tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 20, 2015 11:00pm-1:01am EST
one is a post-escape scenario. where you're looking for the inmate. our testimony on that was not engaging in the question. there's no record testimony regarding that. so let me get to identification -- >> why do you need record testimony on a question such as that? if you're claiming if he escapes he can shave off his half inch beard and thereby alter his appearance and the response is, well, just take a photograph of him before he grows his half inch beard, why do you need evidence on that point? it seems to me it's obvious. what prevents you from taking a photograph before he grows the half inch beard? which can then be distributed to police departments if he escapes? >> i agree, your honor. there are -- >> it's not an evidentiary matter at all. >> the point of identification
within the prison though is an evidentiary matter on this record. and let me get to that because it's very important to understand this in our prison's unique environment. shaving a beard can enable an inmate to get into an area where he's not supposed to be in. that's a joint appendix page 104 and that a beard can enable an inmate to deviate from an inmate's appearance on an i.d. badge, and, of course, a beard is one of the quickest and easiest ways to change one's appearance. that's on page 97 of the joint appendix. of course, the grooming policy itself speaks in terms of maintaining the standard appearance throughout the period of incarceration. minimizing opportunities for disguise. let me explain a minute why this matters in our prison's unique environment and why we're different because it's a very important point here. the testimony on the record, page 101 of the joint appendix, was that we have a very different situation with barracks housing and inmates going outside the fence in large groups of 30 to 60 per barracks unit every day.
it's a very high traffic maximum security facility where they come out of a large barracks holding 30 or 60 inmates, go out, and come back. there's a lot of traffic. in that environment rapid and accurate identification of the inmate by his face, his i.d. badge and the like, but also general familiarity with the inmate and who the guards are dealing with is very important in that process. and if a mistake is made, an inmate could get into the barracks where he is not supposed to be in and an assault could occur. these are separated by enemies and the like and that is very serious in our environment. it was made on the record and it differentiates arkansas from every state mentioned by the petitioner and the united states. >> but you have no example of that ever happening. >> i have no example of a -- well, let me say this. in our brief on footnote 13 and on page 26 of the 18 states amicus briefs there are examples.
there are no record -- >> examples of what? >> opnobody interprison identification problems. in the prison, a beard being used to thwart identification, and -- >> do you have that same concern with the prisoners who have a very short beard for medical reasons? >> no, and let me explain why. there is confusion about what this so-called medical beard is. there is no exception of practice of a quantitative matter for medical beards. it is a means of shaving exception. our policy changed to reflect our actual practice about a year ago. what the practice is is that when a doctor's order says a person has a dermatological condition or some other scarring or skin condition that needs a shave they use barber style clippers, electric clippers, without a guard and they're used directly on the skin, and the result is a very clean shaven look.
not quite as close as using a tamper resistant safety razor that other inmates use, but it is a very clean shaven face. the clippers are kept in the barber facility and a couple days -- >> how long are the whiskers when that is done? >> so they may take barber call maybe twice a week. so they will have a clean shaven face and then go a couple days, three days, and then go back to the barber facility. >> are you saying they're completely clean shaven? >> i am saying they are -- what is clean shaven? some would say a razor shave looks -- >> clean shaven is somebody like you. >> i would say that's -- i have got a fairly dense hair but that's the appearance immediately after. >> and that would satisfy the medical problem? >> that's correct. >> to be shaved that closely? >> that's right. the doctors prescriptions invariably are getting a clipper shave and that brings a second point up, your honor, the policy's rationale is follow doctor's orders and we think that is fundamentally of a
different nature than a religious reason because the eighth amendment law of deliberate indifference and the like admits of no countervailing security interest that come into play. our policy is we follow doctor's orders and that's the end of the matter. under the medical -- >> are you telling us that the quarter inch is wrong? i thought that that was in the record as a given, that a quarter inch is allowed for medical reasons. >> the policy states that, your honor, and it's confusing. in practice there is no quantitative quarter inch rule for beards. there's a clean shaven rule that is allowed, some length to go to the barber call a few days later. you can still see the skin the entire time in that scenario and if petitioner wanted to avail himself of that accommodation, we would let him do that. >> what about the argument that it's, never mind the least restrictive means, you have no comparable rule about hair on
