The EU-US Trade and Technology Council continues to be a valuable initiative for transatlantic cooperation – even if the outcomes of the negotiations will not always make the news

On 5 December, the leadership of the European Commission and US cabinet officials met in Washington, DC for the third ministerial summit of the EU-US Trade and Technology Council (TTC). The TTC initiative, launched in September last year, aims to facilitate continuous transatlantic cooperation on key technology and trade issues. Recently, however, disagreements between the European Union and the United States have overshadowed that cooperation – and threatened to disrupt the summit.

The “Buy American” provisions in the US Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have frustrated EU leaders, who fear that massive subsidies for American industry will result in companies fleeing Europe. The Biden administration, meanwhile, is dissatisfied with the EU’s hesitance to leverage the TTC more aggressively against China. These disputes, an apparent lack of concrete new outcomes, and the exclusion from TTC negotiations of some of the biggest transatlantic tech and trade issues – such as the IRA or the legal conundrum of transatlantic data flows – have led many observers to conclude that the TTC’s days are numbered.

But, just as the TTC summit in May involved some exaggeration of the initiative’s success stories, the doomsday judgments on the current state of play are also misled. These dire prognoses largely stem from unrealistic expectations, as well as an incomplete understanding of the TTC’s scope and the functioning of the EU – which are closely linked.

Understanding the TTC

The European Commission and the Biden administration established the TTC as a non-binding instrument. In doing so, they took lessons from the failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership initiative and the damage the Trump era caused to relations between the EU and the US. The TTC’s non-binding setup puts the European Commission in the driving seat, with limited roles for member states and the European Parliament. This simplifies negotiations and facilitates an agile approach to addressing common evolving challenges. However, it also means that the scope and applicability of TTC decisions are inherently limited.

At the inaugural TTC summit, the EU and the US made the modest commitment to “coordinate approaches to key global technology, economic and trade issues … and to base policies on shared democratic values”. Crucially, both sides emphasised that TTC cooperation would not interfere with the regulatory autonomy of the EU and the US. So, grand expectations that the TTC would permit swift regulatory alignment, for example in the governance of digital platforms, were naive at best.

Similarly, the desire in the US to mould the TTC into a geopolitical vehicle aimed at China is mostly incompatible with EU reality. Ursula von der Leyen’s “geopolitical Commission” may, at least partially, share the United States’ ambitions and have a somewhat solidified position on China. But that is not the case for the 27 member states and for the union as a whole. European foreign and security policy continues to be shaped predominantly in EU capitals – not in Brussels – and is often insufficiently aligned between member states.

The issue of export controls in the TTC context illustrates this. At the Paris summit, leaders – and accordingly the media – hailed the coordinated and unprecedented EU and US technology export controls against Russia and Belarus as one of the TTC’s greatest success stories. Certainly, TTC engagement between the European Commission and White House officials played a role in facilitating the swift coordination of those controls. But, in the end, it was member states that negotiated and decided upon the measures in the Foreign Affairs Council, outside the auspices of the TTC. Importantly, it was the imminent security threat of a war in the EU’s neighbourhood that forced member states to swiftly align.

This is fundamentally different from leveraging the TTC to get the EU on board the United States’ new approach to strategic technology export controls against China, through which it aims to limit the country’s military and technology development. Although the EU acknowledged the geostrategic significance of broader allied export controls at the TTC’s inaugural summit, the bloc’s reality means the power to implement such controls largely lies with member states, not the European Commission. And, crucially, threat perception and economic dependencies with regards to China differ between EU member states, as well as between the EU and the US.

It should therefore be no surprise that the US has as yet failed to convince key member states to follow its export control approach against China. And it would be unreasonable to expect the TTC, a commission-led tech and trade initiative, to deliver concrete outcomes on this security policy issue. The TTC’s configuration and the realities of EU foreign policy mean the initiative simply cannot become the immediate geopolitical tool the US envisages.

