Latest news with #democraticvalues
Japan Times
3 days ago
- General
- Japan Times
European kindness is threatening the foundations of free speech
Britain and Europe have become "a hotbed of digital censorship, mass migration, restrictions on religious freedom,' according to Samuel Samson, a senior adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. His punchy boss further threatens to bar European visitors to the U.S. for "censoring' Americans online. Vice President JD Vance also condemned European "backsliding' on basic democratic values in a speech that outraged his audience at the Munich Security Conference last autumn. It used to be liberal progressives and radicals who denounced the state for infringing freedom of speech. Now it's the turn of the populist right to rage against "woke' censorship. U.S. President Donald Trump's own respect for the democratic process is questionable and administration officials, contemptuous of academic and artistic freedoms at home, make unlikely ambassadors for human rights abroad. But what if these populists have a point? Alas, the U.K. and Europe should look hard at their protections of the rights of individuals to say whatever they please. Some governments who would regard themselves as liberal minded are in danger of stifling, if not killing, free speech, albeit out of kindness. That's where the muddle begins. In theory, all states, even totalitarian ones like North Korea and dictatorships like Russia, which murder truth-telling journalists, subscribe to Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference.' In practice, all states also have restrictions on freedom of speech, and rightly so. Shout "fire' in a crowded cinema out of mischief and you'll be held responsible for those trampled in the rush for the exit; incite a crowd to lynch a victim and you'll spend many years behind bars. Individuals also have the right to protection against libel, slander and harassment. This is the stuff of a thousand philosophy seminars. But balancing individual rights with social responsibility is harder than it looks. The U.S. Supreme Court has made a better fist of it than most by extending First Amendment protections for free speech in recent decades, ruling that the authorities may only prosecute inflammatory speech that's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' Several European governments, however, have now tilted in the wrong direction — toward censorship and overreach. Germany goes to absurd lengths to protect its political class from personal abuse, for instance. France and Italy have similar laws. In the U.K., however, the desire to promote social harmony and protect minorities has taken precedence over free speech. So, a retired police officer was arrested in his Kent home by a posse of former colleagues for a wry tweet about pro-Palestinian demonstrators. As his home was ransacked, the police commented on his suspiciously Brexit-y reading material. In another notorious incident that made the front pages, a couple were held for eight hours at a police station for writing WhatApp messages and posting salty criticism of their daughter's primary school. Unfortunately, these aren't isolated incidents of overzealous authorities. Another cause celebre of the populist right on both sides of the Atlantic is the case of Lucy Connolly, the wife of a Conservative councilor who was jailed for 31 months for a public order offense. Yet she's no free speech martyr. After three children were murdered in a knife attack in Southport last year, Connolly wrongly assumed the assailant was an immigrant — he was the son of refugees from Rwanda — and tweeted on X calling for mass deportations and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants. The post was viewed more than 300,000 times on a day when racist thugs attacked mosques and migrant hostels. Judges are the ultimate guardians of the rule of law, the fertile ground out of which both British and American democracy grew. The courts therefore come down hard on those who threaten public order. Connolly's sentence was intended to be exemplary, but it was at the extreme range of censure — and should have been reduced on appeal. Confused thinking and badly drafted legislation lies behind the U.K.'s recent illiberal tilt. Hate crime is now defined by law as "any criminal offense perceived by the victim or any person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.' Such vague, subjective criteria should have no place on the statute book. As Jonathan Sumption, a former supreme court justice puts it: "Words may now be criminal if they are abusive or even insulting, even if they are not threatening and put no one in danger.' At the root of much of this is poorly written legislation. The concept of "noncrime hate,' introduced after the racist murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence 30 years ago, also obliges the police to record incidents of so-called offensive speech that have no criminal penalty. The evidence, such as it is, can stay on file and be used in criminal record checks seen by potential employers. The College of Policing's Kafkaesque guidance states "the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception' — a charter for aggrieved individuals to pursue private vendettas. Ten of thousands of police hours are devoted to noncrime hate; 13,200 incidents were recorded by police in the year to June 2024. It's easy to collect the evidence because most of it is posted online — far easier than tracking down violent criminals, burglars and fraudsters. So while police chiefs went public in the media this week with demands for more money from the Treasury, the government should be asking whether officers are making best use of their existing budgets. Unfortunately, things look likely to get worse before they get better. The Labour government's new employment bill includes provisions to require employers to take "all reasonable' steps to prevent harassment of staff at work by clients and customers, including "overheard conversations' — a boggy territory which strips out context and relies heavily on subjective impressions about what was heard. How will free speech in bars and pubs be monitored in practice? Prime Minister Keir Starmer made his reputation as a lawyer by taking on corporations trying to stifle free speech. He needs to be alert to the wider context in which this legislation is being proposed, ideally calling for a review that would halt the pernicious drift toward limiting freedom of speech for fear of causing minor offense. Martin Ivens is the editor of the Times Literary Supplement. Previously, he was editor of the Sunday Times of London and its chief political commentator.
