Europe's Global Dilemma: Strategic Autonomy or Isolation?

The trick here and I think it's also in your question, is to then not let strategic autonomy tip over into isolation, because this is really the problem that I think would then take the EU off its best course. What gives me hope is one, conversations like this. I mean that an all honesty, that being able to draw from the expertise of so many incredible people and knowing that there is that will, there, to drive us forward. Hello everyone and welcome to Across the Pond, a podcast series on the future of trans-Atlantic relations. My name is Verinakal and I'm currently postdoctoral researcher working on issues of international law, human rights and climate justice. And my name is Dan Krausein, Program Director of the Europe International Politics at the Bundeskanzler-Anmasch Mischmischdürfdunk in Hamburg. Welcome back to our second episode as we continue exploring the international order, sovereign the quality and climate justice in a post-Western world. Today we are sitting down with two brilliant photo fellows who are currently working on this specific field of our project on the future of trans-Atlantic relations. And in just a moment you will find out who they are, what drives their research and the exact projects they are tackling right now. Today we are picking up right where we left off this odd tunnel to tackle some of the biggest global issues on the table. We are living through a massive turning point where old rules and habits seem to no longer apply. Major powers like Russia, the US and China are actively pushing to rewrite the global playbook. They are using military force and heavy economic pressure to reshape the world in their own interest. Revisioness and the period behavior is displayed in a particular open and shameless manner. To navigate today's unstable global landscape, many countries are working to cut down on risk dependencies and build true strategic autonomy. Instead of relying on rigid traditional alliances, nations are now moving towards flexible partnerships and shifty coalitions that change depending on the issue at hand. It is a playbook that looks a lot like multi-alignment and approach India has been championing and practiced on a world stage for a lot of years. Does this shift then mean for traditional global alliances and the international rules we supposedly all rely on? It has become clear that in light of these major global changes, the European Union is eager to build new partnerships. It is therefore increasingly turning its attention to what the global South. But as all done out, noted in our last episode, Europe has arrived quite late to the party. Many words from Brussels are often followed by very little actual action. So today we are thrilled to welcome two of our wonderful photo fellows who are leading the charge on the core theme of this episode, Amanda Prittmore and Natalie Frisch. I would first like to introduce you to Amanda. She is a Berlin-based researcher, project manager and former journalist who focuses on international politics in European governance, Amanda works at the Global Public Policy Institute, where she studies the global order, international institutions and the current crisis of the multilateral system, something that we will also talk about today. She leads communication for In short, which is a major European research project on the future of European global governance. Amanda spend her early career working as a journalist and public engagement specialist on both sides of the Atlantic. She actually first came to Germany on a full bright fellowship and, as it seems, decided to stay. We are very happy to have you, Amanda. Our second guest is Natalie Frisch. Natalie brings a truly global perspective. She grew up in Germany and the United Kingdom and is currently based in the United States, pursuing a master of laws at the University of Southern California. The research focuses on financial architecture and international climate law, with a special emphasis on state obligations under international law. Natalie has a strong background in business and policy. She previously worked in impact investing, where she helped structure a non-extractive investment fund. But she has also worked in strategy consulting, where she supported German companies develop European tech sovereignty policies. Natalie and Amanda, thank you so much for joining us today and welcome to this episode of Across the Point. Yeah. Amanda, Natalie, it's great to have you. I will start with our opening question and it's always the same for our guests. Amanda, I will start with your first looking at your specific field of expertise and in light what we have just outlined. What do you see as the greatest challenge to European Union and its member states of facing today in transatlantic relations? Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. I'm great to be here. And so as Verena very kindly mentioned in her introduction, I really focus on political communications and specifically on strategic narratives. So for me, the EU's biggest challenge really comes down to staying legitimate in a changing global order. And I see that as a narrative challenge. So we see the world around the EU is changing. For a long time, use this term transatlantic to mean the US. But now DC is no longer a stable multilateral partner. The unilateral actions are becoming much more normal. Multilateralism is no longer a given and the EU is often taking actions that don't really line up with its story as being a peace project or a multilateral champion. So in this new world, the EU is forced to pivot to new partners. And in itself, that's a good thing. But many partners are understandably skeptical of the EU and what it's offering. They're asking questions like, "Is it a relevant actor? Can it be trusted?" And historically, the EU has often