Hugh Room: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome. My name is Hugh Room and I'm on the board at the Foreign Policy Association. We are so glad that you've come for what we think will be a fascinating evening. I wanted to say that this is the tradition of lectures honors Dag Hammarskjöld, and you have to remember of course that he was the second secretary-general and a relentless fighter for decolonization, economic coherence, to the fight to establish Europe in the post-World War II environment as a peaceful place. I think it's worth mentioning those things because our speaker tonight, João Vale de Almeida, Ambassador Almeida from the European community, I'm sorry that I probably mispronounced your name. But the ambassador is someone who also stands for these things, who has spoken wildly to the world affairs councils affiliated with the Foreign Policy Association and through other forms of about the power of economic unity as a mechanism for peaceful relations going forward. He's also talked about in detail trade between the Atlantic countries, the United States to the European community. He's talked about the 500 million plus people in the European community present an enormous trade organization that in affiliation with the United States accounts for 1/3 of the globe's trade.

And it is a moment where we are all looking for peaceful mechanisms going forward, we're all looking for unifying themes. This is an ambassador that knows this so well. He has extraordinary work experience in Belgium with the European community. He was the EC ambassador to Washington, and did a wonderful job there. He's noted, by the way, in that role as saying the best part of the job may have been leaving Washington to see America, talk to Americans, inter-relate, and so when you look back as you may want to at his many, many speeches around the United States, you'll see someone who was profoundly engaged in American life, wanted to know who we were, and wanted to convey to us on a broader scale the importance of the European Union, its concept, the currency, and the ability of this organization to forge trade linkage that means a more peaceful future for us all.

This is a gentleman who's entered into a space that's terribly important to all of us, but at a time when things are more changeable than ever. With that, I would like to introduce him, and he will make his remarks, upon which we'll finish and take questions for a few minutes, so if you'll think of them as he speaks. Mr. Ambassador, welcome to the Foreign Policy Association.

Ambassador: Thank you, thank you very much for such a nice introduction. It's a pleasure to be here with you tonight. I feel like kind of a warm up act before a more important speech tonight, so bear with me for a few minutes before you move to watch on the screen somebody much more important than me.

It's a real pleasure to be here. I think this is a timely discussion, and I'd like to thank the Foreign Policy Association and [Noel 00:04:00] in particular for thinking of us and me and thinking about this theme. Including the European Union in your reflections I think is absolutely appropriate and I'll try to explain why. But also, the fact that you are interested in looking at how the world is today and in the title of this session we used "volatile world" and it's timely because the world doesn't look

as nice as we would have liked, I would say. If we look at 2017, the year that started little more than, not two months ago, I think we have reasons to believe that it will be an exciting one. A promising year. A challenging year. Looking back to the first couple of months, what do I see? I see, well, the first politician being selected Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the first non-politician being elected as President of the United States. I see Super Bowl going overtime for the first time, and I see an Oscar being awarded to two different films in three minutes.

So it is a promising year. It will not go unnoticed in our memories. But I think it will unnoticed as well for other more important reasons. These have to do with the way the world is today. That's what I would like to address a little bit tonight, as well as the role of the European and United Nations in addressing some of the issues we have to deal with.

It is indeed a volatile world. Let's try to understand a little bit more why that is the case, and how we can deal with that. I think first of all we have to acknowledge that we are at the turn of a cycle. We had, in the last 25, 30 years, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a remarkable period in mankind's history. If you look back and you think a little bit at what happened during this two and a half, three, three and a half decades, it's immense, and it's amazing. We had hyper-globalization. Trade growing more than GDP. We had the awakening of China. We had an enormous technological revolution, which allows us to be totally interconnected as we speak. We had also ... we were also capable, through technology, trade liberalization, openness of markets, and societies, increase Developing-8. We were able to lift millions of people out of poverty around the world. We have reduced in an impressive way child mortality. I think we made, and I say we because it's a little bit the legacy of my generation and the generation just before mine, I think we should be proud of what we were able to achieve in the last 25 to 30 years. We have more freedom and more democracy and more peace today than before. The world has progressed overall in the right direction.

