tv French President Emmanuel Macron on Transatlantic Relations CSPAN February 10, 2021 12:36pm-2:11pm EST
to the 2013 pbs documentary series. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on c-span3. ♪♪ american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend coming up this president's day weekend saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war. author edward acorn talks about his book "every drop of blood" about link link's second inaugural speech considered one of the greatest speeches in american political history. sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral history virginia coleman describes her experiences as a chemist for the manhattan project at oak ridge to build the atomic bomb and monday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on "american artifacts" photographer and storyteller john ploschel on the
giant bufrts of american presidents decaying on a private property in virginia. explore the american history. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. and now on c-span 3, french pam emmanuel macron at the atlantic council discussing transatlantic trade, the nato alliance, climate change and working with the biden administration. the. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is john rogers, and i serve as the chairman of the atlantic council and notwithstanding the pandemic requirements that we do this virtually, it's truly a pleasure to be hosting this extraordinary event. it's my privilege to kick off today's official launch of the atlantic council europe center with the generous participation of our special guest, his
excellency emmanuel macron, president of the french republic. i was fortunate enough to meet president macron at a state dinner in april 2018 at the white house. how things have changed since then. as this audience knows well, the relationship with europe is at the very heart of the historic mission of the atlantic council as we look to shape our collective future, tackling the global changes and issues that affect us all in lockstep with our closest strategic allies. as we embark on 2021, a storied year already, in its own right as the atlantic council celebrates its 60th anniversary, we find ourselves in the midst of this historic moment where countries and societies the world over face simultaneously a health crisis, an economic crisis and in some cases an identity crisis while grappling
with sweeping technological changes, climate imperatives and strategic rivals growing increasingly assertive such as china and russia. against that backdrop i think most with us today would agree this is also had a pivotal moment for transportation. a unique opportunity for those in the transatlantic community to step up and once again shape the future of international order. of course, as the atlantap council we take those efforts with us in earnest. we've grope under our president aidad and many i want to yjt them for this timely achievement and thank them in advance for about what's to come.
a period of stark need of transformational leadership there's one leader who has established himself as a bold and innovative voice in europe and i'm talking about president macron whom we're honored to have with us today. president macron, you have been a courageous reformer andor in france and an advocate for an ambitious europe agenda on the international stage, and i know i speak for the broader audience when i say we look forward to hearing your vision for the european union as an impactful global leader and partner with the united states. as we come together today in tackling this century's biggest challenges so far unfolding before us. and with that, once again, thank you for joining us. i'll now hand it over to -- of the director of the atlantic's european center who will join
and lead a discussion with president markon. thank you. >> thank you, john. >> it's my honor to be here in paris with you, president rarkon, for the official launch of the europe center of the atlantic council. it's not a coincidence we wanted to be with you in this critical time for transatlantic relations. we're in the midst of a pandemic, of a global climate crisis, of an economic crisis facing a more assertive chiouuiz and these times call more than ever for deep transatlantic÷/'s bond. at the atlantic council we will play our role for advocating for this relationship and we always have but we need to look forward with no denials of the challenges we face and no nostalgia for actions in the mast and this is why there's a strong europe of response at the core of that partnership. the we have a network of fellows
all across europe, strategic partnerships, with the u.s. chamber of commerce and greece and much more to come. we will continue to be a strong voice in not observing the problems but really being actors of change. this year the eu will be our priority. we will partner with the eu delegation in washington to launch a national campaign to reset eu-u.s. relations and explain the european union to americans and explain why a strong and united eu is a core national interest of the united states. the mr. president, you've been transformational leader for europe leading the way to a more sovereign europe on the international stage to face these challenges, and this is why we're so delighted to have you with us today. we brought a group of americans and europeans from all walks of of life and generations to ask you questions on foreign policy issues, the global economic challenges, but also the
societal challenges that our countries face together. let me ask you the first question, mr. president. joe biden was inaugurated as president two weeks ago. you spoke to president biden and stressed a necessity to coordinate on common challenges from covid-19, global economic recover risk the climate, china, the middle east, south africa and russia. where do we start? >> thank you very much. first of all, thanks for being here and thanks, mr. chairman, for your introduction and your first remarks, and i'm very happy to inaugurate in a sudden way the europe center and i want to congratulate you first for this ambition and i'm deeply convinced that your willingness to build a new common agenda is the right call. we'll probably differ on a lot of topics during this discussion but let me just say that the number one priority in the
relation with the new u.s. administration, the work between the u.s. and europe is to to have and to deliver a result-oriented -- we worked hard during the past few years in order to preserve a military framework. all the issues that you mentioned, economic and social crises, new inequalities, climate change, i mean, our democratic issues and so on, all these issues require more coordination, and during the past few years we experience a sort of dismantling of the existing frameworks, so i think the number one priority is to rebuild this by pushing an inclusive materialism to ensure that we're efficient and
precisely inclusive. this means having concrete results in order to fix the major challenges or at least start fixing the main challenges and for me the very first days of the new administration are absolutely a key. the w.h.o. and president biden to go back first to be a contributor and to participate into our global health, to be part of the one health initiative and participation to african continents and poor countries and we'll probably work on that and the commitment to invest at least 4 billion in this decision, and coming back into the paris agreement and join the club of countries to deliver carbon neutrality by
2050, and probably the coming decisions regarding our organization and so on. this is -- i would say the main player, the one in charge to guarantee the system of last resort is the one to live it obviously. it does weaken materialism and those who benefit from such a situation, the spoilers are those in the situation to oppose or push another kind of materialism that is not based on our common values and -- the second key issue, and it's linked to the very first one, how precisely to involve all together because we'll have to innovate very clearly in order