sidelined potential partners in favor of this core transatlantic partnership. And of course, that brings with it then a lot of baggage. So this then leaves the door open for counter narratives from Europe's rivals, which are incredibly effective precisely because they contain this kernel of truth. Things like border pushbacks, divided positions on Gaza, legacies of colonialism. These get raised consistently by global South States and those seeking influence in global South States as evidence of double standards. So that's the challenge that the EU really has to tackle if it wants to be a relevant player in this new changing global order. It's really interesting, so your key point is that the EU really faces a problem of legitimacy of credibility under relevant and that's all together wrapped up in being a narrative problem. And Natalie, what's your take on this? I completely agree with Amanda. Importantly, the concept of like a post-Western order also includes an EU repositioning and maybe also a desentering because there is a lot of stepping up into a certain role, but there is also a reconciliation of the change definition of power and maybe also stepping back from certain, like, neo-colonious attitudes, etc. And I do think that that is currently one of the biggest challenges. If we now turn from the trans-Atlantic to the international level, currently we see that there's constant discussion about the rules-based international order. Some say it's fading, some clinging onto it, and some see the chance for a new possibly even more just international order in the future. Actually, we've got positions, this discourse in what can be called a post-Western order. So people may ask themselves, what kind of global order do we actually live in right now? And how does the story of this rules-based international order change when big powers like the United States start to take step back from this? And I guess this is particularly important because you ask contestation of the rules-based international order has contributed to states recognizing the need for strategic autonomy under a post-Western order. How do we balance this desire for state autonomy and independence on the one side with very necessary partnership building on the other? Yeah, thank you. That's a big set of questions. I think in terms of what kind of order we're in, there's a fairly obvious answer, which is that the international order is a changing one. I alluded to this. You see this really in the vocabulary itself. So terms like multilateralism and rules-based cooperation are slowly being swapped out for ones like strategic autonomy, as you mentioned, and also things like conditionality. The EU is even doing this itself. So I mean recently, Fundeleian described the economic order as transactionalism and a zero sums game, where cooperative world order is really being replaced by this confrontational global economy. That being said, there's also I think a deeper answer here, also embedded in your question, which is the kind of order that we are in really depends on where you sit. So in Europe, the US is turned towards protectionism and America first was pretty shocking. But left Europe feeling disadvantaged and on the outs with the big global powers. In much of the world, the international system has always been one of domination and power politics, built on this kind of legacy of colonialism and a euro and US-centric politics that's left a lot of the world out. I mean, you can see this in so many places. I mean, the lack of access of many smaller states to international organizations is one that comes to mind also in negotiations in the UN Security Council. So of course, it's not as simple as saying that the order is changing. The real question is how is it changing and for whom is it actually changing? And for Europe, you know, I think does still essentially want to keep on a multilateral course in some way. I think this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. So the challenge is obvious, right? It's one of its crucial allies and really the sources of its power is walking back from this international's course. So that's, you know, that's obviously clear. But the opportunity I see is that it has to now find new partners. And this might finally force Europe to address some of the euro-centric habits that have kept it in a kind of comfortable compromise until now. And then maybe very briefly to your second point, which is, you know, this question about the balance between strategic autonomy. I see this a little bit as a matter of framing. I mean, autonomy and partnerships are certainly not opposites, right? I mean, put towards a strategic end, partnerships are often the best way to pursue the best interest of a state's citizens, especially when it comes to global common goods. I mean, when we think about, for example, health policy, you know, you might want to make sure that you're not dependent on another state when it comes to something as important as vaccines. But you also can't fight a pandemic on your own. We've seen this. An example of this that I think is going kind of well would be, for example, the EU Canada cooperation for cross-border health threats. I mean, here you really can see autonomy through partnerships rather than against it. So I think that, you know, it's important to think of these things together rather than apart. The trick here, and I think it's also in your question, is to then not let strategic autonomy tip over into isolation because this is really the problem that I think would then take the EU off its best course. Thank you so much Amanda for also highlighting how autonomy and actually cooperation can and should go together. And Natalie, do you have anything to add on that? Yeah, especially regarding Amanda's last point. I think the concept of strategic autonomy in the same conversation as partnership