This period is now over. If you look at the economy, the growth rates in countries like China have gone down substantially. If you look at the overall trade, likewise. If you consider the openness of the economies and the trend towards liberalization, there again, these trends are being reversed. We are from that point of view very much at the end of a cycle. But we are also at the end or turn of a cycle in terms of the global governance. We basically moved from a bipolar world to a unipolar world, but we don't know exactly where we are now and where we'll be in the coming years. The country that eschewed the unipolarity is clearly now wishing to retain that goal fully. Others are coming up. But are the mechanisms and governance following? Is multilateralism in good shape today? Capable of addressing these new challenges? I have some doubts.

We also have a very interesting phenomenon that has developed in the last few years and is now producing effects, is what some call the diffusion of power. Power is no longer concentrated. It has moved, it has been distributed if I can say that in bad English. If you look, it has moved and transferred from West to East. It has moved from North to South. It has moved from government to business. It has

moved from mediators to individuals. In an unprecedented pace, and an unprecedented way, to the point that now many citizens ask, "Who is in charge? Who can I call, who can I make accountable for what is happening today?" I think these are changes that were accumulating in the last couple of decades, and are now producing results at the same time. I mentioned technology. I mentioned connectiveness. I mentioned, I didn't but I should have mentioned deregulation, the problem that governments, national governments, national authorities, national regulators have in dealing with problems that are of a global scale.

All this is coming together in a way that is leading a number of people to say that we are at the beginning of a new era. Events in the last few years have only accelerated the pace of change and the level of concern. I can mention the Great Recession, with all its economic and social implications. I can mention Syria, a conflict that has produced more than 10 million displaced people, more than 500,000 deaths. Millions of refugees. Doesn't seem to be solved any time soon, unfortunately. We had the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. This was a major blow to a consensus that had been built after the end of the Cold War. It will historically a major landmark in terms of putting aside what I liked to call the millennium consensus on how we should organize our international relations. We have ISIS for two or three years now, representing a totally new challenge and security challenge to all of us. And of course, we have in European Union, one needs to be very honest, for the first time, one country that decided to withdraw from the European Union. That never happened before. We don't know yet how we're going to deal with that. It's a major development as well.

But if you look at the emerging countries, some years ago we were thinking that the emerging economies, China, Brazil, South Africa, India, and other, they will be replacing the developed world, that they will take a new role in our globe. Well, that's not exactly the case today. If you see the situation of some of them, some of the hopes and aspirations they had did not materialize, and some of the expectations we had that they could play a more important role in global governance have not materialized either. So a number of changes that took place, that accentuated, accelerated, this idea that we have today that we are at the turn of a cycle. When you are at the turn of a cycle, and when what you are used to somehow is questioned, and when you don't know exactly where you are going to, this is fertile ground for those who want to disrupt and disturb a number of concepts and the number of principles and ideals that are the basis of multilateralism, are the basis of consensus building approaches international relations.

We see today, in our societies, in our world, a number of fault lines that we need to be very much aware of. The first one I would identify is the one between globalism and nationalism. What do I mean by this? I mean those that think the globe, the world, requires global solutions, multilateral cooperation, opening of economies and societies, regardless of diversity, and those who think that solutions can only be found within the narrower limits of a nation-state. You have attention between multiculturalism and nativism. You have a tension between the mainstream political center, and the populism of left and right.

This is a major new phenomenon in some of our countries, because the populists are getting to power or close to power, I'm not referring to any country specifically because I think this is a phenomenon that we all to some extent share. With all this comes a tension between a model of a liberal democratic market economy as opposed to, in some part of the world, a more authoritarian oligarchic capitalism. This tension is already there. But you have, overall, a debate between those who think that the solutions for our problems should be based on cooperation and dialogue among partners, and those who think that this is basic, should be done, through the geopolitics of influence, spheres of influence. "Well, this is my area, let me alone. This is your area, I'll leave you alone." We've seen that before. It didn't produce good results. We should be aware of the fact that there is a trend, there is a tension there. But if you go deeper into the political debate, it's very interesting to see today that it's very difficult to make a distinction between left and right in a political spectrum. These are old concerns. If you take the issues of trade, or free trade, you have opposition to free trade in both the left and the right, and particularly on the populist side of those two sides of the spectrum.

