Our open societies are under attack. And unfortunately, both from the outside and from within. After the end of history, as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ending Cold War were enthusiastically branded, history did not stop. A short period of peace and stability – at least in the Western Hemisphere – ended faster than many imagined. International terrorism, civil wars and migration are putting pressure on our societies from the outside, while the rising degree of economic and social interconnection increases our vulnerability. This all comes at a time when the enormous positive cultural changes of the last decades nevertheless threaten to overwhelm and alienate some parts of our population. Our open societies are already endangered by this development – it could destroy them from within. And on top, digital technologies are increasing the speed of economic and cultural changes as well as our connectivity and vulnerability.
There is no denying it: Our free and prosperous lifestyle faces enormous challenges – on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet instead of facing and overcoming the obstacles together, it seems that the transatlantic spirit and cooperation are dwindling by the hour. Anti-Americanism is getting stronger in Europe, the TTIP negotiations failed and the new US President seems to be more comfortable with dealing with despots and closed societies, than with Europe. If we are to overcome this alienation, we do need to think about how to update the Transatlantic relationship. We need a new story of who we are and why we should cooperate.
Who are we – the “free” West?
Well, after hundreds of years of struggle against kings, despotic governments and of course cultural constraints, it should be clear: We are open societies, meaning democratically ruled countries with guaranteed personal rights and economic freedoms. People can freely choose their jobs, their religion, their life-partners and how they want to express themselves. They can vote their governments out of office and are protected by laws from random or malicious acting state agents. In many ways, the rule of law is a key element of our open societies. It protects individuals from each other and against an overreaching state. It treats everybody the same and demands to be respected and followed by every person.
Open societies under attack
The existence of external threats may be inevitable. As the world gets more connected and closer, terrorists start to act globally. Supply routes can be challenged, as happened by Somalian pirates. And migration may get out of hand, as the level of wealth, freedom and security in some countries becomes apparent to people living in worse circumstances. All of this is not surprising, yet dealing with these external menaces calls for a closer cooperation between the US and Europe by itself.
This need gets even stronger when looking at the internal threats. There are of course also home-grown terrorists, but the real internal dangers for our open societies run deeper. A growing portion of our populations – both in the US and in Europe – are alienated by the degree of our economic and cultural openness. As jobs shift between sectors and countries or simply change, the feeling of insecurity grows in some social groups. This is apparently strengthened by the profound cultural changes – from migration to the legalization of gay marriage – in the last decades. And, last but not least, the mentioned external threats deepen the feeling of alienation from our governments and societies. A longing for authoritarian strong leaders in the style of Putin follows, as well as a longing for radical solutions. The effects of this development lead to the election of Trump and to the good election results of Marine Le Pen in the first round of the presidential elections in France. Great Britain’s Brexit vote or the election results of the German AfD are further examples.
It´s the rule of law, stupid!
So, to resume: We face the same problem on both sides of the Atlantic. We are under attack from the outside, while facing a growing contempt for our societies from within. Overcoming these obstacles together is an obvious answer, at least to the first part of the problem. Controlling terrorism, dealing with civil wars and fostering worldwide stability are tasks for Europe and the US. Neither has the hard and soft power to achieve them alone. So focusing our Transatlantic partnership yet again on security issues makes practical sense.
It may also be the answer to reviving the transatlantic spirit and to battle the growing alienation from openness and freedom. We will not be able to stop digitization. We should not halt or reverse the cultural progress – this would compromise the very core of our openness. So, we should at least focus on eliminating the third source of the progressing alienation: concerns with the security situation. Focusing on security is not only compatible with our open lifestyle. It is in a way a definitive part of open societies, if security policy is understood as upholding and defending the rule of law – the very core of our open and free societies.
A fairly optimistic conclusion
Even though transatlantic relations are not in a good shape, the future may be brighter. Europe at least understands the need to develop its own capacities in dealing with security threats. It is also working on better cooperation on security issues – a potential base for the future deepening of US and European cooperation on security issues. The US may realize after trying an isolated approach for the next one or two years, that it needs partners now more then ever. So even though transatlantic cooperation faces some difficult years, a successful revival may lie ahead. Concentrating on security issues and the enforcement of the rule of law may be an important element in achieving this revival.