one's head where it seems more could be hidden than in a beard where you hide something in a beard, it might drop out. >> the material difference there is our professional judgment is the disguise component of the beard and shaving a beard is more than that on the head. yours is one to contraband. i agree in common sense and lodge, there's a length and gravity component to a head that's different than a beard, for sure. the risk is still there. there is an interest in regulating the contraband element, but the head hair doesn't pose the same disguise related problem as a beard. >> why is that so? are you saying somebody with or without a half inch beard, that's a bigger difference than somebody who has longish hair versus the same person with a shaved head? >> in our professional judgment
it is, yes, that's correct. because you're looking at the essential features of a person's face, the jaw lines and chin, and that's the means by which we identify each other, so that is a significant difference in our view and really the head hair policy complements the facial identification policy because it's not allowed to get to a length that could obscure the hair and that's the rationale for that. >> mr. laycock characterizes your position as being all deference all the time. so i'll give you an opportunity to say when would deference be inappropriate? >> deference would be inappropriate when the explanation offered on the witness stand in the record of compelling interest and the least restrictive means is neither comports with logic or common sense. it sounds like we're on agreement on that. justice sotomayor asked which lower court decision would lend the most guidance. i think a straightforward but
apt analysis is in the couch case in the fourth circuit where judge traxler joined by justice o'connor and judge shedd went through the initial obligation is to explain the reason and common sense why that approach furthers a compelling interest and a least restrictive means, and once that happens, deference attaches but that doesn't mean either that you win the case. it just means you have substantial weight. you're sort of a thumb on the scale so to speak and more evidence can come into play and you can still lose. >> can i go back to just so i'm clear in my head, is it two compelling interests, one in identification, one in contraband. >> that's right, justice sotomayor. >> is there a third or a fourth or are those the only two? >> those are the only two we're talking about. >> in this case, the magistrate judge has said it's preposterous to think you can hide something. so you don't have a security contraband -- >> let me take on preposterous if i might.
if you look at the written findings, there is no such finding. in fact, the finding was to the contrary. i believe it's on page 167 of the joint appendix. the magistrate judge says the testimony about small bits of dangerous contraband is the most compelling in the entire case. then if you go back and look at the verbal musings from the bench, the judge sort of reflects a layman's view of, well, the idea of contraband in a half inch beard seems almost preposterous and then the next paragraph, immediate paragraph after that and he says well i heard the experience of highly experienced correctional professionals and they made me change my mind. he used the word impressed. the word impressed is 155 of the joint appendix. i think what you see here is a judge doing what judges ought to do which is come to court with their layman's understanding of how things work and then hearing this testimony -- >> it is somewhat hard for me given what you just said to
figure this out because there may be in my mind some situations with some prisoners where a half inch beard won't hide anything and with others that it will. doesn't this law require you to consider the individual before you and to accommodate them in the least restrictive way? so let's assume what the magistrate judge meant, which is what i assumed, you have a different read, that it's preposterous to think this prisoner could hide something in his beard but not preposterous to think that others might not be able to do so. assume my hypothetical. >> right. the question -- you pose a question i think, justice sotomayor, is whether the warden needs to do some sort of hair analysis of -- >> no, no, no, no. my question is one of whether you're obligated under this statute to look at the request
of the individual and assume that the application of whatever rule you create can't have an exception as to that individual. >> on this testimony, your honor, you pointed out the testimony was a half inch beard, you can't see the skin. i think that's a functional difference, and we've got to think of how to administer a rule where to the person that that level of granularity is just not functional. >> yes. but i don't know given the deference that was given here of the question, was it applied too broadly? what i'm getting at is does a court have to look at the individual request and figure out whether it can be accommodated in the least restrictive way. >> yes, i think it's fair to say that if the court actually did say it was preposterous, saying it defies common sense -- >> in this case. >> i think that's right, but i don't think that's an accurate finding of what the magistrate
judge says and i think that's a problem when that rule is not administerable. easier to say how about an eighth inch of beard where in all scenarios you can't see the skin. you can imagine a warden running that rule much better as to what can we show if each person's hair is tied. if he asks for that kind of accommodation, we would grant it. but he's not offered that. he's offered a half an inch, and he's got a very complex lesser of evils type principle. >> on the change of looks, i'm still not sure. could you describe in more detail? i obviously missed it in the record. what is this barracks situation? where do they go when they leave the compound? >> so they're in a barracks situation. they have 30 to 50 or so in a room, and there are four barracks on each side of a common roof. they go out and get in a line and different shifts and they go out and they will go to chow and then they will do their business and they'll go out and work outside the prison fence in fields and they will come back again.