Anti-trade or anti-free trade is not a left wing or a right wing position anymore. This, let's say, moving away or taking away from the stage of differences of political forces opens the way for other expressions of identity, namely religion or nationalism. But I think what characterizes the situation today has a result of what I said earlier, because we are in this fault line moment, is the fact that basic instincts come to the surface. In all our countries. The fear of the unknown, the fear of difference, the focus on identity, and the rejection of what is supposedly not part of our supposed identity. These are complex issues, very complex issues, but they have a direct impact in what I have to do, the Ambassador of Belgium, who is over there, has to do, diplomats have to do, and politicians have to do.

There's one last aspect that I would like to highlight in this fault-line diagnosis, which is between the has and the has-not. I mean, it is a fact that we have overall, if you look at the whole world, reduced inequality. That is a fact. It is also a fact that in some of our countries, for different reasons, a combination of free trade and technology revolution, in some of our countries, in some areas of our countries, inequality has been made worse. A third fact for me is that whatever the levels of inequality, it has become more visible, because of the connectiveness, because of the fact that we are in a global media market, because we are all connected to social media and because information circulates much faster than ever before. So the issues of inequality are part of this diagnosis, but they have different aspects which are worth understanding better.

Where are we today? Francis Fukuyama, basically when the wall went down, he provocatively said, "This is the end of history." The liberal democracy will reign. It's over. The debate is over. No ideological debate anymore, we found the ideal society. Of course he was provoking with his thought, and the fact is that history is not over. The debate is out there, very much so as we see in our countries today, about how to organize our societies. In a way, politics is back. Big time. Certain elements of our model of organizing our society have been challenged. I think, this

is one of the messages I wanted to convey to the Foreign Policy Association, and to all of you, is that we need to have a serious conversation about where the world is going to. And I believe that the best place to have this serious conversation is the United Nations.

I'm very happy to see that someone who was born in my country and speaks my language is now a the head of the organization that I believe should be the center of the debate, and action, about where the world should go.

I think we need to have this serious conversation in a way that looks at the tough choices we have to make. You can tell me, "Well, life is about choices and making difficult choices every day all the time." You know, families, and your professional life. I think the world is pretty much the same. I mean, we have to look at demography, we have to look at the social balance of our societies, we have to look at the balance between privacy and security. We have to look at the concept of war, there's a lot of discussion these days. We know that, I know that my grandchildren, were just born, one of them is three weeks old, thank you ... we know that they will have a very different life, that their relationship with work will be something totally different, and I don't think we are reflecting enough about that. It's beginning to appear, but these are extremely important issues.

But the way we should have this conversation, and this is how the European Union sees it, is that we should be more rational and less emotional. We should be more aware of the reality of things, and not the perception of the reality of things. That we should focus more on principles and visions for what we want in our society more than focus on focus groups. We believe that we should be less concerned about the purity of concepts in all its different implications and more interested by building consensus among different people and different countries.

This is where this crossroads in which we are today, the beginning of 2017, this is where I believe the European Union and United Nations come together. I would like to see the United States join us. I'm sure the United States will join us in trying to address these issues in a cooperative way. Speaking for the European Union, I see an enormous overlapping, similarity, coincidence, of our values and principles. If you look at the UN charter and you look at the Treaty of Rome, by the way, will reach its 60th anniversary in a month's time, I can tell you because I was born in the same year, it's a long time. But at the same time a very short time in history terms.

But if you compare the UN charter and the Treaty of Rome, you know, we play in the same league. We abide by the same values, and we have basically the same goals. We operate in the regional level, the UN operates at a global level. We believe in the rule of law. We believe in multilateral cooperation as a mean to find solutions for our problems. We believe in dialogue among national authorities as much as we believe in dialogue with a civil society, and the contribution of organized citizens to finding solutions. We are actively engaged in activities as much as we are on human rights and development, sustainable development.

As I said, we have a new Secretary-General at the United Nations. He's a citizen of

the European Union, we are very happy for that. We want to support him. We believe he has the personal conditions and the experience and the knowledge and the vision to do a great job, and we are ready to join efforts with him and all the other members of the United Nations to move the world forward in the right direction. We would like to do it with all those who are like minded, with all those that even having some differences of point of view with us, are ready and eager to engage. We believe the world needs the UN, the world needs the EU, and allow me to say, the world needs the United States of America. I was ambassador in Washington for four and a half years. I have the honor of having visited all the 50 states of the United States of America, and I'm a great friend of your country. I have no doubt that United States will join us, the EU, United Nations, all of those that want to make the world a better place.

