mr. ZAMPERONI: So impressions from day one, a lot of thoughts, a lot of talking, a lot of thinking in these hours yesterday and today. And to dive right in, welcome State Secretary Antony Blinken and Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock. (Applause.)
Thank you so much for being here, and we’ll have a few questions and answers, but we’ll start with some sort of opening statement from both of you, opening remarks framed in the question, and I’ll start with you, Secretary Baerbock. We were, of course, talking about the future of democracy. What future do you see? It’s a broad question, but to cover the foundations for our democracies in this emerging digital world?
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Well, good morning, good afternoon to all. Thank you for this very important conference. It is a great pleasure to join this panel here with my colleague, but already in 11 months and also friend, Tony Blinken, as we have already met ten times in the last ten months as G7 partners, which shows that the answer to your question is clear the future is not as smooth and easy as we thought maybe a few years ago. However, I would like to say not despite, but because of the brutal Russian war against Ukraine, the future is only together because we have shown that in this difficult – and with regard to Ukraine, should we say the terrible current situation – we can only unite to be.
So I believe we are really on a transatlantic momentum that, since February 24, Germany, Europe and the United States are closer together than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And we are firmly united, not only in the support of Ukraine and the people and freedom, but that this transatlantic moment, in addition to all the horrors, offers great opportunity. Because I grew up here in Germany for 40 years of my life, always lived in peace, and we’ve had so many debates in Europe – and I know you have this in the US too – that everyone took peace for granted, as if the European peace order just fell out of the sky and it was there and people were arguing, so basically why do we need the European Union, why do we need transatlantic relations.
And now we know why: because the European Union, the transatlantic partnership, the transatlantic friendship is our assurance for a life in peace and in a more democracy where we can live freely as we please. And that is why building an even stronger transatlantic relationship for the 21st century is, I think, the most important task of the two of us as foreign ministers, the most important task for our governments and the most important task for all our citizens. Since we can only tackle the global challenges together, but since we are talking about a digitized world today, we must also always say that the European peace order, that the international peace order is not only attacked by bombs and missiles, but of course also attacked by disinformation, fake news, a systematic rival or even war against our democracies. And it has been formed by attacks with SPITs and (inaudible), with bots, and the source of tech power.
So yes, the digital revolution has brought us more freedoms for millions of people. We see this as we can see today in Iran with the brave women in Iran that the internet is not only a source of information but also that it spreads their struggle for freedom all over the world. But even in our societies we can see that the digitization is also importing for people who don’t have access – for example if we are talking about a completely different field, bank accounts. You have some regulations when you can open a bank account, even in democracies, even in social welfare states, you have to have a certain income account. But if you now have a smartphone, you can also transfer money digitally without having a bank account. So I think this shows how it actually brought us freedom.
And I just came back from Uzbekistan, and there wasn’t – it was with a group of people from 11th grade, and they were discussing their country’s positioning relative to Russia, and complaining that in the official media so much russian story going on. But they are informing themselves, they said, at least only through social media, through Telegram, through Facebook, through Twitter. So we can see that the digital revolution has also been a moment for freedom and for strengthening our democracy.
But this is of course not news. Everyone knows that the digital world also poses security risks and threatens our freedom. And to answer your question with three points – and I was asked for the input to go into a little detail – I think we have three points where we should – I would intensify our cooperation, especially with regard to a digitized world and the threat to our democracies.
First of all, we need to make sure that digital technologies are used for and not against people. And that makes our democracies stronger, not weaker. And this is also a message for developing or moving democracies to underline governments, such as in Central Asia, to say that if you try to regulate or ban your internet, it will not make your government and certainly not yours. societies stronger but weaker, because digital technologies must be used for the peoples.
And the US has made this very prominent in the recent US National Security Strategy. and we will also – as many of you know – write a Germany for national security for the first time in German history, taking this point with three points. First of all, we address the challenges in the digitized world, emphasizing that regarding using digitized democracy for the people and not against the people to have an open and safe cyberspace. In Germany, we were very fortunate to have had the attacks in our 2016 election – tough. We have had a situation where an emergency room at one of our hospitals had to close due to a cyber attack. You most recently had the largest targeted airports in the US. And in Montenegro and Albania, while we were at the General Assembly in New York, hackers shut down their entire economy. And we see – and now again in Russia – how much this attack on infrastructure has used as a weapon of war.
