and what their migration needs are.
We haven't reached this point yet. And certainly the European
Union, there's been a shock to that. So today for example, the European
Union doesn't have much of a legal migration policy because that's in
retreat. But that doesn't mean we don't have the capacity to do it. The
European Union has managed to do many things. And by the way, I would
say about the European Union, people talk about the end of the European
Union in many phases all the time. And it always is resilient. It
always comes back and has a solution. And I'm very optimistic that even
in this very difficult area, we will find solutions, we will manage
things, because we're talking about sophisticated countries that can do
this. And there are political, progressive forces that can try and
ensure that we get a good solution, but it won't be easy. And I'm glad
I'm getting older and it's all up to you. No, it's not, you're
American. But the younger generation will have to grapple with this.
Climate change, climate change refugees, I have to say that much of
the movement--as we saw when we were in Lebanon recently--developing
countries have the overwhelming majority of refugees, not Europe or the
United States. That's the reality. But if you say to somebody in the
European Union or the United States that's the case, it's meaningless
if they switch on Fox News and everyone's telling them that they're
being invaded by Mexicans and there needs to be a wall. So it's the
same in the European Union. If Salvini in Italy is telling them that,
look, we need to do this because he's under pressure. What's more
difficult is if somebody in another country, where there's virtually no
migration, tells them that they're being invaded--so Hungary, for
example. And that's the big problem. This is a huge issue for us. But
we can manage this.
Why do we know we can manage it? Because history has been here--we
have been here before. And we need to learn the lessons of history. And
I think this is a profound issue. It's a management issue. It's an
organizational issue. And by the way, when we talk about the
transatlantic relationship, there's some symmetry here between the two.
Can I just say this one final thing on migration? It's quite
interesting, but a few years ago--both in the United States and the
European Union--people said that migration was a non-issue. I remember
that. It was about 22, 23 years ago. Secondary migration was the only
thing. Everyone said immigration doesn't exist anymore as an issue in
the United States. But all that existed in the United States as it was
becoming more ethnically diverse. But immigration was not an issue.
Refugees were not an issue for the United States.
Funnily enough, it's a big issue today, and it's the same in the
European Union. And there are many, many factors determining that, but
we have to get through this. And the other thing is that it's a global
issue, not an issue for the Western liberal democracies. We are caught
in it because we don't want those people to come. And yet, we need some
of them to do the work that no one else wants to do. And then as Mischa
said, we need some of the skilled ones to do the more skilled work that
we want them to do. So in my country, the National Health Service would
collapse tomorrow without the migrant labor that we have, or the
European Union free movement that we need. So this is the big paradox
of migration. But it's probably the biggest single challenge that we
have in the European Union, which almost like dwarfs the economy which
seems to be ticking along nicely.
And just a final point, the countries that complain most about
migration have got the highest economic growth in the European Union
today. That's just a really interesting point to mention.
MEP Griesbeck. May I say a few words about the blue card and the
conclusion from our President Claude Moraes?
[Continues through interpreter.] Just to add to what Claude said,
on the blue card, Claude Moraes, our president, used to be the
rapporteur on this file. And he was in charge of this file. And I want
to congratulate him for the great work that he has put into it, and the
progress that had been made. A blue card would have been one way of
opening routes for migrants--legal routes for migrants to come to
Europe. And that would have been a good thing. Now it is because of the
reluctance of some member states and their hypocrisy, in a way, that
this dossier has not seen the light yet, or at least not seen the light
in the way that it should be.
Blue card would have been also an important issue because we are
actually facing here two major problems in Europe. One is the problem
of migration. And this problem of migration can basically cause us harm
and bring down Europe if we are not able to provide for the good--for
the good replies to it. And the blue card, in a way, would have been
one way of a good response to that. And on the other hand, that was the
question of Mischa from the start, the demographic development and the
demographic change of Europe. If you look at Europe in a couple of
years from now it will be a continent of gray hair, like myself.
[Laughter.]
And as paradox as it might sound, so on this one hand this
migration issue, and at the same time we need something in terms of
migration if we don't want to become the continent of gray hair. So
that is a very big issue. And these are the two challenges that we are
currently facing.
Dr. Thompson. Okay. So we're going to do a really quick lighting
round to see if we can end in 5 minutes. And--[laughs]--and so with
that we'll take the two questions here.
Questioner. Dan Stoller from Bloomberg.
Just a quick question. With the growing political tension between
the U.S. and the EU, and the EU's appetite for more data transfer pacts
with Japan and South Korea, do you think there will be more data
transfer agreements with other nations outside of the U.S. going
forward? Is there a larger appetite for that?
Questioner. I'm Robert Hand. I'm a colleague of Mischa's at the
Helsinki Commission. And my portfolio is the Western Balkans, which is
a region where the United States and the European Union has had to
coordinate policies. In fact, at many of our previous hearings and
briefings we have often had an EU official or even a member of the
European Parliament come to talk about policy responses to the Balkans.
If I were to present U.S. policy in its more simplistic form, and
say it's to follow the European lead, to support Europe in its approach
to the Western Balkans, how would you react? How confident are you in
Europe's ability to lead in the Balkans, particularly given the
problems with European leadership in the 1990s? And what
recommendations would you make for U.S. engagement with Europe in that
region that is knocking on the EU door right now?
Thank you.
Dr. Thompson. So, and I'll say the last question I want to add to
the lightning round--and I apologize because I'm going to have to cut
you off--is that there's been a lot of talk about security issues
emanating from both Russia and China. Yet, there are a number of
European countries, as well as our country, that are currently doing a
lot of business with China in particular, and also looking to do more
business with both in the future. And so I think the question emanating
from that is whether or not there's a scenario where both China and
Russia can actually become more credible partners on security with the
United States.