That is what I am seeing, that is what I'm sure my colleague from Belgium is already seeing from Ambassador Nikki Haley. We are already engaging with her, and I'm sure we will have an excellent cooperation with her, and with the administration, in moving the world forward.

My very last word before I submit to your questions is to say that I'm optimistic. I'm optimistic about the world, because I believe in humanity, I believe in mankind, I'm sure we'll find the right solutions. It will take time, it will require effort. But I'm also a firm believer in the future of the European Union. I'm not here to be complacent, I'm not here to tell you that everything is rosy in the European Union. But in fact, it has never been. European construction has a been a struggle. A good struggle. But of course it is complex.

Imagine that you have 28 member states. We are still 28. 28 member states. Half a million people, more than half a billion people. Speaking 24, 25 different languages. That that overcame centuries of war, centuries of civil war in European territories, and for the last 70 years, have been living in peace. With increased prosperity, great living conditions, great levels of protection of environment, of consumer rights, of human rights, of women's rights, minority rights. The best levels of social protection in the world. Right culture.

This is the European Union. I like to call it the most successful ever peace building, peace keeping, peace making, whatever you want to call it, operation of mankind. Never before have we been able to be as successful as we have been. Is this easy? No. Is this difficult? Yes. Is this cumbersome, bureaucratic, boring? Yes. But I still prefer that we fight over as we do, over the line and the communique, than in the trenches of civil war. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hugh Room: You can sit there.

Ambassador: Thank you.

Hugh Room: I'm going to simply and arbitrarily point to people for your questions. I'd just ask

one thing, which is we mostly New Yorkers, so we tend to want to speak ourselves, so I'm ask you to refrain yourselves a little bit and try to stay onto a question that the ambassador can focus on. Please. Yes. The mic's coming.

Audience 1: I think we all want to thank you for a brilliant talk, thank you. When you were originally talking about all of the current situations, I'm not the first to say that it reminds one of the Myanmar Republic at one point. To what degree are you afraid of those parallels and of the possible people who may arise at this time?

Ambassador: Well, I think we should be careful about parallels, but we should not forget parallels. We should not forget the past. I have an historian training, I never exercised ... or maybe I am exercising, I don't know. But it's clearly the case in the European Union, if I can speak of my own, the region I know best. We have an issue we discuss a lot: how can we mobilize younger generation to support the European Union as it is today? Because it is being challenged, as you know. All these fault lines, all these difficulties I describe, they translate inside the European Union with a certain degree of Euro skepticism if not opposition to the European Union. There is a real debate out there, and all of us who are enthusiastically pro-European, we try to see, how can I convince my kids who now in their early 30s, and their children, of the fact that we need the European Union, and it makes sense today.

If we talk to them about the War, it's very difficult for them. They never witnessed war in Europe. Neither did I, by the way. But I was still talking to my father talking to me about the Second World War. There's no one being able now to talk about the Second World War, or hardly any people in Europe today. I also saw, when I was in Washington, the last congressman that had fought in the Second World War, that died. This memory is going away. We need to replace this by a narrative that justifies today as 60 years today, the necessity of cooperation among states, fighting against nationalism, you know, all the narrative associated to the European Union. I think one of the ideas that comes forward very clearly is that we should tell younger people, "Don't take anything for granted." Some of the events I described earlier, if they are useful somehow, is in the way that they force us to realize that nothing should be taken for granted.

Take the annexation of Crimea. We thought that this would not be possible in European soil anytime soon. It happened. If you look at the political landscape in Europe today, you have some political forces that 20 years ago were in the fringes of the political spectrum. They were considered totally marginal. Some of these political forces are today in the mainstream of politics, and very close to getting to power. Nothing should be taken for granted. If we lower our degree of awareness and vigilance and attention, we may wake up the following morning with some surprises. We had a few surprises in the last year or so, in terms of going to bed with one idea and waking up with another reality. So I think the response or the reply to your question is, let's stay vigilant. Not necessarily parallels, but going back to history is a very good source of advice.

Audience 2: Hello. Hi. Many people in the Brexit campaign, including Nigel Farage, said they were in favor of economic free trade agreements with Europe, but not control from

the EU from Brussels. I was wondering whether or not you think that's workable, and if other countries like Germany and France should allow countries like Britain to have free trade agreements with Europe without being part of the EU.