Europe and the US are responding to threats at all levels. We go after cyber criminals by, for example, blocking cryptocurrency payments. But also – and this is new momentum in this difficult time of war – we are working on virtual rapid response teams within NATO to ensure that our infrastructure, which is of course virtually connected to trains, airports or hospitals, can be better protected with regard to to hackers and other attacks.
Second, we fight intensively against the spread of disinformation. This isn’t big news either, but at this critical juncture of the past eight months, we’ve shown, I believe successfully, what a difference it makes when we work together. At the beginning of the war, we knew in theory that fake news is a form of instrument of this method of war. But if you remember the situation of the sanctions and the grain, we didn’t have it – I have to say that we have to be so frank and open, also in our debates and when we are at the G7 meeting in Schleswig-Holstein, we faced a situation where suddenly the whole world was talking about sanctions and that this would also affect food prices. So it’s clear that as we passed the sanction, we weren’t thinking ahead enough to underline what Russia’s fake news counterattack might be — not fighting the sanctions, but fighting the sanction’s narrative.
And so we had to accelerate, and I think this G7 meeting — it was so successful because at this meeting we made it very clear because we talked openly that this is a method of warfare where fake news is also used as a tool of war, and that food has been used by Russia as a war with instruments. We’re talking about the food war. Immediately after that came the counterattack of the Russians and that is why I am going to go into it so deeply, because it is not just about what is said at G7 meetings; it is a question for our entire open society. There was a relapse of the Russians saying how am I, and at this critical juncture there were some headlines in the German media that just took over this quote. But in a headline where you don’t know where the quote comes from – it was mine, it was Tony Blinken who said, well, this young lady is clearly misinformed, or if it’s the Russian spokesperson.
And I think it’s very important that we should talk about countering fake stories. Everyone says yes. But in wartime, what is the responsibility of the media itself with regard to this fake news? Because it is clear that the media is reporting what people are saying. So that’s our second point regarding fighting the spread of disinformation and undermining apparent democracies in times like these.
And on this point too, I think we should not shy away from our strongest instruments such as democracy. One of our strongest tools is the rule of law, so we must use the rule of law. And this is not to fight freedom, not even on the internet a regulated platform with rights and rules is normal in societies because every freedom also has limits if you oppose or hurt the freedom of another. So by regulating social media platforms to counter criminal content and hate speech on a regulated, normative basis, and working together in this regard, you do that with the Digital Services Act, and this is also one of the areas where we work closely together.
And my third point is investing in key technologies in the digital age. It is clear that artificial intelligence, quantum computing and semiconductors and 6G are the future. And the technology leadership will be crucial for security. In the EU, we are investing in standardization and the development of key technologies with the EU Data Act, with the European Chips Acts. We make sure new technology works in a way that reflects our values. But again, of course, the power comes only when we work together, because in this part this is not only Russia, but also other players in the world who handle heavy, heavy weight but also money in this matter.
Yes, the US and the EU, we are also competitors – also competitors in the digitized world. And I think we need to talk openly about this that we are competitors, but with regard to these crucial key technologies, where we also compete with countries around the world that are challenging our democracy, we need to talk about how we can work more closely together, allowing us our intelligence together. And I think the EU-US. The Trade and Technology Council will be one of the most powerful tools if we use it together to join hands across the Atlantic on key technologies. The municipality has already brought us closer to aligning standards, supply chains, export controls and investment screening, and now we need to get even closer to the day-to-day reality in that regard.
I must say quite frankly and openly that the work program on this is so ambitious that we cannot do it alone, certainly not the two of us. Well, I’m clearly not the most experienced expert on future technologies. I don’t know about you, but I tried programming a technology path in a university. It was better that others did it. But also with regard to our governments, with regard to our democracies, we can handle this and I would say digital attack on our democracies only together. This is not just a job for ministers and politicians and not just a job for digital companies. We can only be successful if we work together with researchers, with entrepreneurs, with young people who do have incredible expertise and innovative ideas. And this is also why we are here today, not only with those who are always coming together on this transatlantic momentum, but also with young people together. This is why we have the US-German Future Forum that brings people together, listens carefully to your ideas in the forum, but also afterwards when you present your proposals to strengthen our democracies and to show that you too, societies, stand united with facing this harsh winter.