New York Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
‘Doubt Has Crept In': Three European Diplomats on Trusting America
Serge Schmemann hosted a video conversation with three former European diplomats, Wolfgang Ischinger of Germany, Judith Gough of Britain and Gabrielius Landsbergis of Lithuania, to talk about how the Trump administration has profoundly shaken the U.S.-European foundation of shared ideals, commitment to freedom, economic ties and democratic values. Serge Schmemann: What I'd like to ask you, as three prominent former diplomats, is to reflect on what America meant to you in your work, how you react personally to the administration's approach to the bonds with Europe and what you believe the impact may be on the world. Wolfgang Ischinger: My personal ties to the United States have gone far beyond the professional realm. I've spent a total of more than a dozen years in the country — as a high school student, as a postgraduate student at Harvard Law School, as a young diplomat and then in the early 2000s for almost five years as ambassador. We had issues in those days, especially over the Iraq war. But I felt very confident as a German in the 1990s or 2000s that for the first time in many decades Germany was now on the right side of history, that after the years under the kaiser and then the Nazis, Germany was identifying with the West and invited to be part of the West — especially by the United States. So the German relationship with the United States until now has been something that created tremendous joy and satisfaction for Germans. That is why I think what has happened in the West between the United States and her European allies and others has created more pain, more convulsion, more crisis in the mind of German elites than in the minds of most other European elites. Schmemann: Ms. Gough, can you identify a specific moment or situation in which the United States was critical to your own outlook? Judith Gough: I don't think there's a specific moment, but I think there is a theme that runs through both of my postings, first as British ambassador to Georgia, but then as ambassador to Ukraine, which is that Britain and the United States were very much partners in terms of supporting the progression of democracy in both Georgia and Ukraine, and fighting corruption in Ukraine, supporting reform, the rule of law, human rights. Of course, there were variances of opinions, particularly around, for example, L.G.B.T.-plus rights, where there were nuances and differences. But I think what I felt as an ambassador was very much a sense of a partnership with America. Schmemann: Today, when you follow American handling of peace talks for Ukraine, how do you react? Gough: You know, the vision and the goal is the correct one, which is to bring peace to Ukraine. I think the challenge comes in terms of conducting negotiations. Ukraine has to be at the table, and so do the Europeans. On the one hand, the United States quite rightly wants Europe to take more responsibility for its own defense and its own security. But by that token, Europe has to be at the table and playing a serious role. Schmemann: Mr. Landsbergis, as a Lithuanian you're a citizen of a country directly threatened by a hostile Russia, and as foreign minister you've been a direct participant in the shaping of a post-Soviet universe. Can you describe a concrete instance when the United States shaped your perceptions or actions? Gabrielius Landsbergis: There's one particular point in history which I think is quite important to my country. This was just before Lithuania joined NATO, when President George W. Bush came. It was the first time a U.S. president visited my country. He gave a very memorable speech in which, at least as far as we know, he went off script because he was feeling really warmhearted by the amount of people that had gathered there in the main square of Vilnius, all of them wavering U.S. flags and chanting 'U.S.A.! ' And he said something like whoever would choose Lithuania as their enemy would choose United States as their enemy as well. Apparently these words were unscripted. Yet they are now on a plaque on the town hall of Vilnius. A kid in school could probably quote these words. So this is how deeply our fate and our security are bound to our ally across the Atlantic. So you can imagine what not just me, but the whole country, is experiencing right now. It's like something in your body being torn, because we grew up with this, we lived with this, we believed in this. Schmemann: Maybe we could follow that up, if I could ask all of you to describe ways in which the United States of an earlier time embodied values that you and your people regarded as critical, that benefited the world? Gough: I think the values that the United States stood for were extremely clear. I can remember when the Soviet Union dissolved: It was one of the reasons I decided to study Russian and embark upon the career that I did. You could see a new world opening up, you could see a new direction and the values that prevailed, and they were very much values that were put forward by the United States. The challenge now is trying to understand what values the