Hello Lindsey!
Thank you for your article. I agree completely and would be interested to know how Language Exchanges could be further established? As anyone knows who has studied a language – it is always easier in the country. Due to the distance, however, this does not seem widely accessable. However, it might bring the further advantage of spending time in ‘another culture’. How many (college) students take exchange semesters from the US?
Thanks again and best wishes, Pauline
Hi Justus, that was a really great article! I especially enjoyed the focus on the rule of law – something that probably goes even further to uniting “the west” than any other single element. Do you think there is space for the EU and its member states to work more closely with the US regarding domestic stability and learning from each other regarding policing efforts? The subject of policing has been a huge topic in the US in the recent past, particularly due to the death of young black man at the hands of police – something that does not seem to be a major issue in Europe.
Hi Andrew, the discussions in Germany about the police is a totally different one. There are some accusations that some parts of the police might be supporters of rather right-leaning views which came up when the behavior of the police during demonstrations were discussed. However, in general, I’d say that there is a general trust in the police and there have rarely been extreme incidents such as in the US.
I am afraid part of the problem is that an alarmingly high number of policemen were not found guilty. I have a suspicion that, at least partially, the jury system is to blame. I would be interested if there are any discussions in the US on the existence / abolition of juries?
Hi Andrew,
thank you for your feedback! I agree that the rule of law is one of the core values in the west. Rules of conduct for the police are an important part of such a rule set. And I do think that there is a lot to learn from each other regarding policing. There is for example a discussion in Europe, whether we need a common police force, a kind of European FBI. I am not sure though, whether such an exchange could help to solve the problems with police violence and racial prejudice. Maybe there are different standards in training and code of conduct, but I am not sure.
Hi Justus,
thanks for your article! I am not sure if I got it right – I would appreciate your explanation! What exactely do you mean by “It is in a way a definitive part of open societies, if security policy is understood as upholding and defending the rule of law – the very core of our open and free societies.”? (probably it’s my English…) Do you mean that all law should be enforced and you mean “security” in a broad sense? Or do you mean all issues related to internal security only? Or also external security?
The reason I ask is that I see a fundamental difference in the defence of internal and external security, although with hybrid warfare, the distinction is harder to make (e.g. Russian propaganda in Germany, IS terrorism in Belgium by Belgian citizens). I agree that cooperation is necessary to provide for external security, e.g. for the IS.
However, that is different for internal security. Only our own state has the political mandate to enforce the law, not any other state. That does not mean than cooperation of security agencies should not be pursued but should, in the best case, be restricted to investigations outside the territory (e.g. the hint of the US intelligence service that a potential endangerer entered German territory). This is in particular true when it comes to German citizens. Even then, they are under the protection of the German constitution and only the German government should have the political power to balance between the right for privacy of that person and the right for security of the society.
Or is that too naive a view? Which differences do you see between internal and external security? I am curiously waiting for your reply.
Best,
Marie-Louise
ear Marie-Louise,
thank you for your questions. I had indeed no more space to elaborate on the differences and similarities of internal and external security. I am also not really a security policy expert, I just think that this is one topic we really have to tackle in order to strengthen our democracies.
So let me try to explain my view: First of all I think the traditional distinction between internal and external security gets more and more blurred. In addition to hybrid warfare, propaganda and terrorism the main reason is in my opinion cybersecurity. It is very hard to distinguish where a cyberattack came from and what intentions lead to it. Does it come from within a country or from outside? Was it done by criminals or by a military unit? This is very hard to distinguish.
The rule of law is usually used in the context of internal security. It means to uphold the laws in a given country. But, external security is an implicit condition for a rule of law environment. External threats also endanger the institutions and conditions necessary to uphold the rule of law. And I guess there is also an international rule of law (which was for example broken by invading and annexing the Krim).
Last but not least, I also think that the feeling of insecurity that some people apparently feel, is fueled both by internal and external threats. So we do need to tackle both.