to fix these new challenges, how to build new partnerships and build what we called a few weeks ago here in paris the new consensus of our global world. what we see is clearly a world where inequalities are at the top of the list. even before the pandemic and definitely after the covid-19 period of time, inequalities will be a very critical issue. we have now i would say a weaker regulation regarding arms control largely damaged by the past decisions. we have probably to invent new cooperations and partnerships in order to deal with climate and biodiversity issues. this is what we tried to do the past few years with the one planet summit, to preserve the paris agreement and to launch any initiatives for the climate
diversity. we have to be innovative because these kinds of new partnerships means building new cooperations between governments but new cooperations with private players as well and ngos and some original entities, and obviously when we look at digital issues, when we look at the crisis of our democracies, we will have to build a series of new partnerships in order to precisely give a content to this. the third -- this is the second pillar for me of the critical regulation and this is where for me european union and the u.s. are the two main players to build together but by being very inclusive with other players sharing our values, precisely these new solutions in the current environment and third i think we have to be much more committed to original crisis and a consistent approach to this original crisis. we spoke during precisely why
with president biden about some of the regional crisis but when we speak about the middle east, when we speak about africa, when we speak about indo-pacific and the concept of how to push through the past few years, definitely we speak about the relation between u.s. and europe, our ability to work together, our ability to preserve or restore peace and stability in some of these regions. some of them are part of the european neighborhood. some of them are parts of very critical regions and some of them are parts of way to improve the u.s. and china relations over the coming years and dealing with the regional crises means how the u.s. administration wants to engage
in some of them, what are the main top priorities and fight against terrorism is critical and peaceable stability for this part of the world is critical and as well as how to clarify and we will -- the whole of nato and the existential partnerships. i don't want to be longer. we will have the occasion to talk about these issues. but those are the three main ones with me to frame the relationship with the new u.s. administration. >> i want to pick up on your last point in reframing the partnership. europe has been as the core of your vision ever since your election. you gave very ambitious speech on european sovereignty. what do you think this european sovereignty agenda means for the transatlantic relationship? >> for me very good news. why? because i -- i do believe,
obviously, international fact we are democracies based on the expression of your people on a national level. when you look at the current environment, given all of the changes and the increasing tensions of the european union, it's credible player and the one i would say. my mandate has been try to reinvent europe and sovereignty. we leave it to a nationalistic approach. pushing for more sovereignty at a national level. but our actual sovereignty, which means deciding for yourself and being able to decide your own rules and regulation and to be in charge of your own choices is relevant at the european scale. this is why we decided to have a
common agenda on tech, defense, currency, economic and fiscal crisis and so on and on so. and this is how we've progressively framed this concept of strategy. this concept means just the european union has to be able to see itself as a common and relevant entity. to decide for itself and to be in a situation to invest much more on the critical items of the sovereign entity. and different issues are a part of them. this decision is not just compatible with nato, but very consistent with nato. this is why i strongly believe that this portion, this decision to make more together on the european scale is completely -- is definitely in the interest of the united states.
why? because when you look at the past decades in nato, the u.s. was the only one in charge in a certain way of our own security. and the burden-sharing as some of our former and current leaders push the concept was not fair. this is true. and the relation became -- in a certain way, being part of nato was getting access to the umbrella of the u.s. army and the counterpart was getting access to the contractlsñn"ó buying u.s. materials. and for me, this is a lose-lose approach. for european countries and for the united states. why? first, because this is not sustainable to have your
soldiers being in europe, involved at such a scale without clear interest. the sustainability in democratic societies decision was at risk. second, it was for me an implicit decision of europe not to be in charge of its own defense. and there is no entity which does exist which is not in charge of protecting its people. if you want to push the idea of the european union, you want them to be in a situation to protect its people. first, having players investing much more for themselves. i decided myself an increasing budget for our difference. second, working hard together on
common projects. streamlining our organization and developing new technologies and equipment. this is what we did with other countries but what we launched ton european scale as well. third, having big investment programs and developing more than common invention. this is what we pushed. i proposed it in september '17. we have dozens of countries joining this european initiative of intervention. a new concept. and we're developing concrete illustrations of this -- new approach. for instance, where we are engaging much more european countries with us to better protect society and countries. and i think this approach is definitely in interest of the u.s. because it creates more
consistency and solidarity at the european scale and more involvement of the european armies in different situations. which decrease the pressure on the rest of nato players which means the u.s. what i want to preserve is obvious the strong and political coordination with the united states in order to design the concept of nato and what i want to preserve is the interoperability of our armies because it means more efficiency for our interventions everywhere. we decided together with the u.s. and uk, unique operation against the use of chemical weapons in syria and we delivered interoperability. in the coming weeks and months we will have a critical time. on the basis of the reports,
after my formula end of 2019, i think we are in a period -- in a moment of clarification for nato. we have to clarify the new concept and our new willingness. war is the enemy. nato was created to fight against ussr. now where's the enemy? who is the main enemy of our societies? how to deal with new specific issues, china. this is a question, this is the elephant in the room. we have to speak very clearly about this issue. my willingness is to have a political approach. it means managing together to have a fair and open discussion, sometimes to share differences, but i think we have to face this issue.
third, having a clear role of conduct between member states. but how to speak about nato members when you have a partner like turkey having the behavior we experienced in 2019 and 2020. i'm happy to see -- it seems a change. and i want to welcome the recent declaration of president erdogan. but both the u.s. and the european experience incredible aggressiveness and i think the good behavior in such a framework is absurdly critical. all of this stuff are possible because europe is well and more organized and pricely because we develop this concept of sovereignty and strategy.