it's a very high traffic environment. >> are these unprotected fields? >> there's guards there watching them. they're not just out working alone, but there's no prison fence there. it's up to the guard to keep up with them. what you have is an environment which on this record on page 101 of the joint appendix is we're not like california, we're not like new york. they have cellblock housing, and there is no instance in which the government or the petitioner has said -- challenged that as to maximum security facilities. that's a big difference in the nature of how our institution runs. we think deference means anything -- it means you don't have to copy the prison policies of other states who don't even have the similar security concerns. >> did you establish that arkansas is unlike all these other states, that the other states don't have barracks, they don't have people going out to work in the field? i thought that that was not so, that there are other prisons
that operate similarly with housing and having the prisoners work on a farm. >> two things in response to that, justice ginsburg. first is on this record there is only two states offered, california and new york, and the undisputed testimony in this record is they're different. that stands undisputed. your question is what about all the footnotes and briefs to the court, if you look behind all the sources cited on those internet sites, which that's what petitioner mostly uses, and the government uses internet sites and also some case law examples, each one of those was referring to a minimum security institution. they have not offered any institutions like ours. as far as i can tell the only institutions that have something similar to ours have clean shaven rules. >> what about the federal prison system? i thought the rule was throughout the prison system. >> both the government and the petitioner cite a link to the regulation in their briefs and that is to a minimum security status inmates.
>> when a prisoner goes out in the field and then wants to come back to the barracks, the prisoner is wearing an i.d., is that correct? >> that's correct. >> does it say which barracks that prisoner is supposed to go to? >> yes. and what happens is they trade i.d.s and they trade shirts. that happens even now. >> does the i.d. have a picture on it? >> yes. so the person guarding the barracks, so to speak, the flow to and from the barracks relies on the i.d. and the face, but also general familiarity with who he's working with because that's -- that happens. >> i'm having difficult envisioning the scenario you're suggesting. so a prisoner who is supposed to be in barracks "a" has a half inch beard, has an i.d. that says barracks "a," has that person's picture, goes out in the field, brings a razor with him while he's out there, he shaves. he wants to come back and go into barracks "b." how is he going to get into
barracks "b" if he has a i.d. that says barracks "a"? he will trade with another prisoner? they will alter the i.d. also on the field? >> they would alter the i.d. -- what happens is you've got very fast recognition and if they favor each other at all -- this happens now, your honor. and the shave would take place probably in the barracks in the morning. when they come back, the person monitoring the flow of 60 inmates through there gets beaten and that happens. the concern is -- >> he has to find somebody who also looks like him from barracks "b." >> i would think that's how that scenario would work but that happens. prisoners are capable of doing a lot of mischief in prison as you understand i think, and that kind of thing happens even now. we have assaults in the wrong barracks because correctional officers get beat. >> one of the hazards is razors. you just said that they can shave themselves in the barracks.
where do they get those razors and what happens to them? >> we have tamper resistant safety razors that are issued and they keep them in their personal possession and then when they're through with them they can turn them back in on a one-on-one basis and get a new one if their exchange an old one. >> does your standard -- how if at all does your standard differ from what it would be if we had no rluipa. any case that would come out differently in arkansas under rluipa than under the pre-existing law? >> well, i have to kind of get to the different elements. i think -- i'll talk first about compelling interest. alone credited prison officials' testimony that muslim inmates are sort of getting a good rehabilitative event by not
having to go back into the prison for friday prayer because they might as well get used to an intolerant employer when they're out in the free world, that won't pass muster under compelling interest anymore. that was the old standard. and the interest has to be truly compelling. on least restrictive means, we think that interests grounded mostly in cost and hassle would have survived under the old regime which had a lot of dietary cases and the like. those probably will fail a lot more often under rluipa than under the previous standard. if incremental, like the yellow bear case, maybe an incremental increase in more staffing ever so slight might say that is required to pass least restrictive means, but it wasn't under the prior standard. i think even a deferential approach grounded in logic and common sense you will have more vigor under the rluipa standard and cases will go the other way more often.