building is oftentimes different difficult to reconcile. And it seems a little bit, let me say, terrifying when you consider it in the context of like the current political climate and shift towards nationalism because it definitely then makes us reflect on is this strategic autonomy or just a withdrawal from multilateralism. But I do think on a positive note that strategic autonomy, and if we really adhere to this term, it does give everyone at the table a better place from which to negotiate from, which is what I hope, not just for the EU, but for other actors. And then regarding what was said before about the changing like rules based international order, I think it's definitely a period of transition. I don't think it's, it can be said yet in in which period we find ourselves, but it definitely gives us the opportunity to look at where we want to go. And there has to be like I said, like a reconciliation with what does the post-Western order mean and not just with the US stepping back from its position of like Western dominance, but also that this kind of also means that EU as well. Amanda and I, when we started this project, we were looking at not just the role that the EU should take on, but legal obligations that it has to fulfill in this regard, which I do think is important that there are different sources of international law that also obligate a more equitable partnership building and lawmaking that I do think will greatly influence this rules based international order looking forward. Thank you both for your answers and I find it particularly important that you gave us your definition of strategic autonomy or your understanding because just recently, Alexander Stup and Makane from Finland and Canada also argued in favor of more multi-alignment ploy laterally, which of course also leads to the question of wouldn't that actually lead to chaos because if everyone is only looking for flexible cooperation, flexible partnerships or talk conditions, what does that mean to international organizations? But let us stay with the strategies that countries and especially the EU is trying to bring in to cope with all the changing and international order. And we've already mentioned that the US began to look for new partners, particularly presents itself as a partner to the global South and the last guardian of a rules based international order or what remains of it. And I mean, Amanda, you already elaborated a little bit about narrative. I would like to pick up on that again. How is this narrative received outside Europe, especially in the global South? This is one of the things that I looked at actually in a recent insured report on EU strategic narratives. And what I found is that there's a real problem with how the EU's narrative lands outside of Europe. So, you know, they're all interrelated, but I'd break this roughly down into three parts. So the first is that these narratives were largely written with a Brussels audience in mind and then exported outside. The EU really, you know, when we look at the research, has a long habit of doing this, of designing its external communications around its own norms and its own values and then believing that that will just land when it says that somewhere else. But of course, when we think about this, what resonates in Brussels doesn't necessarily travel to Brazilia, Jakarta or to other places in the world. And so, you know, it's a real problem of not really being context specific or audience specific. And this looks a little bit like the EU doesn't know who it's talking to. A second, but of course, related problem is that there's a say-do gap that undermines its credibility. And with say-do gap here, I mean the difference between what the EU is seen to be doing and what it says that it does. So the narrative that it puts forward really gives a real weight to partnership and focuses on shared values. But the practice of this doesn't often match up. The EU championed an equitable vaccine access, put this forward around the COVID-19 pandemic, but it opposed the trips waiver. In trade, it casts itself as a defender of the rules-based system, the WTO. At the same time, however, it cuts deals like turnberry, which breaks the most favored nation principle. And then in migration, it endorses things like the global compacts while the operational reality, of course, is driven by conditionality. So each of these points exemplify that these narratives often are then met with reality and they crack. And of course, audiences notice this. And then the third thing, and I would say relates to both of these and really interwoven, is that these narratives are often ignoring the historical imbalances, things like colonialism and a very long history of extraction, that the EU's current position is built on. So that's really the double standard critique that states in the global south rays again and again, and the EU is largely silent on this. So I think when we zoom in on individual issues, I think the EU can be seen as a good partner and individually, I think states sometimes, are quite excited to work with it for a variety of reasons. But on the whole, the EU hasn't yet done enough work to demonstrate its relevance or to really back up the words that it's saying with the necessary compromises or honesty about the lack of compromise that it would need to really make this happen. Amanda, it's really interesting and you already said a lot about whether the EU is really putting the things on the table that the global south actually is asking for. That is something we also discussed with the world. And I would also ask Natalie, that's what Europe is putting on the table really lines up with what the global south countries needs. And second, isn't the need so big in the global south? Isn't it so huge that actually the global south countries, they really need practical help, they