Ambassador: Let's be clear on one point. While a country is a member of the European Union, the country is not allowed to establish individual trade agreements with third countries. This is what we call an exclusive competence of the European Union as such, and for a good reason. Because speaking on behalf of half a billion people, to my American colleague and good friend Mike Froman, a couple of years ago when we launched the trans-Atlantic trade and investment partnership, makes a lot of difference if I am a Portuguese trade minister with 10 million people negotiating with a country like the United States. Very different, makes a lot of sense, that's why we did it. So while Britain, United Kingdom, is a member of the European Union, which is still the case, there is no room for them to conclude any agreement with a third country. Once they leave the European Union, and once the terms of the transition are agreed, that is another totally different situation.

Now, there is another underlying question in your question, if I may, which is the one about, "Is it better to negotiate a trade deal as a single country with countries outside, or not?" I think I explained in the first part of my reply that I believe there is a good argument to say that you are better placed if you are part of a bigger market. But you know, that's an opinion. We'll see what happens next. But let's be clear, while they are members they cannot conclude agreements. No one can prevent our British friends from talking to other partners, but there is no legal possibility of them concluding an agreement with other countries while they are members, and while the transition period, whatever that will be, following these negotiations will be over.

Hugh Room: Yes, please.

Audience 3: Thank you for a very interesting, serious conversation coming up. You mention Nikki Haley. She was extremely disappointed after the first security council meeting, and she said, "They didn't focus on ISIS, they didn't focus on Saddam, they didn't focus on Hezbollah. They beat on Israel instead." How will you shift the real serious conversation on the horrible that is happened around the world, on ISIS, on Hezbollah, on Assad, instead of Israel?

Ambassador: Well, I don't want to comment on what Ambassador Haley may have said. What I can tell you is that what I see every day, in the security council, in the general assembly, in our meetings of ambassadors of 190 something countries that co-exist every day, is a great awareness about all the problems of the world. I can tell you, its difficult to identify one that we have not discussed thoroughly, on which we had consultations and sometimes decisions through resolutions of the security council or the general assembly and its different committees. We cover a lot of ground. I don't thinK there is any bias against any country in specific terms. We may disagree on that. But let me speak on behalf of the European Union, which is the only one I'm allowed to speak on behalf of.

We have certainly no bias against Israel. Israel is one of our best friends. We have extremely close economic relations with Israel, Israel is part of many of our policies. Access to a single market, deep cooperation in many areas, and on the political front as well. As you know ,we are actively engaged in trying to find solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One of our guidelines is, of course, the preservation of the state of Israel, and its security. I tend to disagree with you on that, and I think in any case, as far as the European Union is concerned, no bias against Israel, consideration of all the problems, and permanent engagement with the Israeli authorities in trying to find solutions.

We disagree sometimes. That's only normal. But the commitment is there to try to find balanced solutions. You know that we support the two-state solution. We believe this is the only alternative, viable alternative, to find a solution for this conflict. We keep fighting for it, and we keep engaging for it, and we are open to business with all partners to try to reach that goal.

Hugh Room: Yes, in the far back please.

Audience 4: Can you comment on the extent to which markets reinforce governments and politics, or disrupt government and politics?

Ambassador: Well, that's a very good question. We'll have a full debate for that one. I think what, I made a quick reference to it, I think what we saw in the last couple of decades is an exponential development of globalization, economic globalization, financial globalization, with an exponential increase in exchanges in mobility of capital services and people as well. To extent to which there is a new reality that was somehow created, a global reality, while at the same time, the authorities, the regulators, the supervisors, those who had to deal with making sure that the markets work properly, they were national-based. I was involved as European Union Sherpa for the G8 and the G20 for a number of years, around the Great Recession, in a very difficult debate which was the one to try to adapt the mechanisms of regulations of the economy to the new global reality. Because the gap was there. The gap was there.

And in some aspects, and we've seen that with the financial crisis, one of the issues was we didn't have the mechanism to address some of the new realities. The national regulators, supervisors, authorities, didn't have the authority over the global dimension. And the global governance instruments were not there. They are much better, we are much better equipped today. Maybe not ideally equipped yet, but much better than in the past.