>> so i know that we'll unpack some of these issues with our guests. i'll turn to our first guest dr. esther brimmer. she's a board director at the atlantic council and was a former assistant secretary of state for international organizations and i know she wants to talk about it. >> our two countries are republics. we are heirs to the enlightenment yet on january 6th, a violent mob marched down those beautifully straight avenues that was designed for our capital city. they invaded congress and threatened our elected leaders. in 2018, protestors marched in paris and some damaged buildings. xenophobia and violence are no
longer just at the -- >> i'm not sure i will be in a situation to provide a complete and comprehensive answer, but i can share some thoughts about the situation because i think two examples you mentioned are probably one of the most telling of the recent period of times. all democracies with complete solidarity and friendship. look, i think first violence, hate, xenophobia are back in our societies. i think this is brand-new. it is pushed by some political groups. and for me, this is a big
political change. i had the occasion recently to develop the society. but for me, the initial deal that you can choose your leader, you elect them, you elect people in charge of making your laws. you have freedom of speeches, of demonstration, but in exchange of that, in a certain way, you have to respect everybody. you have to accept somebody not to agree with you and violence is forbidden. and it seems that some political narratives create violence in our societies. saying there's such a violence between the current economic or social organizations that your decision to go in the streets and to kill, to hurt, to destroy
is illegitimate. violence is resuming. violence was progressively vanishing and now it's resuming with the different forms you mention. and i'm very worried by that because this is a threat for our democracy. for a lot of people, this is unacceptable. how to stop that. they say wait for us to stop such a violence. this is hard when this violence is felt as legitimate by a lot of people. and this is what we're experiencing in a lot of our democracy. my deep conviction is that social networks are definitely part of the change which is once again an antipolitical change. because they legitimated it in a certain way, the lack of inhibition in the different speech, they promoted -- the
culture of tough words and so on. progressively, according to me, changed the nature of what the democratic debate should be. this is why if we want to preserve our democracies, we have to address these issues. we made a lot of progress during the past three to four years in order to fight against terrorism on social network and is global platforms. i remember it started here with terrorism after the terrorist attack of july 27th. we launched an initiative. at the beginning, a lot of people on behalf of free speech culture, which is our culture, were very reluctant to regulate our social networks to fight
against terrorist content. a new months later, we had this attack in christ church and we launched with prime minister ardern and other leaders. u.s. platforms and social networks to have the commitment of this golden hour, any terrorist content identified by the platform, the social networks and our services. and they did it. i can tell you, they are extremely efficient and they helped us a lot. and we just a few weeks ago passed a legislation to do so. what we did on terrorist attack, we have to do it in order to fight against hate speeches, xenophobia on social networks and so on. the unique way to preserve our democracies is to establish the
democratic order in this new space where our people think, live and more and more because of the pandemic as well i have to say. and this new regulation, this new governance in a certain way has to be democratic between our leaders. and i think this is very important and for me this is one of the critical challenges of our times. you know, i mentioned this initiatives and you have heard that we are now to do much more. you mentioned the capitol and we are very upset here in paris and i expressed my friendship, solidarity and trust in the strength of your democracy. but at the same time we were very upset as well by the fact that a few hours later, all the platforms sometimes which helped
president trump to be so efficient, sometimes to promote the same demonstrations a few hours before, at the very second where they were sure it was over, suddenly cut the mic and put the mic on mute and killed -- killed all of the platforms where it was possibly for himself and supporters to express themselves. okay. it's not a democratic answer. i don't want to live in a democracy with the decision to sometimes -- at the point of time to cut your mic, to be sure that he's not in a situation to speak anymore because of his speech is decided by a private player, a private social network. i want it to be decided by regulation, governance,
democratically discussed by democratic leaders. this is one of the critical issues if we want to stop that. 2018 in france, 2021 in the u.s., this is indeed new violence in our democracies, largely linked to the social networks and our new way of life. >> let's turn to some of the common foreign policy challenges that we're facing. i'm going to take questions two at a time. we have a lot of questions for you, mr. president. let me turn to a professor at columbia university. the director of the european institute. wrote a book on the financial crisis. and then i will turn to professor joseph nye at harvard. >> hello. >> mr. president, hello. it's a privilege to be here. i would like to ask you and push you a little bit on this idea of
results-oriented multilateralism. the need for this focus is urgent. we need to respond, if you like, to the challenge of the legitimacy generated by the chinese regime. but it's a tough standard to measure up against because it's not enough to simply show that you did things the right way. you actually have to deliver results. and the specific issue i have in mind is one of the ones which is i know is in the minds of many europeans right now. it's the issue of the vaccine and how we might think about our experience with the vaccine as an object, a project, a model, but also in some sense, a warning of how we go forward from here. because it's on the one hand a huge triumph of collaboration, also transatlantic human endeavor, but it's easily become and is seemingly taking on the dimensions of a failure at the inability at the macro level to
ensure prudent distribution of the vaccine. and then to be able to deliver it in a legitimate and credible way, even to the affluent populations of europe. i would love to hear your view on how that is going. and how we might develop truly results oriented multilateralism by way of vaccine technology. >> let me turn to professor nye. board director of the atlantic council. >> mr. president, i would like to follow up on your comments about china. as you know, many economists believe that by the end of this decade, the chinese economy will be larger than the american economy. at that point, how should european and france respond? there are some european leaders who have suggested that europe should find a position equal