Because ultimately, going back to where we are in November 2022, Putin is bombing Ukraine – not just cities, not just power plants, but infrastructure as well. We just got out of a bilateral. We’ve talked about what winter will mean. It means that electricity in the country is currently about 30, 40 percent blocked, but if this continues, children will not only hide under their table because they hear the bombings, but they are also in danger of dying because they no electricity and no heating.
And that’s why our mandate is so crystal clear. We must seize this transatlantic moment together. United as democracies, we are stronger than this war, and I think this is actually the most important message we need to send from this panel today. So thank you for this day and the work you did yesterday. (Applause.)
Mr ZAMPERONI: Thank you very much, Foreign Minister Baerbock, for outlining and emphasizing the importance of the transatlantic relationship at this time. Minister Blinken, I assume you agree with many of the points made by Secretary of State Baerbock, but the future of democracy in the digital world – does America, does the United States have a different view and approach? Or how do you see that? And what are your concrete steps the US is taking to achieve that?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, first let me say it’s great to be here with all of you, and Ingo, thanks for moderating. I also want to thank Bertelsmann for supporting this and bringing us together. But it is especially nice to be with my colleague and friend Annalena. We have worked together incredibly closely, as befits representatives of two countries who work together even more closely, precisely when we want to meet the challenges.
I have to say that I completely agree with everything Annalena has said. (Laughter.) Which isn’t unusual at all. On the contrary. But let me put it this way, and I’ll quickly add a few thoughts that completely coincide with what Annalena said.
We are at a turning point in history. The post-Cold War era is over. There is now a competition going on to shape what comes next, and technology is at the heart of that competition. Somehow it will reshape our economies, it will reshape our armies, it will literally reshape our lives, as we know every day from the phones we carry in our – the computers we carry in our pockets. And we know the profound effects this has on our lives.
Germany and the United States together have a very positive, affirmative view of what that transformation looks like. It’s about finding new ways to cure disease. It’s about using technology to make sure we can actually deal with climate change. It’s about using technology to ensure that our societies and economies can be powered in ways that don’t rely on fossil fuels. It’s about making sure we have a sustainable, healthy food supply around the world. It’s about finding ways to have truly resilient supply chains. And in the end, it’s also about having good jobs for our people going forward. And there are challenges inherent in each of these.
But as Annalena said, and as you all know and which you haven’t just talked about today, we also know that technology can be thoroughly abused. And I thought the way Annalena said it was just right. It should be for people, not against them. But it is used against them. It is used against them in various ways to undermine their privacy, to suppress their human rights, to literally harass people online, especially women and minorities, as we see around the world. It is deeply used for misinformation and misinformation, which, along with corruption, is what I believe to be the two most corrosive things of any democracy. And of course there are deep security issues for which we are responsible and others are responsible for where technology can be used for the sick, including cyber-attacks on infrastructure.
The fundamental point Annalena made that I very, very agree with is that in order to both harness the benefits of technology and address the drawbacks, collaboration is an absolute necessity. No country – be it the United States or Germany – can effectively tackle these challenges alone. There’s a premium, more than ever since I’ve been involved in these issues – and it’s coming to 30 years now – for finding ways to work together, coordinate. And that is no more true than when it comes to technology, when it comes to the digital world we live in.
Annalena spoke about the work we do together to set standards, set rules for the use of technology. That’s more important than ever. As far as values permeate technology, we want to make sure that the values we stand for together, the United States and Germany, make it through the day. And that means doing the hard work, the day-to-day work of sitting at the table and making sure we’re there in the first place and that we’re coordinated to do that, in shaping those rules.
It also means trying together to set up a race to the top, not the bottom, when it comes to the way technology is deployed, the way it is used. And if we succeed in that, then the countries that are now engaged in a race to the bottom will have to make a choice, whether they actually want to join this race to the top or whether it will likely fail over time, if we get it right.
But this all starts with coordination. It all starts with the work we do together. And there I must say that one of the things I am most grateful for, for which the United States is most grateful, is this partnership with Germany and, in my case in particular, the partnership with and the leadership of the German minister of Foreign Affairs.
This past year has been very special. As you have heard, we have met many times through the work of the G7, but also together on a bilateral basis, in other groups of which we are a part. And so much of this is about the leadership that brings them to these issues every day. It has made a huge difference in our ability to address these issues.
But fundamentally we have all these tensions between what we stand for as democracies and how technology fits into that. It promotes or undermines our democracies. We all live that every day.