than under the prior standard. >> about this whole issue about cost and the statute. 2000 cc 3 c which says this chapter may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise. >> yes, your honor. >> isn't it anticipating -- >> it is. >> there might be expense. >> that's exactly right. even within the least restrictive means analysis there's a particular statutory command. now, i think courts are going to have to manage that with reason. we can't have each inmate has his own facility with ten guards around it. there's going to have to be some limit on cost. i don't know that this case implicates much of a cost issue. >> it doesn't implicate the cost issue. >> right. >> i'm not sure what your position is. i thought earlier that you had pretty much abandoned the
concealment justification for the policy. do you still -- and were relying upon the identification justification. >> where we think each justification stands on its own weight -- >> you think something can be concealed within a half inch beard? >> on this record, something as small as a sim card which the court found compelling could. i think the identification within the prison is more weighty here. >> as far as concealment is concerned, what is the difference between half inch beard and hair on the head that's much longer? >> well, the testimony on the record was that a common sense view that longer hair is a better way to conceal contraband i think is the right one. the question really is, is a beard an unlikely place? the testimony here is not only can something fit in a beard, but correctional officers very
likely will be somewhat reluctant to do a full search of the beard like they would with head hair. >> i take it there's no example, not a single example in any state that allows beard policies where somebody did hide something in his beard. >> i think that's mostly right, your honor. >> we have no example. >> there's no -- >> there's no such example. then do you think it might fit within the language of that report which says that the fear of people hiding things in their beards is, to use their language, was it grossly exaggerated? i mean, 42 states, you know what i'm quoting from. i'm quoting from the report there. the exact words are what they're trying to get at is exaggerated fears. it doesn't even say grossly. would you say it's an exaggerated fear that people would hide something in their beards when in a country of a very high prison population not
one example has ever been found of anybody hiding anything in his beard as far as you can tell and as far as i can tell. >> as far as -- >> do i have that right? >> as far as i can tell but let me make a caveat i think is important which is that just because we haven't found the example doesn't mean they aren't there and the courts -- >> no, there are a lot of things we've never found that might be there and i will refrain from mentioning them but you see them on television on weird programs from time to time. >> the following -- these kind of things are buried in incident reports among thousands of other things and this court in the florence case, justice kennedy asked the assistant to the solicitor general, i thought the evidence of contraband was very skimpy. i was surprised to see there weren't more of this and the attorney's response was these things are buried in incident reports. we can't find all of these examples. it's the nature of prisons, but take my newspaper articles and the court actually, you know, took note of that as confirming
its common sense intuition there. and i think that's just a problem of impericism in the prison environment. >> as far as searching a beard is concerned, why can't the prison just give the inmate a comb? you could develop whatever kind of comb you want and say, comb your beard, and if there's anything there, if there's a sim card or a revolver or anything else you think can be hidden in a half inch beard, a tiny revolver, it will fall out. >> you know, i suppose that's a possible alternative. i think the concern there is there's no perfect way of searching and there's a lot of area there and you're going to have to really monitor to make sure they get all the spots, but -- >> do you really think that would be difficult? to say here is a comb, comb your beard? >> i don't think it would be that difficult. i'm not in the prison environment. it really wasn't raised on my record. my clients might think it is. based on the information i have, i would agree that it sounds
like that would be something that could be done. and i do think it's important to distinguish sort of the rule that i would propose and that is in the couch case, and that is what i think is very similar to what the government is offering here, is really an effort to marry strict security with deference in a way that doesn't invite empireicism. this court's strict scrutiny jurisprudence hadn't always demanded examples especially in the prison context and i think that's important that we do be allowed to have prophylactic rules in some settings. justice ginsburg asked about what about literature? we have a rule that says racially inflammatory literature of a religious nature that incites violence isn't allowed in the prison. justice ginsburg in the footnote in the cutter opinion seemed to think that, of course, that's a concern that prisons ought to be worried about. that's not susceptible to any kind of empirical proof i don't think, and as i understand my friends' understanding of the
rule, we're in a land of strict scrutiny really that's akin to content speech related. where froef lactices is to be condemned. we ought to be really using after the fact deterrent measures against maximum security inmates. they've already shown themselves not to sort of comport with that view of how to behave, and i think it's particularly dangerous in the prison setting particularly in our prisons environment. thank you, your honor. >> thank you, counsel. professor laycock, you have five minutes left. >> on the issue of the written findings, magistrate said it's almost preposterous to believe you can hide anything in this beard, and then he immediately said, but there's a larger principle here which is i have to defer to these people and there were subsequent written findings based on that mistaken
label of deference. he said three times i'm constrained by the case. the eighth circuit applied the constitutional rule the magistrate was bound by that. he gave that level of deference and he made written findings apart from what he had actually seen. on the issue of identification inside the prison, prisoners can shave their heads, shave their mustache, shave their medical beards. they don't claim that's a significant problem. the other 43 states do not appear to have found this to be a significant problem. it is a small and manageable problem. on the question of the quarter inch medical beard, the policy is in the appendix to our brief at page 11a. this morning is the first time we've heard what's really not a quarter inch rule, really some other kind of rule. first time we heard we let a religious claimant have a medical beard. they never said that before.