distant between the united states and china. there are others who say, no, if you look at the internal nature of china and the chinese economy, if it becomes dominant in the global standards, when it's a society based on surveillance, it's going to damage our democracies and instead the democracies should start something called a t-12, a technology-12 of countries which will have special trading arrangements to set standards so that we're not prey to chinese companies or chinese standards in areas like surveillance, artificial intelligence, and big data. in other words, the equal distance would be a tremendous mistake. this is not just about balancing two large powers. it's about preserving democracy. so these seem to be big choices
that europe faces. i wonder if you could tell us how you see it from the french as well as the europe perspective. >> thank you very much for those two easy questions. let's first start with the question about how to illustrate the results-oriented multilateralism. i would say covid-19 is indeed a very interesting object. in order to think on how to deliver on that. and on purpose, i don't just speak about vaccine because i think the answer is covid-19 crisis and the consequences. i think first at the g-20 level and led by the european leaders but in common work with the african leaders, we launched march 2020 this initiative which
is our -- a new type of partnerships. we conceived an approach where dealing with covid-19 crisis was helping the african countries in order to preserve their system, to treat people, and to deal with the economic and social consequences of the pandemic. at this stage, the main conferences for africa, for instance, is much more economic and social than sanitary and health consequence. given the population, probably some other main features of african societies. and we started this approach and the first results created the -- a common organization, the initiatives, common governance with african leaders and african union. and vaccine initiative for the
vaccine. if you look at the past few months, i agree with you, china probably managed to convince some countries where this diplomacy of the vaccine. they delivered very efficiently. as a reaction to this first inclusive and much more g-20/african union initiative. they were less impacted by the pandemic during the recent period of time than the u.s. and the european union. and they put themselves in a situation to provide a lot of doses to some countries. in proportion which are not totally clear to us. but we found clear diplomatic
successes. and it can provide the idea that they are more efficient. but i think if we have a comparative and coordinated approach, i think on the very long run, we can be more efficient. and this is what i want to advocate. because on the very short term, we can be impressed by the chinese efficiencies, this is true. this is a little bit humiliating for us as leaders, perhaps as countries, i received a few days ago, no need to go to african or poor countries, is serbian president was here. with clear and genuine remark, they are more efficient than your vaccine initiatives, the nion, my very good friends. seeing is more complicated in the way to address it, especially for more and emerging countries is likely more sophisticated. number one, dealing with the
virus requires us to be sure that we have the appropriate vaccination, that the vaccine is clearly a relevant one against the different variants. with transparent information, i think this is where at the very moment of the crisis, w.h.o. has a very important role. i will have the ability to speak with dr. tedros. they will be in the situation to assess the entities the efficiency and the efficacy of the vaccines. today we have some evidence about u.s. vaccines, some of the european vaccines, some partnership made between different players. it seems that we can have more information about the vaccines.
there was an initiative at the european level, i have no information about the chinese one. i will not comment. but this is matter of fact. what it means, in the long run, this vaccine is not appropriate. it will absolutely not fix the situation of these countries and, by the way, is probably a good example of what can happen with our situation. people having infected some others being vaccinated and getting a new form of the covid-19. so i think what we can provide is the best possible science with our standard. transparent, relevant and science being proposed under the
scrutiny, of, i would say, the best possible researchers in the world. this is not the case for the chinese vaccine at this point of time, and i would be happy if they would provide that. for me, efficiency could be detrimental to the midterm efficiency in this situation. this is for vaccine. but more than that, i think our initiatives that i want to advocate is exactly for me, is a new type of partnership where do this more collectively. we put ourselves in a situation to provide vaccine to more and merging countries. pfizer and moderna are not relative for these countries given the features, especially in terms of temperature and logistics. but johnson & johnson, potentially and some others, novavax, could be much more relevant.
if we put together our financing and our commitment, we can provide to these countries a number of doses without any comparison to the one provide by china. in the coming weeks and months, this is the very first one. second, in our initiative, we included treatments because you can avoid some severe forms for a lot of people if you have the relevant treatment. testing. it's impossible medically to deal with a pandemic if you don't have a testing strategy. and it means that on top of that, where our multilateral approach is for me the best one. you have to work directly with the government and to strengthen their health systems. if you don't have structures, doctors, nurses and so on, it's impossible to have the vaccination campaign. we know that in our countries. it will be the same in africa or
latin america. the fact that we have a compound approach, inclusive, even china, by the way. and inclusive for the countries where the pandemic could be very tough, african or latin american countries, is the most efficient way to get access to precisely results. now what is at stake to follow you is, number one, w.h.o. commitment to a full transparency because one of the weakening points of the results oriented multilateralism is the approach. if you have one big country, one more playing with different standards, no transparency and so on, you are weakened. so we need the w.h.o. second, more commitment of the country and the u.s. decision -- the recent u.s. decision for the precisely -- is critical. and, third, implementation
capacity by involving precisely all of the emerging and poor countries and having this comprehensive approach i mentioned. for me, it's now the time to deliver by making it very pragmatic and it's time to implement it. and the perfect and complete answer to your program would be the coming weeks and months if we deliver ourselves and manage to ourself big campaign in this countries, based on our vaccine initiative to provide vaccine but more largely to the comprehensive approach of the initiative we launched together. but, once again, i think it's the fact that we are more demanding, more comprehensive is for me, definitely, a strength. to go to the second question about china.