Growing up, the thinkers I was influenced by were many of the classic social thinkers of the past centuries, such as John Stuart Mill. And the basic concept that John Stuart Mill had was that we’re dealing with a marketplace of ideas, and if we have a marketplace that functions well, the best ideas will compete and ultimately the best idea will prevail. It’s a beautiful vision. It is not the reality we live in precisely because technology, when misused, distorts the market.
We need to find ways together – and by together I mean exactly what Annalena said. It’s not just between governments. It’s not possible. Civil society, NGOs, the private sector, academia – we all need to come together and be on the same team. One of the things that has changed the most in my time in government is the information and digital space. And again, we have — the way we think about this has evolved dramatically.
When I started in government 30 years ago, two things happened every day. The same two things happened every day at the White House, where I worked. People got up in the morning, they opened the front door of their apartment or their house, and they picked up a paper version of the newspaper – in our case The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street News. And then if you had a television in your office, in our – at 5:30 p.m. you’d turn on the national news. And that was it. That was the common denominator for everyone.
Now we’ve had a massive democratization of information technology, which we think is probably for the better. Besides that we know it has also created an absolutely free-for-all, an almost – an information jungle in which sometimes, unfortunately, equalization can be made; the loudest voices prevail, even if what they say is not – does not reflect reality. None of us will be able to get a handle on that problem if we act alone, or – governments can’t do it alone; the private sector probably won’t do it alone; NGOs may have the right ideas, but this all needs to be realized.
So one of the reasons I’m so happy that you’re all together, that we’re all together, is to see if we can find new ways to work across our different companies. That’s the only way we’ll get there.
Finally, I will say this. It is very fitting that we are here, and I thank Annalena for inviting us here in Münster to the G7, but also to this meeting. Of course, the Peace of Westphalia introduced fundamental principles of international relations, the very principles that are being challenged by Russia today when it comes to Ukraine, namely the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations. If we let that challenge with impunity, the foundations of the international order will begin to erode and eventually crumble. And none of us can afford to let that happen.
The other thing that stands out about this place is that it was part of something called the Hanseatic League in the 14th and 15th centuries, an attempt to literally create trade routes in what is now Germany and across Europe, connecting people, connecting products, ideas to connect. And at best, that’s what the digital world is all about. Our challenge is to somehow make sure it’s doing its best, not its worst.
Technology is not inherently good or bad. What we make of it is, and that is our challenge together.
Mr ZAMPERONI: Thank you, Secretary Blinken. (Applause.) You both touched on some questions that I already had and that I’ve already covered, so let’s go into a little more detail on some of these areas.
But you’ve both outlined the dangers and the benefits that technology has, but also the danger, the tools it gives authoritarian governments and regimes, and also the opportunities for fake news that exist. Would you say there’s been a bit of a disenchantment with social media, with digital opportunities, and if you sum it up, somehow the negatives outweigh the benefits?
SECRETARY BLINK: Please. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Well –
mr. ZAMPERONI: Because it seems to me that so many challenges –
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: No. My short answer is no. Well, that goes for everything really. I think if you’re in politics and think the glass is half empty, you shouldn’t be there. I mean, then you gave up anyway. And this is true for me and also for the digitized world, but I think all the facts are on this side, and not just because I want to believe in a better future. Because yes, of course we have the fake news, we have everything we mentioned, and Tony outlined perfectly what the challenges are.
But if you look around the world, well alas, with regard to our sustainable goal, the United Nations SDGs, we are not where we wanted to be. With poverty we were on the right track, and then came the Russian war.
But in terms of education, for example, if you travel around the world – thank God also to other countries and not just the countries you know anyway – for example, if I’ve been to Niger, the president said, what I did’ I didn’t hear before of a male president, my main topic is education and reproductive rights. So because he couldn’t stop the birth rate explosion, he didn’t have that many schools, teachers, whatever, and he knew that if he can’t handle this kind of situation, the radicalization, the whole security, the terrorist threat will just explode. .
So even though he didn’t have a school building, while Niger is obviously like on this part of the development trajectory of all countries in the world, even there the issue of digitization – yes – in those parts where they do have electricity, where they do have digital platforms, he even talked about ok if i don’t have a school building i don’t have teachers but i have the option of internet.
Then all that situation in which the media is suppressed in all these countries, how young people inform themselves, how you give a platform to those who do not work in different parts. So I think the opportunities are much greater than the threat. However, this is – the hard part of the story, as Tony said, it’s not the best argument that sometimes comes through, but the one who is the loudest person. So we need to join forces to fight the bad side of digitization. And if we get better at this, because of course we’re not there yet, then I think this will be – give even more opportunities to all societies worldwide.
mr. ZAMPERONI: How does that shape your policy making?