The value of the TTC

Nevertheless, the TTC can make valuable contributions to nudging the geopolitical needle; it can facilitate coordination, foster mutual understanding, enshrine common policy principles, and aid in the development of compelling narratives – thereby setting the tone and baseline for further actions. But these small steps are difficult to sell as the grand milestones political leaders and the media like to see.

One such small step is this week’s announcement of two TTC initiatives for secure digital infrastructure projects in Jamaica and Kenya. The projects themselves will have limited impact and will hardly be headline grabbing. But they are a clear EU-US response to China’s assertive global infrastructure investments. This new transatlantic cooperation on connectivity investments in third countries, involving a variety of important stakeholders – including development and financing institutions – can have lasting and meaningful effects. Therefore, a proposed memorandum of understanding between the US Development Finance Corporation and the European Investment Bank to increase cooperation in connectivity financing, if followed through, will be of geopolitical significance.

Moreover, although the TTC cannot facilitate full regulatory alignment in technology policy between the EU and US, the initiative can help advance a common understanding on underlying principles – which can have far-reaching effects. The release of a joint roadmap towards common terminologies and metrics to assess the trustworthiness and risk of artificial intelligence (AI) is a case in point. An agreement on a common taxonomy and approach to risk management could pave the way for joint AI standards. This, in turn, would strengthen the positioning of the EU and the US in international standards bodies and help disseminate transatlantic standards across the globe. But, much like a memorandum of understanding on digital development cooperation, a shared repository of metrics to measure AI trustworthiness is unlikely to make the news.

TTC-facilitated convergence in these and other areas may fall short of full regulatory alignment, but it can advance common principles and reduce barriers to trade and research cooperation – with small steps working towards broader, long-term goals.

Room for improvement

This is not to say that the TTC has been an all-out success. Indeed, it is frustrating to see transatlantic friction result in the neglect of some areas in which more cooperation is urgently needed. For example, if the EU and the US do not find a way to collaborate more closely on 6G development, there is a real risk that China’s Huawei will dominate global markets. The issue featured prominently in previous summits, but it now appears to have been pushed down the TTC agenda. This is likely because the US administration, under pressure from US industry lobbyists, continues to pursue premature promises of Open RAN as a way of diversifying the market in favour of new American competitors. But this comes at the cost of cooperation with the EU in building Western 6G technology champions that can compete against Chinese giants.

Such disagreements, alongside the tensions over “Buy America” and the EU’s geopolitical immaturity, endanger continued TTC cooperation. Yet, the initiative has not exacerbated these issues; instead, it provides additional incentives to resolve them. It is vital for EU and US officials – despite misconceptions about and frustration with the TTC – to defend and push the initiative, which remains a valuable vehicle to achieve positive long-term impact.

It seems a reminder is necessary that the TTC is primarily a mechanism “to coordinate approaches to key global technology, economic and trade issues … and to base policies on shared democratic values”. The TTC will not resolve all transatlantic trade and tech issues. The EU will not become a US-like geostrategic force overnight. The US will not become an EU-like digital regulation frontrunner any time soon. And TTC summits will not always create big (positive) headlines. Once that is clear on both sides of the Atlantic, the TTC can continue to make valuable contributions towards a transatlantic market for emerging technologies and digital transformation based on common values.

Source: ECFR.EU

The post Setting the tone: The value of the EU-US Trade and Technology Council appeared first on Policy Print.

Lori Pitts ’12 is a perfect example of the ways a liberal arts education can shift perspectives and open minds to new possibilities. What began as a pre-med journey to become a pediatrician grew into a rejuvenated passion for theatre and a realization that it can change lives significantly and forever.

And that’s exactly what she’s doing now in Washington, DC.

As the founder of Voices Unbarred, Pitts uses Theatre of the Oppressed to reimagine the prison system alongside those who are directly impacted and advocate for social and policy change. 