really need resources, they really need funding, they really need a lot of things from Russia as well, from China, from the Arab, from the Emirates, what's your take on this? So thank you Dan for asking that very big question. And I think there is generally speaking a disparity between what Europe is offering and what its partners want and need. And I'd like to pick up on the aspect that you were talking about in regards to funding. And this is a common problem. And for example, I was looking at recently that there are shortcomings when it comes to issuing grants that could possibly be addressed by loans. Because for example, we have mandates regarding climate change adaptation. mitigation, the countries in the global South have to adhere to, or because they're more impacted by climate change. They're forced to take on loans or apply for grants and that this international financial architecture is in its results inequitable. And there is an argument, for example, to be made for whether states, whether we in the West could alleviate some of this debt burden, buying down the interest rate or buying down the principle of these loans. But then on the other hand, this still leaves countries burdened by debt. And then there are also conversations happening around whether debt to equity swaps can take place that are sometimes framed as debt for nature or debt for climate swaps, which also then leaves us with the question of does it make countries in the West, shareholders or in certain projects? And does it leave them with an influence in these projects that they shouldn't have? Honestly, the international financial architecture is a complex one. And it's inextricably linked to international law. And there is a lot to be addressed within the systems that currently exist in a transition to a longer term strategy. And I think that this really needs to be balanced. And I'm not saying that it's a solution. But these things currently exist. I would certainly agree because it's really a tough topic, personal. And second, it really touches on the core. Amanda also already talked about this distractual questions. And when we talk about credibility and that words for the deeds, we definitely have to talk about power sharing. It's a really complex topic. I would say, but thank you very much for your answer. Thank you, Dan. Yes, and also from my side, thanks so much for pointing out climate change as that kind of justice driven issue. And also the financial aspect of it because it really shows how many of these questions are tied to asymmetric relationships between Western and global South states and also the imbalance of power that is inherently present in these relationships. And that actually also financial questions when it comes to climate adaptation, mitigation are very much tied to colonial histories and histories of extractivism, of buddies of nature, of labor, and that it's actually northern Western states that owe an environmental or climate debt to global South countries to just turn it around. So yeah, I think we could talk for hours about that topic. But now that we started to talk about partnerships, especially partnerships across this North South divide, I wonder whether you can actually fix a partnership that is shaped by these asymmetric power and balances by changing the story you tell about it. Or better said, does the law do the rules have to change first? And what I mean by that is does an eye level partnership that we seek to construct begin as narratives or rather as a binding commitment? That's an interesting question. And I think on the one hand, it doesn't really matter what comes first as long as something happens and there is a development in that space. And maybe even surprisingly, I think that the narrative needs to come first, but the law must follow. And that's something that I'll definitely leave for Amanda to expand on because I think as we've discussed the eye level partnerships and the concept of this has not historically landed well. I'm personally unsure of whether these criticisms have been recognized and are reflected in its current positioning. And then importantly, as we were saying about the inequitable application of the law, that we really need to reach out to other actors and our partners to inform our law making, to make sure that we mitigate some of these issues. And then on the other hand, laws are constantly introduced from different sources. And for example, even the international courts advisory opinions that they issued and other decisions, these have been very, very recent things that have changed the interpretation and the application of the law and existing laws, but I think we'll also shape the law going forward. Yeah, I can jump in from that. I mean, I think I'm going to give a slightly annoying answer, but I do think it's the honest one, which is that it's a chicken in the egg situation, you know, a narrative without a commitment to back it up reads like a lie. And ultimately, it can do a lot more damage than the words ever can do good, right? But on the other hand, if you have a commitment, even a good one that fails to translate to audiences, it remains wide open to counter narratives and to spin, especially from actors that are trying to damage the very democratic institutions that these partnerships are meant to underpin. So you know, you really can't have one without the other or at least not in the most effective way, right? And that's why I think communications and in general narrative building really has to be treated as part of the policy process and not a follow-up or something that happens after the fact. And you know, I think this is actually something I see changing a bit. I think for a long time, this wasn't the case. I think a lot of European history says, okay, we put effort on the law and we forget the story. But you know, I think this is changing