SECRETARY BLINKS: Yes. Well, let me first say that I very much agree. Despite all these challenges, I remain fundamentally optimistic, including optimistic about technology, but also about the digital space more specifically. And I think if you take stock, I still think the glass comes out half full.
The progress we have been able to achieve and actually achieve in people’s lives is dramatic. It’s easy to take for granted; it’s easy to lose sight of. But it’s real and I think it will continue to exist, also in the social media field, in terms of our ability to connect people, to connect ideas, to connect products. That’s all real.
But one of the hallmarks that we know of every major transformation, technological transformation throughout our history, is that there are all kinds of unintended consequences, and they often progress much faster than governments or other regulatory bodies catch from them.
MR ZAMPERONI: So the question is, can we be fast enough?
SECRETARY BLINK: So this is a big part of our challenge. It’s – and again, this comes back to the point we both made about the need to find ways to work together not only between governments, but also between the different stakeholders. Because we don’t have them – in our case we often don’t have the local expertise or knowledge we need to be closely linked with business, with civil society, with academia. The more we find ways to do that, I think the faster we’ll actually manage to deal with it — not just deal with it in the first place; the whole idea – and Annalena mentioned this – is to get ahead of it. We need to better imagine what the unintended consequences could be and try to take them into account.
I think if you spoke to those who were at the founding, present at the creation of social media, they had an extraordinary vision of all the good and positive that can come from that. Not sure how much time they spent thinking about ‘but what if’. So part of our challenge is actually to imagine “what if” and try to build a guardrail against that. Now the problem is that we do that while the plane is flying at 60,000 feet. That’s difficult.
mr. ZAMPERONI: That’s the hardest part. That actually leads me to a question – to an idea I just had. When you recruit future diplomats for the (inaudible) ones under the State Department, do you really make that a requirement, a certain technical knowledge, or a sure – that you can get off the ground in this battle?
SECRETARY BLINKEN: (Laughter.) So I’m happy to start with this, because it’s kind of fascinating actually.
mr. ZAMPERONI: Or recruit here in this target group. I mean, I’m sure – (laughter).
SECRETARY BLINKS: Actually, please, there’s a table – (laughter).
mr. ZAMPERONI: Drop your business card.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: So let me — I got to the point where I last served in government in the Obama administration, where I’d be in these rooms that we’re so familiar with, windowless, where we have policy consultations with our teams , and I became convinced that pretty much all the stuff we were working on had technology, science, innovation somewhere as part of the answer. Maybe not the whole of the answer, but part of it. And the problem for many of us in these jobs – at least I speak for myself – is that we are not trained in these disciplines. Most of us come up through the humanities. And as a result, I got to the point where I thought I needed a scientist or technologist at the table to tell me if I needed a scientist or technologist at the table to understand, oh, this problem may have a solution that’s grounded is in science and technology.
So fast forward. We’re making a big effort at the State Department right now to do just that, to make sure we have that talent in the Department, both in terms of who we recruit, who we bring in to advise us, and how we can grow that talent from within the department. A few months ago we started a new agency. The desks form the basis, are actually the building blocks of our entire department. We now have a new cyberspace and digital policy agency to ensure that we are not only able to understand the efforts we are making together, but also lead globally when it comes to how cyberspace is regulated, what digital policies would must be. And a big part of that is making sure we have the people to do it.
So the short answer is that we want to make sure that everyone is at least essentially literate in technology, hopefully fluent and ultimately really knowledgeable.
mr. ZAMPERONI: Ideally, yes. Do you want to add something? Or else I’d like to ask you, if you have the people who implement that policy, there’s also the aspect of the technology that you need, for example. We see what is happening in Iran or in other countries where it is – or Uzbekistan, you mentioned the example as limited. What happens on that field, on that level? Have we achieved it?
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Well, if I may, may I go back to the people?
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Because once again we need to be honest and open here. No, we don’t have the capabilities, especially with regard to the people. I was talking about the birth rate. I mean, when we look at people in the workspace, we have big challenges, especially in this area. And I think this is something — because we’re talking about leadership, the US, Germany — in many areas, yes, we have the leadership. In other areas, at least for my country, I must say that we have to learn from other countries. And this is great work by foreign ministers; you don’t go there, at least this is my understanding, and to preach how wonderful your own country is. I mean, you can say, well, we tried this and it worked pretty well.