and, you know, they had not been able to justify their policy. they do have to prove it, justice kagan, if the proof comes close they get deference. if they offer serious evidence, they get deference, but here they offered very limited conclusory testimony, no examples in a situation where there should be plenty of examples. you can't administer a prison and maintain any kind of safety and security if you don't have some sense of where prisoners hide things. they don't have to dig out the data from the files. if prisoners were routinely hiding things in beards, these two witnesses would have known that, would have remembered it from the earlier rule in arkansas, and it would be easy to get examples of that from other states. there's simply no evidence in this record that it's a significant problem. >> what about the argument that there's no comparison, that arkansas is unique in the way it houses its prisoners and that the rules that were cited
elsewhere have to do with minimum security facilities? >> arkansas may be somewhat different in how it -- in the number of maximum security prisoners working outside in the fields, but that does not make the half inch beard any more attractive of a hiding place. if i'm out in the fields i'm trying to smuggle something back in, i still have lots of better places to smuggle it, including my shoes and my pockets and the lining of my clothes and as mr. curran just agreed, the hair on top of my head. again, there's just not a rational difference between where on the head the hair is located. >> you made a statement just then, mr. laycock, about how to think about deference in the context of this statute. and it's something that still troubles me so i'm going to ask you to expand on that. i mean -- and to say -- just seems like a contradiction in terms. i want to understand how it's not a contradiction in terms. >> there's obviously some tension here, but the
legislative history says due deference. cutter opinion quotes that legislative history and says due deference to expertise. it doesn't say how much deference is due. that's the question to be decided here. we think the more informed and considered and well explained their decision, the more deference it naturally deserves, the more deference is due, but they have to take some account of the prisoners' religious needs. they have to take some account of solutions that have been found to work in other states. if it's something so dangerous no one would ever try it, then, of course, you wouldn't expect examples, but here 43 states have tried it. arkansas tried it for years. in a situation like that where there ought to be plenty of examples if there's a problem, they ought to be able to produce some of the examples. the degree of deference depends on the quality of their explanation, the quality of their consideration of the issue, and here there's. no indication they ever
considered the religious needs of the prisoners in andthe adoption of this rule. and the testimony is very conclusory, devoid of examples, devoid of attention to other jurisdictions. the level of deference cannot be so great as to negate the statutory standard. you have to administer deference within that standard, not substitute deference for the standard and the statutory standard is still compelling interest and least restrictive means. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. case is submitted. on the next washington journal, lawmakers react to president obama's state of the union speech and talk about their party's priorities for the coming year. first we'll hear from tom price, republican from georgia. then the vice chair of the democratic caucus, joseph crowley. and then senator roger wicker, the mississippi republican who is chair of the gop senatorial
committee. we'll take your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets on washington journal starting live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. this saturday, live coverage of the iowa freedom summit begin begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. speakers include potential 2016 presidential candidates, rick perry, scott walker, and chris christie. mike huckabee, donald trump, and ben carson as well as 2008 vice presidential nominee sarah palin. this saturday on radio, and c-span.org. the european union's high representative for foreign policy spoke today in washington about u.s./europe relations and the e.u.'s foreign policy priorities. from the bookings institution, this is about an hour, 15
minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the brookings institution. thanks very much for joining us this afternoon. i am martin indyk, the director of the foreign policy program at brookings. and we're delighted this afternoon to host this event with federica mogherini together with the german institutional fund, an institution from around the corner and it's an honor to us to be doing this event together with them. karen donfried head of the german fund president is up here on the panel. i'll introduce here in a moment. it's a special honor for me to have the opportunity to host and
introduce federica mogherini because i knew her before she was famous. by only about five minutes, actually. we had a wonderful meeting in splendid palace in rome before she was appointed as foreign minister in the new italian government, and pretty soon after that, she became the high representative of the european union foreign affairs and security policy. in short, the e.u. foreign minister. but i remember that meeting very well. i was just in the process of departing from the state department in my last role as the special envoy for
israeli/palestinian negotiations and we had a wonderful discussion about the problems involved in trying to promote reconciliation and peace between the israelis and palestinians and i was immediately impressed by her understanding and knowledge of a complex issue that i had spent 35 years trying to master, and she seemed to have got hold of it. so welcome. ms. mogherini was previously italy's minister of foreign affairs, before that a member of the italian parliament from 2008 to 2014. she was the head of the italian delegation to the nato parliamentary assembly. and previously been a member of
the parliamentary assembly of the council on europe. she's held many positions in the foreign policy field in italian politics. she has also been a fellow of good marshal fund to the united states. that explains her meteoric rise to a position of such great import. karen donfried, as i said is the president of the german marshal fund. she is a former colleague. she served most recently as special assistant to the president and senior director for european affairs on the national security council at the white house where she was president obama's principal adviser on europe and led the
interagency process on development and implementation of policies of the presidents on foreign affairs. we're going to have an address from ms. mogherini on the subject of the trans-atlantic bond in an age of complexity and she and karen will lead a conversation with the audience. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the e.u. high representative for foreign affairs, federica mogherini. >> thank you very much for the memories. for the warm welcome, and also for the joint invitation. it's a pleasure to be back here in brookings. actually, i was in, i think, in another room next door less than a year ago. it's a pleasure to meet again, friends. not only at brookings.