United States stands for: What are the values that American diplomats go forth and defend and uphold? Schmemann: Wolfgang, would you agree? Half of your nation was part of the East. Were there similar sentiments toward the United States, or were they different? Ischinger: I remember very well when President George W. Bush visited Berlin in 2002, and before he arrived there were the usual anti-American demonstrations in parts of Berlin. I remember a Berlin taxi driver who said to me, if you see President Bush, please tell him this: We Berliners know that these demonstrators owe the fact that they can demonstrate for and against whatever they please to the fact that our city was protected and kept free by the United States for the last 60 years. I'm proud to say I actually managed to transmit that message to President Bush, who loved it and told the story to some American television reporter. We're having this conversation almost exactly 30 years since my friend, the late Richard Holbrooke, published an important piece in Foreign Affairs titled 'America, a European Power.' There was no question mark at the end of the title. I think it's very important to read that piece today because most of it rings totally true. It is in America's interest to make sure that Europe remains at peace and stable. It seems to me that we are now at a crossroads as far as the development of Europe is concerned. For many decades, the idea was that Europe was going to be protected and supported by the United States. I think we are now facing a very different situation, where America is now suggesting to us that maybe you guys should take your security into your own hands. That is something totally revolutionary, if the United States is no longer willing to serve as the big protector which takes care of European security now and essentially forever. It requires the European project, which was focused for many decades only on economic and social integration, to add a totally new dimension — a Europe which can protect itself by itself. Schmemann: There have been differences, of course, but Wolfgang speaks of a 'revolution.' Differences between Republican and Democratic administrations is one thing, but are we now in something totally new? Gough: We are at something new in terms of how the United States is conducting its business. But I don't think I'm massively surprised. We have a U.S. administration that signaled quite clearly what its intentions were. Whether people chose to listen to that and understand is a different matter. I think it is incumbent upon Europe to think proactively: What are we going to do? How are we going to engage? Hand-wringing will get us nowhere. Schmemann: How about you, Gabrielius? Did you ever imagine an America such as we have today? Landsbergis: Well, we'd seen Donald Trump in the first administration. We talked about it. We had all the time to prepare. But we didn't do that. So it's very difficult for us to admit that this is happening. And nobody could have prepared for somebody who would shatter the fundamentals, the foundations of trans-Atlantic relations. What sort of U.S. involvement we will be seeing in Europe? No more troops? No more NATO? No more Article 5? No more nuclear umbrella? I mean, how far does it go? Schmemann: What about you, Wolfgang? Ischinger: Let me first respond to what Gabrielius just said. There is a growing concern all over Europe about future U.S. intentions regarding NATO. But it's important to note that as we speak, no U.S. troops have been withdrawn from Europe. There are still many tens of thousands of American soldiers all over the European continent. Not one nuclear weapon based in Europe has been withdrawn. In other words, NATO still exists. There may be changes coming. We are worried about that; but they have not started. What has started, however, is that doubt has crept in, a loss of mutual trust. Loss of trust in diplomacy or in international relations is very similar to a loss of trust in a relationship between persons: It's very easy to lose, but rebuilding trust is very complicated. Schmemann: Do you think that Europe will finally take a closer and more serious look at its own security? Gough: Diplomats are hard-wired to see a silver lining in any situation and to look for the positive and look long term. Look at how quickly Europe actually moved on Ukraine, largely led by Britain and France, but with vital input from everybody. It's very hard to look at the defense of Europe at the moment without U.S. engagement and without U.S. hardware. But I think you will see that when the chips are down, Europe will do that. Schmemann: Gabrielius, do you see any silver lining in this retreat of the United States? Landsbergis: Yes and no. On one hand I see positive signs when it comes to specific countries pulling a lot more weight than they probably figured that they would ever need to. I would stress the importance of the announcements that are coming from the German government. I mean, Germany alone is investing billions of euros into defense. That's an enormous decision for Germany, for Europe, for my country. It's a signal to Putin. That is huge. What I'm worried about is this: When