But so many things I learned, now also wartime from Ukraine, I went there. Ministry of Information – and it has another name, and I forgot, because when I enter the building, I always ask my team, “Are you sure we’re in the right building”, yes? Because it looked like a startup business. Then we entered a room where the average age was much lower than here, even though we invited our young people here, and we think we’ve really progressed in inviting young people to a conference. (Laughter.) But not only did they invite people there, but they also hired people who were, I think, 18 years old, obviously from the streets.
Now, they were well-educated people, but I mean, if I went to my ministry and even suggested that maybe we hire not just diplomats and not just lawyers, and what Tony said, we’d give IT experts have to think. This is already kind of a revolution because in our bureaucracy it’s really hard to say they don’t have to rotate and all this stuff. But if I should come and say you know what, forget education, university, degree; I’ve heard of a great guy in the Chaos Computer Club and I think he’s the best answer to our fake news strategy while the challenges and feminist foreign policy is an easy pass I’d say when I compare it to this.
So without any joke, I think this is what other countries are well in advance of, especially those countries where Ukraine is now waging a war of disinformation, but also the Baltic states, other countries around the world, where they just got a few centuries between the phone and the iPhone, and they are right now in the digitized world. And this is really something we need to work on with people, but also with technologies.
And that is why I would like to address one of the proposals that we have just heard in the video: your proposal for the establishment of an intergovernmental standardization body to ensure interoperability between public and private software. I wrote it down so as not to make mistakes and have another fake news video somewhere. In the US and Germany this was your proposal, but we in our national security strategy – which has not yet been published, but – our first point is to have interoperability between our ministries, yes, in government and between the local, federal and then at European level. Because that is already the challenge, that we use different software.
So now we all know, so I think we’ll be very quick with this, so we can just take this proposal on board to also have this possibility between the US and the European Union. And this would also answer your question. We are not there yet, but we know the way how we can go together to join forces again, and to understand standards. This was a great example, I think, you gave. We learned that clearly by (in German) –
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: — so trade; it sounds nice in German – trade doesn’t automatically change, so we’ve learned that now. But I also think you said very perfectly that not only are the ideas there, but that we should all support standardisation. And this is also new thinking, maybe even more so for the US than in Germany, because we like regulation. (Laughter.) Anyway, to understand that this is a good thing for democracies, because you can also counteract fake news. But also if we think of the – of a satellite, yes, so if we have not regulated space in this regard and if we do not have the standardization – and then it also comes, thank God, back to diplomats , lawyers of foreign ministries Business, because drawing up treaties like this is ultimately crucial and, I think, will be the way forward.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: And despite Shakespeare, there will always be room for lawyers. (Laughter.)
mr. ZAMPERONI: All right, and there’s not much room left for questions. So I’d really like to pitch it to the public, and we gathered a few questions. And the first one is from Heather Thompson, will you please stand up and just – we don’t have much time because we want a picture with all of you too –
mr. ZAMPERONI: — so if you could keep it brief.
QUESTION: Hello, thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here. My name is Heather Thompson. I am American, but now work in German civil society for a non-profit organization called Democracy Reporting International. My question is about digital foreign policy. I believe it is an essential part of our response to disinformation, digital inclusion and human rights online. I wonder, how can the US and Germany better work together to strengthen our digital foreign policy and fight these online threats? Thank you.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: Well, very soon, I think one of the things that we’ve both spent a lot of time on is building the structures, the organizations to do just that precisely because, like you, we’ve established this . as a critical necessity and a critical challenge. Annalena called something that had come about between the United States and the European Union, the Trade and Technology Council. A large part of the work of the municipality is exactly what you have just described, to actually have the most coordinated approach to digital policy.
Annalena also said that we also compete in ways; we must recognize that and not shy away from it. Competition is good as long as it’s according to the agreed rules, and ideally as long as, as I said, it’s a race to the top, not the bottom. But what we do with the TTC is just that. We’re trying to align our digital policies in all sorts of ways, especially when it comes to setting the norms, the rules, the standards that use all kinds of critical technology, whether it’s AI, whether it’s quantum – a lot discussions, of course, about 5G and what comes after – et cetera.