and I see that as a powerful step. And you know, there's a concept for this, which narrative practitioners myself included like to use, which is called narrative realism. It's the idea that a policy story can survive contact with reality. It's one that, you know, treats audiences as participants in a shared world. It allows for contradiction because policy is essentially contradictory and it willingly names the losses. And I think that's really the kind of narrative you have to have in order to build and create eye-level partnerships. And then of course, as Natalie just said, you need the legal backing to hold it together. So yeah, it's both. It's always both. Thank you for going into that deep dive when it comes to narrative and legal developments. And I think you make clear that it's both of them and that they, especially in the end, also have to align. That's not only a narrative without legal change and legal change without a real narrative that kind of speaks to the people, doesn't work in and by itself. So if I may add another question in this regard, when it comes to the global north and south divide, what do you think would it actually look like to treat the global south as a real genuine co-creator in the global order, then rather than just an audience to be managed? Yeah, I think that might be the question that Europe should be asking itself right now. It's a tough one though, you know? So I think the first step, and again, could be a bit of a cop out, but I think it's true. It has to be context specific. So, you know, above all, treating the global south as a co-creator means treating each country, each state, each context, each issue individually and taking these perspectives seriously. So not lumping 130+ countries together. And then being open to compromise and change, I think this is one of the most important elements, even when it's a bit uncomfortable. And I think it would be if the EU were to be really open to this. How this actually looks will depend a little bit on which sector we're talking about, which area and importantly, as we've, you know, mentioned already, what kind of legacies the EU is going to have to build on in those areas. So if we zoom out and we try to look just at the overall perspective, I think, you know, treating the global south as a co-creator would mean, you know, naming the extraction and the Eurocentrism openly and not papering over it and pretending that it's part of a history that no longer affects what's going on today. I think that would be one very important point. And then also being candid about the fact that the EU acts from its interest to not just values. I mean, you see this in almost all EU communications about partnerships with the global south. They talk about shared values, values based action, human rights, all of that is good, of course. But often its actions are driven by interest. And I think treating the global south as an eye-level co-creator means sharing those interests and focusing on those and being upfront about the trade-offs when its value claims may be aren't so credible. Thank you so much, Amanda, also for pointing out that always when we use the term global south, it's definitely an oversimplification, even though global south countries use this term as well, but that we necessarily, especially the EU, need to differentiate between very different contacts, even though they may share this common history of colonization and extractivism. So Natalie, what is your take on the question of how should the EU treat or can the EU treat the global south as a co-creator? Thank you Verena for that question. I think importantly, because I touched on also how the EU sees itself obligated to partner building, whether it's with the U.S. contestation of the current order or just pursuing its own interests. I think it really needs to recognise that legal obligations or interests don't mean that this has to dominate the conversation. And I do think that a lot of these eye-level partnerships historically still do, as Amanda said, focus on Europe's interests and there needs to be honesty around that and also space to allow countries in the global South to also put forward their interests. And then for us to look at how can we facilitate this and what can we provide in this way that it's such a multifaceted thing and is so many actors working together in this space, that I really think that we need to take a step back and platform other actors. And as Amanda said, importantly, not treat them as a monolith. The global South is important as maybe a descriptive term to look to other perspectives, but these need to be treated on an individual matter. Thank you so much, Natalie, for pointing that out once again, that it's very much about honest communication and conversation, being honest about your own interests. But it also means that you need to work itself through its own history, like as a coloniser, at least some of the member states, and to acknowledge that colonial history, and not only that history, but that this actually continues in its own relationships, especially with countries from the global South. Thank you, Verena. And I found it quite intriguing that you both in your answers touched also upon the question of what Europe actually wants and what it wants to be. And with this odd tunnel in the first episode, we talked a lot on what the global South wants. And to Verena, I mean, that seems to be at least a little bit clear. And the more difficult question that you just touched a little bit upon is what Europe actually wants. What does it want to achieve? Which role does it want to play in international politics? And in order to find its role, adapt to a changing world and certainly adapt to a quite different US under the current administration, regain relevance, regain credibility, finding new partners. It is on the one hand necessarily a