we talk about the European Union, when we talk about the institutions, I would like to see more belief in ourselves. We are a continent of 450 million people. We have an enormous economy that, if it wants to, can achieve things. It can reinvent itself and it can actually defend itself. But I'm worried that we lack the belief that this is the European hour, our make-it-or- break it moment. We have to transform ourselves into a continent that actually believes in itself and is able to defend itself. So the shock is healthy, unless it kills the patient. Schmemann: Wolfgang, do you think this is a moment when Europe might pull together? Ischinger: In the long run, yes, but this is not what the original European Community was built for. The idea was integrating, not defending against the outside. We are going to be facing a totally new challenge to make of this European Union something that can play this role. In the long term, there's no reason not to be optimistic. But it'll take time. Building up a Europe that can protect itself, even if we spend a lot of money, will take years. This is why I am quite skeptical and worried. I hope the United States is not going to abandon us at this very critical juncture. Schmemann: What scenarios do you fear most immediately? Ischinger: It's worth noting that China has so far not officially recognized Crimea to be part of Russia, nor has China recognized the four oblasts in Donbas that Russia claims to be part of Russia. It's very important from a legal point of view that the United States also remind itself of how it once refused to recognize Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries. It's crucially important that even if certain compromises may be required to obtain a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine war, there should be no legal recognition of territorial occupation. If we neglect these principles, we would really be in trouble in Europe. Schmemann: Judith, do you have any nightmare scenarios in all this? Gough: They're not dissimilar to Wolfgang's. As somebody who served in Ukraine, my nightmare scenario is that a short-term peace deal is favored over a long-term perspective that will hold. We have to be really clear that Russia is actually not interested in a bit of Ukraine. It is interested in ensuring that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation able to make its own choices and decide its own destiny, which includes drawing closer to Europe. There's a very old saying that's attributed to Lenin — and I have no idea whether he said it or not — which is that if you have a bayonet and you push against something soft, you keep on pushing, but if you hit something hard, you stop. What really needs to be in place is some really hard resolve that says to Russia, stop. If we accept that borders can be changed by force and aggression in Ukraine, then where else can that happen? Schmemann: And you, Gabrielius, what keeps you awake at night? Landsbergis: Well, my scenarios are close to home, so to say. My biggest worry is that the signaling of the last couple of months to the Russians might change their calculations as to how and when to test other countries in NATO and the E.U. As Wolfgang mentioned, in the short term, Europe might not be ready. If we know this, so does Putin. And if he is given a respite in Ukraine, he might decide that maybe this is a time he could test whether NATO is still alive. This is the stuff of nightmares for any European country. Schmemann: If the United States has indeed abdicated its role as the beacon of freedom, what is the alternative? What can or should Europe do? Landsbergis: First of all, leave the door open. I think that there are enough people in the United States who hold the same values we do, who want to be part of building the world in that idealistic image. I'm convinced there will be a turnaround. But we cannot just wait. Until we are back in this reinforced, reinvigorated, trans-Atlantic arrangement, there are countries and people out there looking for a beacon of freedom, for somebody to light it up. If the United States cannot do it, well, Europe has to do it. Schmemann: Judith? Gough: The key thing for us in Europe to remember is that we haven't changed. Neither have our interests. We need to be confident and we need to keep engaging and need to keep talking with the United States. You are still our closest partner. We need to keep sticking up for our values and articulating our values and articulating our interests. Schmemann: Wolfgang? Ischinger: We should not despair about what some of us may see as unfortunate developments across the Atlantic. There are so many governors and senators and intellectuals and academics who are totally aware of how important American soft power has been and continues to be; how important the partnership and alliance and other links with Europe are for the United States. We need to remind our American friends that we're in this together. So engage, engage, engage, that would be my final word. Schmemann: In fact, that is exactly what we have tried to facilitate today. The chance to engage, to keep talking. So I want to thank the three of you very sincerely.