This is one aspect of the gap between national realities and the global economy. The other one is about the interaction of interests, and I think that's maybe where you want to touch. The influence of markets and the private sector and the financial sector and all that in government. I think this is an interaction that has to take place, it is a debate that has to take place. Our point of view is that we should encourage other representatives of other interests in society to be equally vocal. That's why we are so keen in Europe on what we call the social dialogue that we

encourage in any country that is an evolvement of trade unions and employer associations, consumer associations, non-governmental organizations, in providing input for the government, for the parliament, for all those that are in charge of a collective interest.

I think what the secret solution is a good balancing out of the influence of different parts of our society and our government.

Hugh Room: Very good. Thank you. Sir, please. We'll bring you a mic in one second. Just in the second row.

Audience 5: I just wanted to ask you in light of the elections coming up in France and Germany and the Netherlands, and the populist conservatives who seem to be challenging the status quo, do you feel that if these three countries are subjected to a new populism, is that going to destabilize the EU as you see it if this happens?

Ambassador: I think one of our rules as diplomats is never talk about Plan B. So I'll stick to Plan A, and certainly not hypothetical scenarios, but I think your question is totally legitimate. I try to position myself in a positive and constructive attitude, and my point today, I briefly made it a while ago, is to say politics is back. The debate is back. History's not over. Some of our principles, some of our elements of our model of society, are being challenged. Somehow we need to participate in this debate, in this serious conversation. What I see today in Europe, to be very frank, and I was just last week in Brussels. Beautiful city, by the way, my second capital. What I see around Europe is, you know, after recent events, in Europe and elsewhere, is a new energy, a new level of support, for European Union project, particularly among young people.

If that is the case, and if all of those who support the European Union project for the reasons we outlined earlier speak up, I think the Plan B will not materialize. We will look attentively to what is going to happen, but I think if these conditions are met, we can be optimistic about the future of the European Union. This being said, in line with the reply to your earlier question, we need to be very attentive and very vigilant, and we need to be very clear about a number of fundamental values and fundamental principles. We need to fight these battles. Have ideas, and values, in a number of places around the world. But also in the European Union.

We'll see what happens. I don't want to prejudge on the will of people. We start this weekend with the Netherlands, and we'll be engaged in the debate. It will be interesting to follow, it will have an impact on you, as much as your debate has an impact in Europe. Let me say a word about that, because sometimes people tend to underestimate the role of the trans-Atlantic alliance. I think we have an historic role to play. We have an historic role to play in the past, and we cannot forget that. We should not forget that. We have a responsibility in the world today, because of the size of our economies, because of our cultural potential, the way we influence the rest of the world, the way the rest of the world looks at us as a source of example and leadership. I think the trans-Atlantic community has a particular responsibility, but also an enormous potential. And enormous potential.

If people are rewarded with other partners around the world, because they are less keen on some of our values, because the rules they apply are not necessarily ours, if people are concerned by those other partners, what is the best way to deal with that? Is this by isolating ourselves, or by reaching out to our friends, those who share the same values and the same concerns? I have to remain a bit vague for obvious reasons, but I think the simple reasoning of saying, "In times of trouble, reach out to your friends." In times of trouble, if you have trouble in your personal life, you reach out to your family, you reach out to your best neighbors, you reach out to the people who think like you somehow. I think the world needs us to reach out to our friends, because of the responsibilities we have in today's world.

As you may have understood, I'm very, very trans-Atlantic minded, and I'm very keen in making the case for trans-Atlantic relations and friendship. But it takes two to tango, and the European Union is very much open to business. My boss, Federica Mogherini, the high representative for foreign policy and security, was in Washington just ten days ago, and their message was very clear. We want to engage with you. Across the board. Because we believe we have common interest and common values. Let's see how much you want to engage with us. We are open for business, we think we should do a lot together. But we respect that you may have views here and there. But let's engage. And I think this sense of collective role and collective responsibilities is very important for all of us in the European Union. Again, we are open for business, and we are already engaging very actively ourselves with Nikki Haley and her team in our capitals directly with Washington, and I'm sure there is a good future for all of us, because somehow, we are facing, basically, a number of common problems. Maybe we can provide common solutions as well.

Hugh Room: Very good. Last question, then. Well, two more. Concita, please.

Audience 6: How is the UN going to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, particularly there is a European now at the helm of the United Nations?

Ambassador: We're preparing it in secret so that you'll be surprised. We're working on that. We're working on that. But it's a great anniversary and I'm sure António Guterres will be part of it as well somehow. It's great [inaudible 00:51:25]. It's sometimes, we Europeans are the first to underestimate how much we have achieved, and never miss a good occasion to celebrate good things done. And that's what we intend to do.