first let me say that our view is that china is all together a partner, a competitor, and a systemic rival which means this is a partner when you have to deal on some global issue -- with some global issues like climate change. china is a partner. they committed. they are changing the system. they are trying to reduce the co2 emission and i have to say during the past few years, they definitely created an efficient carbon market in the country. they took some clear commitments and get some results. this is a competitor when we speak about trade issues. and this is a systemic rival given its ambition in the indo-pacific region and values human rights. the question is, how are these different agendas and precisely
how to deal with what you mention. i think we never have to precisely consider that we are -- for me, we have two different scenario which are to be excluded. number one, would be a scenario where we put in a situation to join all together against china. this is a scenario of the highest possible -- this one for me is counterproductive because it will push china to increase itself strategy in which we push china to diminish its cooperation on the different agendas and i think this is not helpful to all of us. the second scenario would be to say that we should be medically a partner at the same distance from the u.s. as former china. it doesn't make sense because we are a systemic rival with the
u.s. we do share the same values. we do share the same history. and we have to face precisely all of the challenges regarding our democracies and what we just discussed. but -- so the question for us is, somehow to precisely team up on some critical issues and try to be the useful player to push china not to diverge anymore. i don't think what will happen in the coming years. to be honest with you, probably the coming semesters will be very critical for chinese leaders and china as a country and a power. china decided to be part of the w.h.o. and on and so on.
what will be the behavior of china? i think we have precisely in good faith to try to work all together. this is why i will try to push in the coming months a summit in order to try to -- between the five permanent member of the council some convergence because we lost the efficiency of this forum in the past few years. second, i think we have to engage china in a bold and efficient climate agenda. and i think the engagement of the u.s. is a good occasion as well to have the proactive and the -- the execution on that. and it will be -- glasgow will be at the same time as the chinese carbon biodiversity.
third, we now have to create a global initiative on trade industry and poverty. on this issue, i think this alignment of the u.s. and the european union during the past few years was counterproductive. i think we have to resume a discussion of the w.h.o. level for us, as members, but by creating new forms to see how to fix the issue of ip which is one of the critical issues. ip and market access are the two critical issues in order to -- i would say, perhaps -- obviously we have to put pressure, we have to be very clear. and we have to find the right
ways to try to engage on some critical points. this is where the famous investment agreement signed at the end of last year with china by the european union was for me an opportunity. this agreement is not -- it's a huge deal. it presents some very important and positive items. it will improve some issues on investment and access to market. it failed to deal with the ip issue. let's be lucid. but for the very first time, china accepted to engage on regulation and to commit precisely on labor issues, which are kd?c
engage. this is a test of the rarity of a good-faith discussion on that. so, you see, i try to separate this for me. we have a series of discussion with china where we can have a positive agenda. we speak about global issues without a lot of, i would say, controversial approaches. we have obviously very challenging agenda largely on economic issues that i think are common interests should be to use that. but this is -- i don't know the final answer. and we have the very complicated human rights agenda where my willingness is to increase pressure, have direct discussion and precisely time to engage on some specific issues. in order to be in such a situation in the coming months, years and in the long run, what
we have to do, obviously, the u.s. but the european union as well for itself is to preserve this famous strategy economy and our ability to negotiate in good faith. and you mentioned that very fairly. i think on technology, on artificial intelligence, on the type of initiative, space will be a critical issue as well. we have to put ourself in a situation to cooperate if we decide. but we have to avoid in any way to depend on the chinese solution. i have to say, my willingness as well is to avoid depending not because for me this is the equivalent distance, but i don't want to depend on one person. otherwise i will be put in a situation not to decide for the european continent itself. this is why 1 1/2 year ago i launched an initiative on 5g in
order to have 100% european solution. this put some restrictions for the french solutions and i totally decided to endorse this decision in my discussion with china. and i -- i'm very happy to see that the european commission in march 2020 decided to put its own standards on 5g. same on the regulation of our platforms. same, for instance, on the regulation we need for artificial intelligence. and where i think we can cooperate as well much more in this global platform for artificial intelligence we created in the g-7 a few semesters ago is typically an initiative -- and i hope the u.s. will join and participate, but we created it largely with
canada where we can work together to avoid any dependency on technical decision. but preserving our solutions and our ability to decide for ourselves is a condition of any agenda on these fields are china. >> let me turn to our two next guests. from berlin, we have sofia besh, a senior fellow at the atlantic council, and then rachel rizzo from washington, d.c., who is a director at the national security project. >> mr. president, thank you for speaking with us today. it's a great pleasure to be a part of this event. i would like to come back to the subject of strategic autonomy
and the role of nato. for some governments it's become less urgent with the election of president biden because for them a essential point in the argument has been nato's political weakness in recent years, the lack of strategic alignment and coordination between the u.s. and europeans and turkey and other allies, for instance. while turkey may remain an issue, the new u.s. administration has made nato the central theme of its foreign policy. how can we make this transatlantic relinement succeed without undermining decisions and how can nato contribute to your vision of european strategic autonomy. >> rachel rizzo. >> thank you, ben. mr. president, i would like to shift the conversation a bit to russia. earlier this week, a moscow court sentenced alexey navalny to more than two years in