With Theatre of the Oppressed, Pitts applies games and tools that help people analyze the world around them, explore social and political issues, and create solutions. For example, a group might play a common children’s game like Red Rover, but through the game, the participants start talking about who was called over or what it felt like to be called to the other side, and how that might relate to a real life issue, such as who is being incarcerated in America. Based on these discussions, participants of Voices Unbarred use their stories and ideas for change to create performances around real issues surrounding the criminal justice system.

A diverse audience, including local policy makers, is invited to attend performances to learn from people with lived experience and participate in collective problem solving. Some of their performances even result in attendees designing policies to be incorporated into bills proposed in front of the DC Council. 

“The power of theatre is often overlooked, and that’s what drew me to it,” she said. “When you step into other people’s shoes and build empathy, it can show you a different society and what’s really possible. Often, we only look at the entertainment part of traditional theatre, but Theatre of the Oppressed gives more people the tools to shape the world around them.”

When Pitts first visited Davidson all the way from her home in Texas, she wasn’t sure if it would be the right option. Most friends from high school were staying close, going to Texas Tech, the University of Texas or Texas A&M, and Davidson was not well known in her circles. But a Collegeboard recommendation and a piece of Davidson mail piqued her interest enough to check it out.

“Davidson was the very last school I toured, and I texted my mom immediately and told her it was the one,” she said. “I visited the weekend Davidson went to the Elite 8 with Stephen Curry, and seeing the way the community came together really gave me that family feel. Even when we lost, everyone was still so pumped up and supportive. It was an easy choice.”

As she explored pre-med classes, Pitts, who earned the Medlin Family Scholarship, also took “Theatre and Social Justice” with Theatre Professor Sharon Green. This class completely changed how she thought about theatre and how it could and should be about much more than performance. She also interned with the Friends of the Arts team on campus.

Pitts had never worked in a prison before starting her organization, but it didn’t take long for her to see the powerful opportunities theatre can introduce to the incarcerated. Through Theatre of the Oppressed workshops, script writing and interactive performances, participants affected by incarceration are given a platform to share their stories, tackle complex issues and lead the criminal justice reform movement.

“Prisons are all about dehumanizing and taking away people’s stories,” she explained. “Theatre naturally combats that, and it’s a creative outlet that can help people heal from trauma while looking at one’s own story and the stories of others in a different way. You are the expert of your own life, and this reminds people of that fact. And who better to advocate for change than the people experiencing the issue?”

Going into prisons and working with incarcerated individuals is one part of Voices Unbarred. Another part involves hiring people who are formerly incarcerated to perform in the community and become paid Community Advocates. During the pandemic, Pitts also co-launched a “CorrespondARTS” program, which involved mailing multidisciplinary arts packets to people in prisons that were extremely isolated in lockdown so they could participate on paper. She also began a program for youth impacted by incarceration.

“The big dream is to completely reimagine the prison system–move away from punishment, explore the physical setting, dismantle the intersectional systems funneling a disproportionate number of Black and brown people into our facilities,” she said. ”I also want to change who gets to lead the conversation and whose experience is valued. And I want to do all of this through the power of theatre. It would be great to work with everyone in DC Jail and nearby facilities and really go deep into this community and continue to strengthen our advocacy pathway.” 

In early 2022, Voiced Unbarred merged with Ally Theatre Company, which produces theatre designed to engage audiences through acknowledging and confronting systemic oppression in America. Pitts became their Artistic Director, and the two companies became one. Her work has been shared on some of the largest stages in Washington, DC, including the Kennedy Center. 

Through all the success she’s found, Pitts often thinks of Davidson and where it all began. Her appreciation came full circle during the pandemic when she was invited by Green to speak to one of her classes over Zoom.

“I was thrilled to talk with students, and I’d love to do it again,” Pitts said. “It was at that moment that I was like, ok, I’m a guest speaker for my college. I’ve made it.”