And so, with that, I will quickly turn to the panel for 1-minute
answers on these three questions that were just posed.
MEP Moraes. Just on the Bloomberg colleague's question about the
adequacy agreements and the relationships--I mean, our committee will
be going to South Korea in October, and we've just been to Japan. And
our role is on the adequacy agreement in relation to the trade
agreement. So the answer is absolutely yes, we're seeing adequacy with
these countries. I met with the South Korean equivalent of the
information commissioner body a couple of weeks ago. And the point is
that they are extremely keen. When we meet them, they're extremely keen
to seek this kind of equivalency, because they understand the need for
kind of frictionless data transfers. So they're building relationships
for the future, not just for the trade agreement. And they understand
exactly what is happening in the European Union. I know this is fast,
but understand we're modernizing our data protection laws, and again,
you've got liberal economic space. But you've got rules which are now
tried and tested. And I think that's been really good.
Why are we doing it? We are doing the adequacy part. It's not just
about privacy, it's also the commercial side. So absolutely yes, this
is an exciting area. And I think yes, the U.S. should be aware of that,
that we are doing that. And it's successful because we concluded the
Japan trade agreement just recently. And we're quite excited to be part
of that. I don't know, Mr. Boni might--and, of course, he had mentioned
artificial intelligence, robotics, and so on. All of these areas--for
example, Japan is hugely interested in that. So, the answer is yes.
MEP Boni. I know we are sort of the beginning of conversation
negotiations with Singapore on data flows. There are many companies
installed in Singapore. So I think it will be very, very important from
the economic point of view. And also, we are talking about Canada,
because it should be also recognized. And after that, we need to make
an order of the--[inaudible].
This year in May, in the European summit in Sofia, we focused on
establishing the strategy for the Balkans country's development. And I
think it was very, very important. It was multidimensional, focused on
many areas related to political issues, to fight against corruption,
but also to support and to help those countries in the problems of
depopulation, because it's a real challenge for those countries. We
have discussed also about digital issues and making some special
agreements and also using European money in the new infrastructure,
making the accessibility to the internet much more open and for
everybody.
And Serbia is the one country for which the commission said, okay,
2025 could be the year in which it this country will be a member of the
European Union. And what is important is solving the problem of the
name of Macedonia, is I think it's also opened the further steps. My
personal view is that now for the European Union, from a political
point of view, Balkan countries are much more important than the
eastern partnership. But of course, the eastern partnership is
crucial--Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia having the association
agreement, some distance to go for Armenia and Azerbaijan. Of course,
there are many problems with Belarus. But I think that Balkan countries
are the main focus.
Dr. Thompson. And MEP Griesbeck, just on whether Russia and China
can be credible counterterrorism and security partners for the U.S. and
EU.
MEP Griesbeck. [Through interpreter.] Right. To answer the question
of the gentleman on the Balkans, I don't know what was really behind
this question, if there's intention or if there is the thought behind
whether the Balkans should join the European Union, yes or no. Let me
answer the following--I know coming from a centrist, center political
movement, being a member of the liberal group, I know that I'm a bit
isolated here with my position. But here's the following look at
Turkey. We opened accession discussions with Turkey and see where that
has led us today. It was President Bush in 2004 who basically
encouraged us to integrate Turkey into the European Union. And now
relations with Turkey are rather deteriorating than improving. We have
very, very, very difficult relations with Turkey. Look at the terrorist
financing problems, look at the refugee problems. We have struck a deal
with them that cost us 6 billion euros. And yet, this deal is subject
to permanent blackmailing. So in case we wouldn't deliver, they would
send more and more refugees.
And this is to say I was always one of those who voted against
Turkey's accession to the European Union. And in the same way, I'm also
opposing the idea of integrating more Western Balkan countries into the
EU. They should benefit from a very advanced and privileged
partnership, but for the time being they should not be members of the
EU. Why? Because the European Union is much more than just an economic
platform. It's a political entity. It's an entity of shared values and
ideas. And we are currently in a phase where we first need to deepen
our integration with the member states that we have before we can
basically go for further enlargement of the European Union. If we would
go on and just enlarge the European Union, we would just run around
like a duck without a head. And we first need to basically make our
minds up where we want to go with this European Union that we are
currently having before we ask more members to join us. And I know this
is not a very popular position. And I know I'm not in the majority
there with my views, but I wanted to share them with you.
Dr. Thompson. Well, thank you all very much for such an amazing
panel, following such a long trip from Europe, I'm certain with very
little sleep. We know that officials on both sides were taking notes on
everything that you said in preparation for the July 25th meeting that
will take place between Presidents Trump and Juncker. And so, with
that, we thank everyone else.
Senator Wicker sends his apologies. He actually got tied up with
Senate business. And so, we're hoping that there might be another
opportunity for the delegation to connect with him, and with that, I
thank all of you.
Thank you. [Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., the briefing was adjourned.]
[all]
This is an official publication of the Commission on
Security and Cooperation in Europe.
< < <
This publication is intended to document
developments and trends in participating
States of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
< < <
All Commission publications may be freely reproduced,
in any form, with appropriate credit. The Commission
encourages the widest possible dissemination of its
publications.
< < <
www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm
The Commission's Web site provides access
to the latest press releases and reports,
as well as hearings and briefings. Using the
Commission's electronic subscription service, readers are
able to receive press releases, articles, and other
materials by topic or countries of particular interest.
Please subscribe today.