prison. over the last two weekends, thousands of russians have taken to the streets to protest his arrest. and it's likely that these protests will continue in light of this sentencing. you've adopted sanctions against russia. you've also been a proponent of ongoing dialogue with moscow. what are the areas of overlapping interest where europe and the new biden administration can work together to shape a common russia policy. thank you. >> i think you're right. some leaders, some players in europe could be convinced that a realignment of the agenda with the new u.s. administration should weaken our strategy autonomy or reduce the relevance of such a strategy. i don't believe that is the case. as i tried to explain it at the very beginning of our discussion, i think the more europe is committed to defend, invest, and be part of the
protection of its neighborhood, the more it is important for the u.s. as well because this is a burden sharing. the question is the nature of the coordination at nato and our political concept and our common targets at nato. obviously with the new administration, we can say we will have a more cooperative appropriate. this is definitely sure. look at the middle east, africa is our neighbor. it is not the u.s. neighborhood. this is matter of fact. i just speak about geography. i remember a few years ago when we spoke about syria, as a fair and democratic decision of the u.s. administration, finally was not to make an operation and an attack after the use of chemical weapons. and this decision left the
european without the ability to do it on their own. and i think it's definitely weakened the credibility of nato, but it weakened the europeans themselves because we're not speaking about a place very far from us. speaking about syria in 2013 was speaking about a place where the terrorist attack in paris, november 2015 were prepared. so i speak about my own security. this is why i think the europeans have to understand that we do need this corporation, this interoperability and this intimate work with the u.s. but we -- i mean, our duty, definitely, is not to put ourself in a situation to depend on a u.s. decision. any u.s. decision which is democratic could be led by a
domestic approach, could be led by a domestic agenda, and obviously the way of the u.s. interest and could not be exactly the same as the european one, especially when you speak about our neighborhood. this is the explanation i want to give to our strategy economy and i will say that whoever will be in charge on both sides. i think this is the right approach and our fair interest on both sides. the point is you have to change your mind set, clearly existing in europe, because during decades we built, in fact, the concept on the absence of european defense. and in a lot of countries, basically, we caved to the system and mind set where not
having a clear difference, not being in a situation to decide yourself was a precondition after world war ii. now we have to put ourself in a situation to prepare our european defense. i want to insist on the fact that we need this strong coordination with the u.s. as for turkey, when i look at the situation, turkey put themselves in a crazy situation and the absence of any regulation i would say by nato, the absence of intervention to stop the escalation was detrimental for all of us. i want to remind you that now two years ago, with the u.s., france. they launched this operation as our troops were on the ground, as the coalition was present in
syria. a coalition led by the u.s. but with the participation of nato. and they launched this operation based on a national approach which was to say that the democratic syrian forces are terrorists to me because they are linked. some of this is true. but the fact that they launched military operations in a place where we were present and against our proxies, the u.s. soldiers, the french soldiers and all of our soldiers worked together against isis on the ground. thanks to these guys, and suddenly one of our member decided to kill them because they became a terrorist. this is exactly what happened. and this decision was -- it was
the explicit decision of the u.s. after libya, in eastern mediterranean sea, we had a systemic turkish approach which was unfriendly with its different partners, european or nato members. with a decision to frame the situation with russia. this is why i suddenly declared that nato was a brain dead organization because what is a concept, who is the enemy? what is the rule of the game when you're supposed to be in an organization where such behaviors are tolerated? we increased pressure 2020. we get some results. now the coming months will be
critical. i welcome the recent declarations of president ert the engagement of.t2é/x a new u administration much more compliant with the classical approach of nato. and i'm very happy with that. i hope now we will deliver results, what will be the -- our ability to deliver. fix the libyan situation. get rid of turkish troops from libya. get rid of thousand of jihadists exported from syria to libya by turkey itself. complete breach of the berlin conference. fixing the approach with the rest of the coalition. and i hope fixing the issue and
decreasing the pressure in the mediterranean sea even though now the situation seem to be better. in the coming months what we need is the u.s., the europeans, and a few members to clearly work hard on the basis of the report recently given to us by the experts to clarify the new concepts. as i told you, who is the enemy? is the enemy isis, for instance, my enemy is not this small group and so on. how to regulate, how to define the enemy to legitimate any external intervention and what is very clear, i would say, between member states, we have some established -- when we need -- when you are attacked, there's a lack of order to regulate interventions in the
countries where it can be very clear at stake. and where an intervention is counterproductive and launched by another member. and when we speak about the middle east, we speak about our neighborhood and this turkish intervention do have an impact on this. this is why i do believe that strategy is still valued and the u.s. relinement in nato is very important to make this clarification and recognize nato as not just -- i would say, to coordinate our armed forces, but a political body to have some political coordination. on russia, obviously, i totally share your remarks on mr. navalny and i expressed yesterday my strong and clear
condemnation of this decision to condemn somebody for not being compliant. i think probably the most obvious way to express sort of irony and disrespect not just for him but for the rest of the world. i think this is a huge mistake even for russian stability today. we decided some sanctions and i do regret and i condemn these decisions. having said that, obviously, we have as well the ukrainian situation with sanctions and a process -- in minsk and we get some small progresses in december '19 here in paris.