Source: Davidson.Edu

The post Lori Pitts ’12: Changing Lives and Policy through Theatre appeared first on Policy Print.

House Republicans are plotting tactics for their new majority and weighing how to use their leverage to enact a laundry list of demands, with many zeroing in on an issue with enormous economic implications: Raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

It’s an issue confronting House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, who is rounding up the votes to win the House speaker race and facing pressure from some of his colleagues to more forcefully detail how he plans to handle the sensitive topic before they decide whether to support him on January 3 for the most powerful position in Congress.

In interviews with CNN, more than two dozen House GOP lawmakers laid out their demands to avoid the nation’s first-ever debt default, ranging from new immigration policies to imposing deep domestic spending cuts. And several Republicans flatly said they would oppose raising the borrowing limit even if all their demands were met, making McCarthy’s narrow path even narrower.

“I’m a no, no matter what,” Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, said of raising the debt ceiling.

Despite Congress suspending the nation’s borrowing limit three times when Donald Trump was president, even under all-GOP control of Washington, lawmakers say it is highly uncertain how the matter will be dealt with in a divided Congress next year – reminiscent of the furious battles between House Republicans and Barack Obama’s White House that put the country on the brink of economic disaster.

For McCarthy, the debt ceiling debate will represent one of his most difficult balancing acts if he’s elected speaker: He would need to work with Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden to cut a deal and avoid economic catastrophe without angering his emboldened right flank for caving into the left. And unlike other bills in the GOP House that will die in the Democratic-led Senate, a debt ceiling increase is one of the few must-pass items awaiting the new Congress – something many Republicans see as critical leverage.

Some Republicans say it is incumbent upon McCarthy to spell out his strategy on the issue before they decide if they will support him in the speakership race – when the California Republican can only afford to lose four GOP votes. In one private meeting with a member of the House Freedom Caucus, McCarthy was urged to take a harder public stance on the coming policy issues for next year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“Several (House Freedom Caucus) members have made spending a main issue,” one GOP lawmaker who has been critical of McCarthy told CNN.

Rep. Scott Perry, the leader of the hardline Freedom Caucus, confirmed it’s an issue that has been broached with McCarthy as he has been wooing members ahead of next month’s vote.

“Debt ceiling has been a conversation that has been perennial in every single conversation or meeting around here since I’ve been here,” the Pennsylvania Republican said in an interview.

But some moderate Republicans – whom McCarthy needs to protect in order to keep their fragile majority in 2024 – have expressed uneasiness over using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, risking both a catastrophic default and the political blame, especially if Republicans push for cuts to popular entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Republicans remember 2011 all too well when a proposal from then-Rep. Paul Ryan to overhaul Medicare became fodder for attacks that depicted him rolling an elderly lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

“We shouldn’t put the United States in a position to default on our debt, clearly,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican. “But I also think every member of Congress needs to acknowledge that the $32 trillion debt is not in our national interest.”

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee said the debt ceiling increase is part of a discussion “we should have had a long time ago – to talk about some structural solutions.”

But he added: “I think the vast majority of responsible legislators realize this is money already spent and that we can never put the United States in a default position.”

Other Republicans, however, argue that the fears of going off the fiscal cliff are overblown.

“I don’t fear not raising the debt ceiling, because if we didn’t raise the debt ceiling, all that would mean we’d have to cut discretionary spending so we stop spending more than we’re taking in,” said Rep. Bob Good of Virginia, an anti-McCarthy Republican. “That’s a panic here in Washington because we’re so beholden to spending.”

Indiana Rep. Greg Pence added of raising the debt limit: “It’s a no.”

McCarthy told CNN in an interview before the midterm elections that he wouldn’t raise the borrowing limit without getting some sort of spending cuts in return, though he was light on specifics.

“If you’re going to give a person a higher limit, wouldn’t you first say you should change your behavior, so you just don’t keep raising and all the time?” McCarthy asked. “You shouldn’t just say, ‘Oh, I’m gonna let you keep spending money.’ No household should do that.”