So we do. We also do this bilaterally between the United States and Germany. There are other forums where this is done. This is actually an important part of the work of the OECD, increasingly something that I think is being revived at a very important time.
MR ZAMPERONI: I’ll just go on to the next question so we can do a little more about it. Martin van der Puetten has a question.
QUESTION: Good afternoon. My name is Martin van der Puetten and I am director of international relations of the city of Dortmund, near Münster. It’s a question that touches on urban diplomacy, the subject of subnational diplomacy. So my question is how you want to involve the city – I don’t mean civil society; I mean the civil administrations, the city administrations – more systematically in your policy strategies, for example the China strategy, the Ukraine reconstruction strategy and the foreign climate policy strategy? So my request is, use the power of the cities as a strategic tool in foreign policy. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY BLINKS: Let me just say quickly that I don’t agree with you anymore. One of the things we’ve done – I just had the pleasure of appointing someone in the State Department as our senior official for sub-national relations, because we increasingly found that we work directly with cities, with municipalities, with regions, not just with our counterparts in national governments.
And for a whole host of reasons where you know very well what you do every day, cities are often the labs where all these things take place and we get the chance to test ideas and their application also with things in the digital room. So that’s incredibly powerful. It’s also very powerful, because at times when national governments for some reason, as we would popularly say, don’t get their act together, cities, states and regions can. And so that is becoming increasingly important.
mr. ZAMPERONI: Would you like to add something to that or —
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Yes, first of all thank you for your question, but also thank you for participating in our national security strategy, because this was also the first time we are drafting it. I made a tour through Germany in the summer. Many people asked why the foreign minister is going on tour in Germany. But because security issues are of course also security issues that touch – and we see it again with Ukraine – but touch on everyday life, and in many cities – we were just talking about what you said – with regard to our infrastructure, with regard to data protection . Well, it doesn’t help if we have the great ideas in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but in the town hall of Dusseldorf or Dortmund or anywhere else, even smaller cities, we have the next cyber attack.
That is why we are now integrating cooperation with infrastructure into our national security strategy. And now we are talking here – everyone knows that – about investments in China, for example. Again, they are not investing in our ministry in the capital of Berlin, but they are investing in all countries. Also the issue of cooperation between universities in other countries. So I think this is something that we’re already doing well, but of course we can step it up even more.
And again, also on the other hand when we go out, when I traveled to other countries, and my credo is always that I don’t just want to meet foreign ministers, although I like a lot of them very much, but also go to school classes to hear what the people are saying and to go to the cities. When I was in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I said, OK, I’m going to Sarajevo, but I would also like to meet the mayors of two other cities. And it was no coincidence that those mayors were much younger than the partners I met at the federal level, who had been fighting the same battle for 30 years. The mayors of these three cities of different ethnic backgrounds met for the first time, because I said I can only meet all three of you together, I don’t have enough time, so it would be great if you could all get together, otherwise I don’t meet anyone.
So this can also be a small tool to really use foreign policy completely differently when you move to a different level segment. And again, giving power to different people, different ages, different gender, different religion. That is why I would also pass the ball back to you because you are employed by a city. We have gone back in time, thanks to the US and other post-World War II allies, the understanding of (inaudible) partnership of cities and of sports clubs. And then we all traveled to France and somewhere else to have this friendship.
I think that, even in a digitized world, this is again something that we need to intensify, as Tony said, the collaboration between cities, between regions. In the US, when we saw the federal level pull out of the federal-level climate talks, we had this coalition of less than two degrees between Baden-Württemberg and California, and this is something that we can build in any policy area. So I would like to invite everyone here, including in the different institutions in the different organizations, to intensify the discussion you just mentioned.
mr. ZAMPERONI: Good. Keeping it short, because I know you’re on a tight schedule for the rest of the day, we still have room for one more question. Alexandrea Swanson, please.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Honored to be here. My name is Alexandrea Swanson, also a – no, an American citizen based in Berlin. I work at the Federation of German Industry, Digitization Innovation Department, where I lead an initiative called SheTransformsIT. And my question is: do I go back to the topic of feminist foreign policy. So Minister Baerbock, you mentioned this briefly at the beginning and I would like to know – so we know that you first implemented this in Germany. What does that look like since implementation? And Secretary Blinken, are there any discussions about its implementation at the US State Department? Thank you.