i have to say my student, a fellow in 2007, was one of the best and most important experiences of my life, and i would say that shows that the fellowship works. but coming here i realized that the first time i traveled to america, i was 28. and that was just after 9/11. and all europeans felt very strong sense of solidarity at that time. all americans in our hearts and with our minds. and i remember very well that during my visit that was a private trip i was very much impressed by the sense of pride and unity of the american people in those days after the attacks. and u.s. flags were everywhere and rightly so. 14 years later i have seen the same sense of pride and unity in the streets of paris.
with thousands, millions, actually of citizens. french european citizens show the strongest possible reaction to a terrorist attack that many europeans, many french perceived as our own 9/11. obviously, we have had other attacks on european union soil. in madrid, in london, and now in paris. but the numbers of victims are usually not comparable, but the symbol is the same. as america was attacked targeting the symbols of power and integration the world trade center europe was attacked targeting the symptoms of its freedoms and rights. journalists, freedom of speech, media freedom, the police the right to live in security. jewish people, freedom of religion and rights of minorities. and if you try and test a little bit your french, liberty
secretary. where the words have disappeared from the narrative and i think this is a message we should all reflect upon at this time. in 2001, america reacted with pride and unity around its flag. today, we are reacting with pride and unity around a renewed sense of european identity. not something to be given for granted. if you look at the political trends of the years in europe. still, we have the duty to ask ourselves why after 14 years we are still there under attack. and draw on lessons from the past. that's why in paris we're marching together, not only with european leaders but also i would say with leaders from italy, the gulf, africa. that's why even in the day of the march in paris the 11th we felt the need to look at the
atrocities that boko haram was perpetrating to thousands of citizens in nigeria. and that is why just yesterday in brussels, together with all foreign ministers of the european union, we met with the secretary-general. that's because we know this is not a fight between the west and islam. we know that the first victims of terror -- and because we know that that's what we need in order to face truly and effectively the terrorist threat in europe and elsewhere in the world. is an alliance, a partnership of civilization. it's not easy, and it will not be easy at all in europe and outside europe but nothing in the world we're living in is easy, and everything is complex. we live in an age of unprecedented complexity. the world is becoming at once more interconnected more
conflicktual and more concentric. it's a world in which power is infused in overlapping senses. it's a complex world that requires a capacity to read, understand, and tackle it if we want to play a role. i'm afraid the european union has a unique role in this. managing complexity that surrounds us. seen from the outside, and i can say even from the inside, the european union seems very complex itself. these are institutions, the way we make decisions, our many cultural traditions and languages. we are different. we are complex. and believe me it is a real challenge and it can be a real nightmare. and our duty is to make sure that we make european union work in a more rational, quick and also simple way. but that's also added value. over the years, we have learned
to benefit from our different perspectives and we have built consensus around them. our differences don't make it impossible for us to work together. and act united. in the new world that we see emerging, i will not say new world order the new world emerging forcing consensus and building partnership is essential. it's a world where the west still has a significant power, but the power is not longer -- it can only been exercised in cooperation with others. i'm convinced a partnership could be the bedrock of this if we learn our lesson and look ahead to the future of our role in the world. our bonds cannot rely only on our common past. now it's a moment to shape our common future. if we want to shape a world order based on cooperation and respect instead of competition,
and already in the events of the first weeks of this year shows us how urgent it is to address the challenges we face. from the conflict in utrain to iraq and syria, to the attacks in paris to the carnage spread by boko haram. we need trans-atlantic partnership more than ever. we need cooperation in a world that is more interconnected than ever. human mobility and technology it is expected to near 2 billion by 2013. migration is accelerating as a result of conflict climate change and economic deprivation. last year, 200,000 people migrants, mostly from syria and the horn of africa reached europe through the central mediterranean route, and beyond
refugees and migrants, europe like the united states and eventually china will need high skills workers with aging continents if it wants to sustain current leading standards. interconnection has its dark sides, too. think about terrorist networks and foreign fighters. think of the threat of global pandemics. ebola being the largest manifestation. technology adds to this for good and for bad. nowhere is this clearer than in the field of communications where social media provide an indispensable vehicles for the arab springs. these sometimes take a longer time. and for the recruitment and outreach of a plethora of terrorist groups. likewise, our work is becoming more conflicktual and we see it every day. depleting natural resources