and we are working hard to get more progresses. but in such a context, why did i decide, indeed, to resume this will russia and i advocate ongoing dialogue. because i think you have to deal with your history and your geography. russia is part of europe. and i think this is very important whatever happens on this part of the horizon, a big part of the world. clearly the history of president putin and other leaders, they have common values. history, literature, culture, mind set. and we have to take that into
consideration. second, we have our geography. it's impossible to have peace and stability in europe today if you are not in a situation to negotiate with russia. and for different reasons, largely due to aggression and the nato expansion, we created a situation where we pushed our borders to a maximum place at the east, but we didn't manage to decrease the border. i think our we should find a common way to build peace and security for the whole continent. which means, having a dialogue on cyber aggressiveness, obviously, on any aggression, on
our critical countries, i would say, in this very sensitive area where you have ukraine. we need a political discussion with russia about that. otherwise, it will be our willingness to protect and our willingness to conquer and dominate. when i look at the outcomes of the past strategy with ukraine, and with a lot of countries, our results are not positive. we have to recreate the framework for these countries and our part of the continent. second, when we speak about arms control, definitely we need a discussion with russia. with the u.s. decision to leave imf. europe is no more protected from
the situation. we were not perfectly protected, by the way, in poland and some of the other places given the legal framework of the imf treaty. but we framed in a certain way our discussion and our organization regarding arms control in a cordial way. i want as a european to build a discussion between the european union, russia, probably we need -- and we do need the u.s. and probably china. which is very important for the u.s. agenda and this is fair. and i do approve. but we need to broader execution on the different arms control treaties in order to face and reduce the conflicts of our world. as we speak about the safety of the european continent, we do need the europeans to discussion with russia about these issues. if you don't create the right
conditions and the dialogue to do so, this is impossible. last point, our neighborhood. in middle east, what we experienced during the past few years was a decrease of our collective credibility, both nato and u.n., because of the fact that we decided not to intervene, because of the fact that they sent proxies to intervene and played fairly well -- i would say with this gray zone. they maximized their efficiency because of precisely of this new type of war and at this point in time we almost -- us european and americans, we almost disappeared and we are not in a situation to stabilize international or multilateral framework of the discussion. if we want to engage, we need to
engage dialogue with russia. the example where stopping dialogue and being stuck in some critical situation like ukraine and navalny, which are important and where we have to be tough which is the case. but beyond this -- these points, we do need a comparative dialogue. having said that, i'm extremely lucid. in the short term, our ability to deliver and have concrete results is very low. but our duty is to preserve or resume the channels of the discussion is and not to take the responsibility to stop the dialogue on our side. and to constantly reengage. and my experience even with the current people in charge in russia is that the more you engage, the more you put reasonable pressure to avoid any
divergence. this is when you are tough and you don't deliver, or where you don't speak -- when you don't speak about an issue, they consider that they can go. if you put a red line and you deliver, you build your credibility, what we did, by the way, in 2018 with the operation in syria, and if you constantly engage in a dialogue, you can get answers. but at least you avoid stronger divergence. it will take years, perhaps decades between -- we do need such a dialogue for european peace and stability. >> mr. president, let me take two last questions before we turn to our president to close us. i'll call fred smith, the chairman and ceo of fedex and then the former staffer in the obama white house and an atlantic council leadership
fellow. fred smith is first. >> hello. >> hello, mr. president. as you know, trade liberalization since the end of world war ii was a very big part of the increased prosperity was a very big part of the increased prosperity we all enjoy today. and the transatlantic trade was particularly important. so what are your thoughts on how to reengage europe and the united states in a more positive and expanded trade relationship? >> president muchrone thank you for having this discussion. >> you have young people affected by the covid-19 pandemic, a generation that feels economic scars of
graduating and job hunting during the recession. you have young people who have witnessed populism and the rise and really wars on and off their shores. so my question to you is what do you say to these young people around the world many of whom are isolated at home grappling with these issues and still working every day to find creative solutions to lead and to stay connected with the people around them? >> thank you very much. i do agree with you about the fact that trade did provide a lot of growth opportunities for people all over the place and was extremely efficient strategy to reduce poverty in a lot of places.
first, obviously we have and will post-covid-19 to resume some exchanges, reduce the speediness and preserve and increase market access. the ability to provide opportunities and the ability to have efficient organization of our trade industries. the kind of discussions we mentioned are critical. having said that we have to take into consideration two issues, number one, climate change. we didn't take into consideration climate change issues in the former trade
liberalization. if we want and do want to reduce emission we have to completely rethink our way with trade. how to rethink our logistics, how to be closer in production to the final markets and so on. this is a very important point. the second point our trade prioritization was focused i would say on the consumer side, lastly, how to reduce the pricing of different products and goods. and we killed a lot of jobs in our societies. and this is true. we reduce poverty in emerging countries but increase the gap in unequalities in our societies. and this is part of the democratic crises we have. i focus my answer on violence and hate, but in equalities in
our societies are critical because they're basically resuming violence. and any new trade agenda should take into consideration the question of unequalities in our societies. so what i do believe in is i would say trade where we have to take into consideration workers, steak holders and citizens and we have to reconcile economy, climate issues. so it is impossible to resume the former framework we have between the u.s. and europe because it didn't take into consideration climate change. it means as well why endorse not
to have any regional trade agreement with a country or region which doesn'tza9 paris agreement. but we always have>cq4;ñ to ass this agenda. so it should be much more sophisticated but more than that what we can work on actively together in the coming months and years is to build a common agenda between the world trade organization, the ilo, the imf and our mutual regulation of climate change and biodiversity. putting in phase our different types and agenda is the only way to build the new sustainable openness and trade agenda. let me go to the second question about our use in the new
generations and share your concern and willingness to address that. i have to this generation probably know much more than ours the importance of climate change with unique awareness of the fact that ability to fix this issue and provide clear and relevant answers was a global agenda based on cooperation. this generation the one to during this pandemic and to be student and we live without restaurants and sometimes without the ability to go to
school or university, which is totally unfair in a situation where we are deciding lock downs and a lot of frustrations to protect our older people. my first point is they totally understand but what they want now and need it seems to me is the necessity not just to be part of the world organized to earn money and live a normal life but to be part of the reinvention i would say, the ability to work and to have a meaningful part of this ability to create a new government but a whole of the game and our
ability to live all together. so if i had a message to deliver to this generation is thank you. because i know the efforts we are asking to you and your generation are definitely the highest of our societies. because it's not just to protect yourself and stay at home and so on but you do it precisely because we probably rediscovered dure this period of time what solidarity does mean. we decided to put human life on top of economic interest than anything.