mr. ZAMPERONI: You each have a minute. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Well, the strategy is so long and then people always say, well, and she doesn’t explain the whole strategy. Well, it’s about rights, resources and representation. And I just stick to the case. Representation here because I think it’s always totally underestimated. It just doesn’t matter if you have the first female foreign minister after 150 years. And Tony suffers from this question because we had a time at the G7 while in between there are a lot of elections where there was a majority of women. Anyway, I’ve been asked –
SECRETARY BLINK: It was very difficult. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: A few weeks – because he wasn’t allowed in the women’s photo, so – (laughter). Anyway, a few weeks ago I was asked if I felt good in this group of men, and I said, well, just look at the picture; this is not a group of men. But it’s no coincidence that it’s two female ambassadors sitting in the front row here. So behind our representation issues on different areas, it’s also something that touches our own ministry, where we can make the biggest difference. It is my decision who I send as key ambassadors to the major capitals of the world. I can decide who to send there and who not, so I think it’s a lot of policy areas related to rights – Iran, women’s rights; regarding Afghanistan and all this stuff.
But in the end it always comes back to you and your own ministry, and I think we can do a lot of things there, and again, there’s room for improvement. So Tony ran the ad for the IT experts. I’m doing the ad for female future generations who want to serve in the State Department. You’re more than welcome. (Applause.)
SECRETARY BLINKEN: And I can only applaud that and tell you that the home is very much a part of our focus. And actually, I think where we’ve made the most progress in recent years at the State Department is the higher ranks with women in leadership positions. That is the case now, where the Deputy Secretary of State, our representatives at the United Nations are well known to all; under secretary of political affairs, who is also here with us, Toria Nuland, one of the leaders of our foreign policy.
But let me broaden this very, very quickly. One of the things I’m working on is trying to make sure we have a State Department that really reflects the country we represent, and that starts with women, of course, but it doesn’t end there. One of the challenges we’ve had is that we haven’t had a department like this for many, many decades. And I won’t go into details because time won’t allow it, but I’m determined that we’ll get there by having a really more representative department.
And this is not because it is simply the right thing to do. It is because it is the smart and necessary thing to do. One of the great strengths of the United States in everything it does is our diversity, and when it comes to foreign policy, we operate by definition in a diverse world. If we don’t get everyone to the table in our own department, in our own deliberations – if we don’t bring their different ideas, perspectives, experiences, knowledge to the table – we are failing everything we do, and we are hurting our ability to act effectively in a diverse world. It starts with women, of course, but it also includes all the groups that make up our society and that need to be represented in, act in, and direct our foreign policy. Otherwise we are not really doing our own country any service.
QUESTION: Iran women – can you say just two words about what you do or talk about to support the women of Iran?
FOREIGN MINISTER BAERBOCK: Well, this is also one of the main topics at our G7 meeting. This sounds like, “well, this is just one of the topics”, but this is something special, because these kinds of G7 meetings normally have a long agenda and focus on the issues related to economic development. So this is really a time when we say we are raising a human rights issue, we are raising a question of democracy and freedom at this G7 meeting to coordinate the various bilateral actions that we are taking because we are running out of time . And the German public knows this – I published a new four-dimensional proposal last week on how we can support the women of Iran, and it’s not just – Tony mentioned it – it’s not just women, it’s like the diversity of the Iranian society says, well, this is enough and we want to live in freedom like all – many other countries. So this is what we’re doing here at the G7, pooling our support for the people of Iran in terms of sanctions, in terms of providing shelter for those in high protection, but also in terms of bringing these atrocities to the UN system, to the UN bodies, because that is not there automatically.
Again, as democratic states, we need majorities not only in our own countries, but also in UN bodies for human rights violations. And everyone in this room knows, I think, how difficult it is, but if it is not the leading democratic economic powers who are also prepared to take on this fight, saying that we do not automatically have a majority in a human rights body, but that we fight for it, I think we should not talk about democracies. And this, again, is why I am so grateful that we are also working so closely on the issue of supporting the people of Iran.
SECRETARY BLINKEN: And just a very brief footnote: Also in terms of technology, one of the things we are trying to do together is to ensure that Iranians have the ability to communicate with each other and with the outside world. And technology is at the center of that, making sure there are no barriers as far as we have anything to say about getting that technology to people who need and want to use it. That is also part of the work we do.
Mr. ZAMPERONI: Good closing statements, and I am happy to announce, Mr. Secretary, that you can be in this picture that is now appearing, so –
SECRETARY BLINK: Very good. Thank you. (Applause.)