Wall Street Journal
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
A Chinese Student Learns the American Way
Em. Prof. M. Mark Hoffer asks, 'Why Do We Teach Foreign STEM Students?' (Letters, May 5). He writes that the reason we host foreign students isn't to 'abduct them' but 'to teach and train them so that they can return to their country and share what they've learned.' For decades our universities have endorsed the notion that taking so many Chinese students was good for this reason—that they could return to their homeland to share the democratic values they picked up in the U.S. A few years ago, I asked one of my Chinese graduate students about this idea. In response, he told me the story of his girlfriend at our university who was the child of communist elites in China—an increasingly common thing in recent years. She caught a minor illness and went to our student health center. She checked in at the desk and took her place in line where she waited over an hour to be seen by the medical staff. When she returned, she told her boyfriend: 'This American system is awful! If I had been in China, I would have told the desk who I was and walked right to the front of the line.'
Reuters
08-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US AI execs to give Congress policy wishlist for beating China
WASHINGTON, May 8 (Reuters) - Top executives at American AI giants OpenAI, Microsoft and AMD are set to appear at a U.S. Senate hearing on Thursday and outline ways they believe Washington can stay ahead of Beijing in the artificial intelligence race. The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Republican Senator Ted Cruz, is looking to cut regulatory barriers to U.S. artificial intelligence after China's DeepSeek shocked the world with a high-quality, affordable AI model last year. The U.S. tech industry has seized on that development to lobby the Trump administration for more favorable policies, arguing that promoting worldwide use of AI that reflects democratic values is a matter of national interest. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, maker of flagship AI model ChatGPT, is expected to testify, as are Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab, and Lisa Su, CEO of AI chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) (AMD.O), opens new tab. Altman is expected to testify about societal advances he expects AI to bring about. "This future can be almost unimaginably bright, but only if we take concrete steps to ensure that an American-led version of AI, built on democratic values like freedom and transparency, prevails over an authoritarian one," Altman will say, according to prepared remarks seen by Reuters. The development of AI has depended on specialized computer chips, huge amounts of data to train large-language models, vast amounts of energy and a technically skilled workforce. Smith is expected to testify that to succeed, the U.S. will need to support companies at all layers of the AI ecosystem, and partner with allies around the world, according to his prepared remarks. Deepseek, a Hangzhou-based upstart, stunned the world last year when it unveiled a powerful AI model competitive with the likes of OpenAI and Meta Platforms (META.O), opens new tab, but cheaper to run. The move was surprising against the backdrop of sweeping rules imposed by President Joe Biden's administration, aimed at cutting off China from American AI chips and capabilities, over fears Beijing could use the powerful technology to supercharge its military. The Trump administration has so far taken a similar approach, last month imposing new licensing requirements on shipments to China of AI chips made by Nvidia (NVDA.O), opens new tab and AMD that the companies designed to get around prior export restrictions. But the limitations have spurred criticism from industry participants and some lawmakers who say the rules hamstring U.S. companies and hand the lucrative Chinese AI market to companies like Huawei, which has designed a competitive AI chip known as Ascend. "The way to beat China in the AI race is to outrace them in innovation, not saddle AI developers with European-style regulations," Cruz said in a statement announcing the hearing.