coupled with a growing population with a large number of people in largely economically deprived areas sets the scene for greater competition in the world. food, security, and water remain a critical challenge in large parts of africa and in the middle east with the food price hike in 2011 being recognized as one of the triggers for the upheaval across the region. technology couples with climate change creating new opportunities in the arctic which if not managed well risks triggering conflict. security is another element of potential conflict. while new discoveries and revolutions present an undeniable opportunity, breeding these opportunities will require upgraded cooperation in yearp and between europe and its partners starting with the united states. as well as new investments in
infrastructure and technology and redoubled efforts at addressing climate change. technological advancement has created the potential for greater conflict. think about cyberspace. just become the new frontier of our senchcentury warfare. finally, this is not the end of the speech, i'm sorry about that, our world is becoming increasingly consentic. new powers are on the rise. first and foremost china. the proliferation of emerging economy acronyms shows partnership. the u.s. and europe alone no longer set the agenda in global affairs. i guess we understood that by now, and yet with would not argue that power is shifting from the west to the rest. i think this is simplistic. it's inaccurate. it is inaccurate because there are no alternative alliances. not withstanding all the talks about that.
and it is inaccurate because the west is not in decline, as it is evident here on this side of the atlantic looking at the u.s.'s impressive economic performance in the past years and the resilience of the european soldiers. it's going through difficult times but still is the most successful regional integration experience. and it is inaccurate because power is defusing behind structures, lying in government, regional, and international organizations, companies, societies, simple citizens. the new world order we might see emerging is not, cannot be a zero sum game where increased influence for some necessarily means decreased influence for others. it is a world where influence is, can be should be shared. this and the fact that the challenges we face are joint challenges sometimes global challenges makes ss cooperation
even more crucial. this brings me to our relationship. it is a relationship that some may be believe has passed the stage. it is because of diverging demographics with an increasing hispanic america and aging middle eastern europe. be it because of partly diverging security terms with europe focused on our neighborhood and u.s. on the asia pacific, yet, the global challenges and opportunities we face are so complex, so difficult, that only a renewed trans-atlantic partnership can face up to them. we have a long history that makes it natural for us, for my generation in particular, but also for the previous one to be friends, to be partners. we share values and that is the basis of our common cultural identity. that is strong and no one can
take that away from us. that's in our dna. now, the two pillars of the renewed trans-atlantic bond that i see are security and economy. supply and demand side forces the trans-atlantic security cooperation, and we're slowly but surely expanding the new u.s. cooperational security and defense. on the supply side, u.s. has made it clear that it expects its european partners to shoulder more of the security responsibility in our own neighborhood. and no longer feels ill at ease with the development of european defense capabilities. on the contrary, at the same time european union is developing into a security provider with our 30 missions and operations to date. focused mainly on institutional reforms and capacity building. on the demand side when nato
reminds the responsibility for security, european union is taking on the lead in helping its members, neighbors, and partners and systems of good governance that will reduce corruption, and thereby have an adult to extend the civilization. that requires time, but i think it's a good investment. risks have not only put a premium on the nato cooperation let me say that i was particularly proud and happy that in the very first day of my mandate, i was meeting with the nato secretary-general, we're starting the mandate together and we're starting a very strong and close cooperation. we have common challenges there and even if the 28 members aren't overlapping completely they're overlapping significantly. beyond security, edict is the next frontier. it's a win-win project aimed at creating more business
opportunities, reducing costs, eliminating administrative burden, and in so doing, simm stimulating growth and creating jobs. but it is much more than a free trade area. it's going to create the largest free trade area in the world. and by doing so, i think it will inject momentum into the development of global rules in areas which multilateral negotiations have stalled. it can become a benchmark for the future trade agenda. let me be clear. european union is committed to an ambitious mutually beneficial edict for the benefit of business and citizens on both sides of the atlantic. and i think we have to use the opportunity ahead of us. i know i've been already far too long and i'm sure it's typical