Fears over a stalemate

Democrats had hoped to raise the debt ceiling in the current lame-duck session of Congress, but they’re running out of time and there’s little political will to do so since the borrowing limit won’t need to be raised until next year some time. The Treasury Department declined to comment when asked when the debt ceiling would need to be raised again, though Goldman Sachs indicated in an analysis that “funds could run dry as soon as July and as late as October.”

Before that point, the divided Congress will need to act, even as the White House has made clear its opposition to attaching strings to the debt ceiling hike – namely if it involves cuts to Medicare or Social Security.

“Telling the middle class out of the gate, before the new Congress has even begun, that working to override their will and hollow-out the benefits they have earned throughout their lives is a stone-cold nonstarter,” said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.

Still, conservatives, eager to use their newly found leverage, have already begun to outline what concessions they want from Democrats.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, a South Carolina Republican, wants to see cuts to both discretionary and mandatory spending, including entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. But he said no one currently drawing benefits should be impacted, and that the structural reforms should be designed to make the programs more solvent for future generations.

“There are benefits – Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits – that people paid into it or were promised,” Duncan said. “But there are other welfare programs in the Farm Bill, the nutrition title. All of that needs to be addressed. Because truly they’re the drivers of some of the spending.”

Even though debts spiked under Trump and Republicans raised few objections to rising deficits, Republicans say Biden’s push for more spending on his domestic priorities has forced them to toughen their demands ahead of the next debt limit increase.

“Border Security and getting rid of all the Covid spending that we don’t need,” said Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, when asked about his demands for raising the debt ceiling.

Others were just as emphatic.

“Hell no,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said when asked if he’d support a clean debt ceiling hike without slashing discretionary programs at federal agencies and mandatory spending, which includes entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

“There’s a lot of fat and garbage that’s way off the mission that we can cut,” Roy said.

Good, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, wants Republicans to use their leverage in the debt ceiling fight to push for other policy changes. The Freedom Caucus, a band of roughly 40 Trump-aligned Republicans, is known for using hardball tactics on the House floor to pull legislation to the right – and McCarthy needs the support from nearly all of those members to win the speakership.

“There’s other things that we as Republicans should be fighting for as part of that, things like ending the vaccine mandate, securing the border, restoring Trump’s energy policies,” Good said.

But some Republicans have signaled there may be no scenario in which they’re willing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

“I’m not sure I’ve seen anything that’s going to be able to convince me to raise the debt ceiling,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, a former Freedom Caucus chief who is also opposing McCarthy for speaker. “This place does nothing but create mounting structural deficits that are huge, which in turn grows the national debt, and we don’t have a plan to bring it down. Why would we lift it again?”

That’s a proposition that has Democrats worried.

“McCarthy has said he may well use the debt limit as a leverage. That’s very high stakes to use debt limit, which would plunge us and the world economy into a tailspin,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat and the outgoing House majority leader.

How McCarthy plans to approach the various looming fiscal showdowns next year has begun to factor into the speaker race. Last month, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina pledged to oppose McCarthy on the floor, citing McCarthy’s refusal to support a seven-year balanced budget.

Norman was among a cross section of Republicans who recently met with McCarthy in his office to discuss a package of rules changes.

Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said the group also talked about upcoming budget battles, “how to deal with the relationship with the Senate,” and “how to push bills out of the House of Representatives with the most conservative votes that we can possibly get.”

While the prospect of a high-stakes fiscal showdown has put members in both parties on edge, some Republicans believe cooler heads will prevail.

“Just the maximum,” said Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, when asked what he wanted for a debt ceiling hike. “And I have faith in Kevin McCarthy that he will achieve it.”

Source: Edition.CNN

The post Kevin McCarthy faces debt-limit dilemma as House GOP ratchets up demands amid speaker bid appeared first on Policy Print.