Part II:
And I do see a lot of room for transatlantic cooperation both on external and internal security and regarding cybersecurity: Exchanging information, fighting organized crime, defining common safety standards for IT-system and so on. Cooperation on such issued would in my opinion not undermine national sovereignty. I won`t elaborate on external security, since we agree here.
I also think that there is potential for a new narrative for transatlantic cooperation: We`ll work together to defend our values and the rule of law. I do share your concerns regarding the actions of intelligence agencies (especially in cyberspace). That`s why I choose the rule of law as the focal point. Upholding the rule of law does not mean to prevent for example terrorism at all costs. It also means to stick to your own rules and values. A renewed transatlantic relationship could and in my opinion should include rules for the conduct of intelligence agencies. This is something we might have to tackle anyway, if we are to renew the transatlantic spirit.
I am not sure this is possible (especially right now), but I think it could work for a narrative and would be better than the current Wild West status quo of our intelligence agencies. What do you think?
Hi Justus,
Thank you for your interesting piece. I fully agree with you, “Western” societies (such as the US and Germany) are characterized by the rule of law, an achievement their citizens strongly benefit from. I’d be interested to hear from you, which specific ideas you may have in mind to defend this achievement? This may stem from my ignorance or mistunderstanding of your article, but I would argue that in general, the mechanisms to protect the rule of law within Germany and the US function well, only the acceptance of this achievement may be dwindling. I’d be curious to hear your suggestions in regard to reviving the acceptance of the rule of law in the face of internal and external pressure.
Hi Guido,
thanks for your comment! I agree with you, our institutions for defending the rule of law work in general very good. Yet, some people apparently have a different feeling. Which, at least in my opinion, is one factor in its shrinking acceptance. And there are some areas – for example housebreakings and also cybersecurity – where we do have negative developments. So the first thing to do is in my opinion to improve the police work in these areas. I also hope that a renewed transatlantic security partnership could help to make people feel safe again. I am not sure what we can do to get people back who are against the rule of law – but I hope this is not a majority. What do you think? Is there anything else we could do?
Hi Justus,
I absolutely support your plea for more cooperation in security matters between Europe and the U.S. and especially among the EU Member States. At the same time I have become a bit skeptical if there is enough space to work more closely on security issues. I think it is a fact that every Nation generally support the basic demand on more security cooperation, but there is no great vision for a prototype of security governance or something like that. Security cooperation means for me in general sharing of valuable information under an alliance of free, sovereign and equal States. Security policy touches the centerpiece of national interest and is built on trust and consideration. This for me is also the reason why the dream of an European intelligence service or an European FBI is unbelievable. If more binding coordination of interests, abilities, knowledge or information in a mode of continuous governance could be realized, we are on the right course. Do you think in the event-driven field of security there could be more possible?
Greetings
Tim
Hi Tim,
I agree with you assessment. Intensified security cooperation would need a level of trust, which is even lacking between the EU member states. Yet, I feel it is necessary. A common understanding and common binding rules could help to ease the concerns. For example a code of conduct for how our intelligence services treat the citizens of all partners. What do you think?
cheers
Justus
Justus, thanks for your article and a very interesting point of view. I totally agree with your conclusion, saying “concentrating on security issues and the enforcement of the rule of law may be an important element in achieving this revival”.
What came to my mind though is, how this approach can be made attractive for the societies? What I am trying to say is, that security issues and laws might not be the topics to get people enthusiastic about the transatlantic friendship again. I was wondering, how you wanna “sell” and “market” this approach in order to not only get politicians themselves but also the societies on both sided of the Atlantic into your approach.
Hi Simon,
thanks for your comment. I feel that we need to combat a growing feeling of insecurity (at least in some party of our societies). I am not sure if these people would actually get enthusiastic, if we realize a new security partnership (maybe in Eastern Europe, e. g. in the Baltic states). But I do hope this would help to ease their concerns. Anyway, a new security cooperation is only one part of reviving the transatlantic partnership. Exchange programs, cultural and economic relations are also very important.
cheers
Justus
Justus,
Great article. I was wondering if you could point to a few examples on how to shore up the rule of law both in theory and in practice. Many recent legal and policy developments seem to limit human freedom or give a preference to complicated regulatory schemes instead of the rule of law.
Best,
Brandon