but what we owe to our generation is not to go back to normal life a day after. it's first to provide opportunity to study during this period of time, to clearly have a full awareness of the fact that you are active and important player of our fight against the virus. and to help you build new initiatives to reshape the world and build what i called at the beginning of this discussion the new consensus, to help and provide solutions. and let's be clear i'm sure that our world post-covid first will be a world where human lifewreck human dignity will be much higher than before.
we'll have to rebuild in a much more inclusive way. and you'll have a role to play because you are the one to innovate. and when i speak about innovation i speak about technological innovation but sociological innovation. and during this period of time what was unthinkable -- what was considered unthinkable should be made and organized in order to provide basically new solutions for climate change, fight against inequality and build new positive goals. and i think our goal and duty as politicians is to give them the opportunity to do so by improving their ability to go to
school, by basically providing the best possible situation post-covid-19 and probably by giving them maximum opportunities and chance to be part of the solution and these new innovations. mr. president, before we turn to our fred camp to close this i want to thank you for the ambitious agenda you laid out and your friends and partners in the united states and europe to help you implement this vision in the next coming years. let's turn to fred if you want to say a word for us. >> thank you very muff. thank you for this opportunity. addressed a lot of topic said and i'm sorry if i was too long in my answers. i mentioned them very likely at
the very beginning but we can have further discussions but obviously our new partnership with the u.s. will be critical in africa. we mentioned covid-19 the vaccine and our active initiative but we are very much involved. and we have an agenda where we do work hand in hand with the u.s. and we need this commitment and i think the in coming months security and develop issue will be critical. and we didn't mention iran which is perhaps a surprise from a lot of people but we had a useful discussion about china and russia. let me say i do welcome the willingness to engage in dialogue with iran. and this is a common challenge.
i will do what i can to support any initiative from the u.s. side to reengage in demanding dialogue. and i will be here as i was here and available two years ago and 1 1/2 year ago in this dialogue. but i do believe we need to finalize and president biden has a critical role because they are much closer to the nuclear bomb than before in july of 15. second, we have to address ballistic missile issues and have to address the stability and this is the right timing. and we have to find a way to
involve in this discussion because they are some of the key partners of the region directly interested by the outcomes with our other friends of the region obviously. but it's impossible to fix this and ensure all the countries and i wanted to add by thanking you again for this discussion and your questions and by welcoming once again this initiative. >> thank you. >> mr. president, thank you so much. that was a tour de force. and thank you, ben, for guiding us through that. and congratulations, ben, on the few europe center. and thank you, mr. president, for helping us launch it. you brilliantly framed what you see at the heart of the u.s.-european relationship and you captured both the drama and
opportunities of our times. from the violence and xenophobia that is effect affecting our democracies, the vaccine issues affchina, turkey, trade, at the end. you outlined at the beginning a three part agenda for u.s.-european relations that can be executed starting with the rebuilding and strengthening of the multilateralism we together created after world war ii and has served us so well for 75 years. you called for new partnerships for our new and future challenges, climate, biodiversity, digital with the european union and united states guard. third, you focused on new work together with key middle east challenges, africa, the endo pacific again with the u.s. at the heart but also involving china and working with eu and
nato and nato you called the political body to harmonize our choices. it's the right time for that message. at the atlantic council we see ourselves as being in an inflection point, a historical inflection point important. and we know at that time the transatlantic relationship was divisive in a negative sense after one and in a positive sense after another. mr. president, i want to thank you for your significant comments in the launching of our new center. but to be truthful, mr. president, the entire atlantic council has been a europe center for 60 years. we have 14 programs and centers, regional, africa, latin america and middle east. we have functional centers on energy issues, economy, technology and security.
in this way, mr. president, we are designed to promote just the bold and future oriented transatlantic agenda you've outlined for us today as we work in common cause on all the issues you enumerated. mr. president,p us to be there at the) counsel and in our global atlantic counsel community for partners in robust and effective franco american relationships, stronger eu efforts and of course long-standing nato allies. and thank you for closing giving such an inspirational message to the next generation with this wonderful quote about post-covid, how the value of life will be higher than before after covid. that's a great way to send us off. thanks again, mr. president. and for our next atlantic counsel front page at the europe center, we'll continue to build this agenda by hosting the president of the european
counsel who will be live a week from now february 10th at 10:30 a.m. eastern standard time. we hope to see you all then and thank you again, mr. president and everyone at the new europe center. >> coming up later today here on c-span 3, president biden makes his first visit to the pentagon as president. he'll make remarks to defense department employees. that's set at 2:50 p.m. eastern and have it for you live here on c-span 3. this week we're featuring american history tv programs as a preview what's available. and tonight tonight ray suarez talks about his book. the book is companion volume to 2013 pbs documentary series. watch tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern and enjoy american history tv every weekend on
c-span 3. >> american history tv on c-span 3 exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this president's day weekend, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, author edward acorn talks about his book "every drop of blood" about abraham lincoln's second inaugural speech considered one of the greatest speeches in american political history. sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern on oral histories virginia coleman describes her experiences as a chemist for the manhattan project at oak ridge to build the atomic bomb. and monday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on american artifacts photographer and storyteller on the bust of american presidents created by a sculptor decaying on a private property in
virginia. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span 3. you're watching c-span 3 and today we're brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span 3 to viewers as a public service. >> joining us this morning is tm garret, the founder and ceo of the organization change memphis. andigator is also a former neo-nazi and kkk leader. good morning. thanks for being on washington journal this morning. >> good morning. thank you for having me. >> so before we get to your journey and how you became a former kkk lead, tell us about your background, where you grew up your early years. >> well, i'm born and raised in