Hugh Room: Very good. And [inaudible 00:51:41]. Well, we can do two more, quickly. I'm sorry I don't know your name. Yes, the mic's coming. It'll be right there. [crosstalk 00:51:54]

Audience 7: Hello. Okay. My question deals with something we all share as western democracies, and it deals with what we call our Fourth Amendment here in the US, which provides for search and seizure of documents and privacy. Which is absolutely intrinsically important if you want to exercise your first amendment

rights. You can't have a surveillance state that can grab all your private information. You'll have no place to make those decisions.

Recently, the UK passed legislation, I believe it was in November, to increase the collection of anonymous ... of their browsing activity of their citizens and their emails. Given that they were the creators of the Magna Carta, this is coming awfully close to tampering with the future of their democracy, if the wrong people happen to be utilizing that surveillance information around the way. Do you have any thoughts? I worry about this with all the terrorism that's been going on in the EU that there's going to be more and more collection of data. And I understand this delicate balance between protecting the citizens and also maintaining the democratic issues.

Ambassador: Yeah, I mentioned earlier, this is one of the tensions, one of the debates that we need to have between privacy and security. If you ask any citizen in Europe and I believe in America, "Do you want to preserve privacy?" he would say, "Yes." "Do you want us you to ensure your security?" he would say, "Yes." So how do you make these two "Yes" coexist in our society? That's a big debate. I think our line is first, not to have any illusion that we have a secret magic formula that will solve the problem, but as we do in many other areas, work together to try to find the best answer. One thing is for sure in Europe, at least, this doesn't work at national level. If you have an eternal market, if you have circulation of people, if you are what we are in Europe today, you have to address the security issue and the privacy issue by the way in a collective way.

But we also believe that this is valid also for cooperation with other partners. Transatlantic, for instance, and we have been working quite hard in the last few years, and I was still in Washington when the Snowden affair came up. My phone was part of the listing that came out, to be very frank. You know, this was a very difficult debate. We came out of this difficult moment through a series of agreements that we have established across the Atlantic in terms of exchange of data, but also the terms of protection of privacy. We're still working on it, these issues are extremely complex in the kind of society that we live today with all the electronic dimensionality. It's something that we are pursuing. I'm not sure we are already there in terms of the right balance, but this is a permanent struggle. When you have situations like the one we live in through today, of extremely serious terrorist threats, it's even more difficult to keep the balance.

I think we need, in the vitality of our societies, the role of civil society, the role of the media, in being scrutinizing what we all do to try to contribute to find this difficult but necessary right balance. So it's an ongoing work that requires contributions from all of you, from all sectors of society. The government alone cannot find the right balance. But this is part of the big challenges that our societies face today.

Hugh Room: Very good. And the last question please.

Audience 8: If you could see the EU accomplish one goal in 2017, solidly, what would that one

be? Magic wand.

Ambassador: The last question is always the risky one. Well, let me put it this way. I think I'll have to find two. One would be that we start the negotiation of the withdrawal of Britain on the right footing, on the right basis, on the good basis. Because it will be a difficult negotiation, very complex. It's the first time we do something like this. I would like it to be carried out with the right spirit, the right atmosphere, and I'm sure that will be the case.

Secondly, I would like the 27, those who will remain after the UK leaves, to have enough vision, enough ambition, and enough political will to move the European Union one step further after the UK leaves. I think this is the moment to think about the future of Europe in pragmatic, realistic, but still ambitious way. If we do these two things, if we start Brexit negotiations as I described, and if we start a reflection about the future of Europe at 27 on the right footing, I'll be happy.

If I can add a third one, if we continue to have a good dialogue with the United States and a productive one and if we find ways of cooperating for the benefit of the world, I'll be even happier. Thank you very much.

Hugh Room: Very good.

So, in closing, just quick things. One, thanks to PwC, PricewaterhouseCoopers, for hosting this wonderful event. Second, thank you to the Foreign Policy Association, for again introducing us to an array of ideas that are profound and important to us all, and then most importantly, thank you, Mr. Ambassador, because you set up, I think, the list of the most difficult questions, the fault lines as we're going to live them, and then answered them with great intelligence and supreme diplomacy, so thank you again.

Ambassador: Thank you.