european, so let me conclude by reviewing what this is in our view. cooperation begins along the arc of instability surrounding the european union. if you see the world map the most the high difficult places around the world are all around european union. maybe we should ask ourselves a question. on the european continent, the european union and u.s. are on the same line when it comes to the european perspective and reform priorities in the west and in turkey. as well as on the eastern partners notably georgia and moldova. of course, ukraine is where cooperation is more urgent and intense. as we struggle to see the full implementation of the agreement. and we together pressure russia through our sanctions policy. with russia we share the
approach based on sanctions in view of moscow's illegal annexation and in view of its role on the conflict in the east of ukraine while keeping the door open for dialogue, both on the solution of the conflict in ukraine and on the common global challenges we face. together, we actively support ukraine's reform efforts aimed at eradicating corruption pursuing constitutional, judicial, energy reform and i could go on. in the mediterranean multiple and interconnected places from libya to syria and iraq through israel palestine, and iran call for cooperation. neither the u.s. nor europe can settle this crisis alone. and i think we both understand it very well. trans-atlantic cooperation is imperative as is engagement with all relative regional and international powers that have an influence in the region.
we know that very well. on some issues such as iran, while the finer outcome remains uncertain, the trans-atlantic has proved its strength and we are jointly working towards a robust long-term solution that will guarantee exclusively this nature of iran's nuclear program. while nuclear negotiations are entirely separate from other regional issues, i believe joint trans-atlantic strategic thinking and action is crucial on iran's freedom. on the middle east peace process, the protected bedric should trigger the rethinking of our overall thinking on the approach. the increased predominance of regional access at u.n. security council on a solution and all point towards a quite messy, if you allow me a little diplomatic
word, conflict and i think we cannot afford really the process or rather the lack of process with no framework with no international framework. in light of this we should work on acting as a forum to establish a renewed concensus. sort of laboratory that could find concessions through the u.n. and make it not only restart but also bring some results. beyond the european neighborhoods, let me focus on three final priorities for our cooperation. first, trans-atlantic cooperation on intelligence is essential. it's crucial for security on both sides of the laeptic and the attacks in paris i think are a tragic reminder of the links between external and internal
security. we need to share information more. at the same time, our population on both sides of the atlantic demand that public liberties and privacy are not unduly effected. in deed, an organic element of our own response to terrorists and violence must be that of living up to our values of freedom and respect of our citizens and others. second energy security. we had last december a new u.s. energy council that was an excellent opportunity to take stock of how far we have come and where we can move forward together. and i think we should strengthen trans-atlantic energy trade by removing buyers to our trades. this would open new export markets for the u.s. for the producers, and help the european union face the pressures from other suppliers. on lng export restrictions by lifting would not immediately
address european dependence on russian gas, it would send the right signals to global markets and it would encourage further investment upstream and downstream. by including existing chapter on energy and raw materials we would reduce barriers to trade investments in the energy sector and rules on transfer on renewables. third and last point energy should bring us to climate policy. it is essential that european union and the u.s. partner in order to deliver an effective deal in paris later this year. trans-atlantic positions have now aligned as they have never never done before in history. our challenge is that of transforming this shared sense of purpose into a joint e.u./u.s. leadership to take forward a solution that can fit
the challenge. there is also mutual e.u./u.s. responsibility on the agenda this year, ending extreme poverty and achieving sustainment development alongside averting dangerous climate change and challenges of my generation. you and u.s. leadership is driving an agreement in the u.n. general assembly for an ambitious set of targets for the framework, would also send a very strong sign in support of effective multilateralism, and that would also be a sign that we have learned some of our lessons when it comes to the coherence of our choices and our policy. to conclude at a time of unprecedented uncertainty, our collective joint responsibility is that of trying to take this as an opportunity to finally lead the endless transition that
my generation has been living towards a real new global order. at such complex times, i understand it might seem naive even to say so yet the alternative is not sustainable for all. and the only way in which we can realistically think to achieve this is by working together. trans-atlantic partnership has already broken a world record. the longest lasting and strongest partnership in history. our challenge is that of collectively together breaking a new record insuring that the shift from the actual global disorder to a new global order based on cooperation and partnership will be not only successful but also a peaceful one. thank you very much. [ applause ]