theory to let word follow deeds, deeds follow words. On the other hand, to share power or to think about a more just international order. But isn't it also necessary to rethink Europe and its role in regard to the US and to rethink the transatlantic partnership? Yes, it's necessary. And I think I would hope that that has become clear in recent years. And I think that it is being rethought. There is a constant repositioning that hasn't been concluded and won't be concluded if ever. But I also think that there is a lot to be, I don't want to say saved, but there are also a lot of like subnational actors, whether it's like on state government level or NGOs, think tanks, other groups that are within the US who also have an interest within upholding this transatlantic relationship in this partnership building. And where maybe the EU can see itself as then taking on the necessary role of facilitating like the protection of this rule-based international order, where the US may be on a national level is stepping away from that. Thank you, Rod. I mean, certainly the magha administration does not represent the whole U.S. and we will see what the midterm elections will bring. Amanda, is there anything you would like to add to this question? Maybe I can pick up on the point about what Europe wants. Because I think this is, you know, I also, yeah, it's a big question, obviously, and there's so many different policy areas. But, you know, I recently looked at some of the narratives that the EU was putting forward about its own identity across seven different multilateral policy areas like trade, health, climate, human rights, migration, digital and tech policy. And it came out kind of interesting really across almost all of the policy areas. The EU was really putting forward a fairly consistent identity of itself and who it wants to be. And this was the EU as a multilateral champion, a leader by example, a regulatory power, and a values-based actor. So when I think about the question of what it is that Europe wants, I think it still wants to be a multilateral leader. It's just struggling to find a way to be that in the current environment. And so I think then the challenge or the task that it has to decide to step up to or decide if it wants to step up to, let's say, is whether it wants to do that by co-creating with new partners or whether it just, you know, keeps chugging along the same path it's been on. Thanks a lot. So now that we're heading towards the end of this episode, I'm already kind of sad because I would love to continue this very intriguing conversation. We've been confronted with very difficult challenges and these kind of very big questions that we are seeing on the table right now and it can feel a bit overwhelming. And as I've already stated that in our last episode with Oud, I myself have been struggling with many of these kind of issues both professionally but also in a certain sense personally. And I'm pretty sure that many of our listeners can relate to these kind of feelings of despair and feeling helpless when being confronted with these big shifts. So looking past all of that, I would like to ask you what actually gives you hope when things get this. What gives me hope is one conversation like this. I mean that in all honesty, that being able to draw from the expertise of so many incredible people and knowing that there is that will there to drive us forward. And I also think that historically things haven't been great. This isn't to minimize the current state that we're in, but sometimes I ask things have not historically been better, especially then if we're considering voices from the global south or outside of the western view. And that within that and a lot of progress has been made and a lot of protections have been put into place and are still developing and like there are discussions around developing a definition for ecocide and upholding that and all the protections that are at the intersection of, for example, like climate law and human rights law and how that has applied in the in the daily lives of a lot of people. So I think that really gives me hope that there is a lot of progress happening and a lot of I feel a lot of despair as well. I really do, but I do try to remind myself that this has historically been this way and a lot has been achieved and I choose to hold family onto the belief that this will ring true as we look forward. Thanks so much Natalie, also for sharing what gives you hope and that actually we have made much of progress that we tend to forget when we just confronted with the seeming very dark picture and I also feel that there's much hope in the many, many different movements in civil society that are really pushing against this rollback, whether it is an environmental climate protection, whether it is against patriarchy or the capitalist and colonial, neo-colonial system, there's much to gain from many very inspiring people and movements and really remind ourselves of what has already been achieved. So Amanda, what gives you hope in these seemingly very dark times? I can only echo really what Natalie just said. I think, looking at sub-national actors, looking at global self-practitioners, looking at civil society, looking at journalists, looking at all of these actors who are actively working, talking, pushing out for change, I think is really the best hope that we have. And I think it was Bell Hooks, if I'm not wrong, who said that hope isn't itself a radical political act and it's necessary for imagining a better world. And so I think keeping hope as part of the conversation is incredibly essential and, of course, difficult, but I think that that's a really important part of this. Maybe as a last thought, given that I also look at international organizations and kind of focus on this level, I mean, this architecture is still standing. We often talk about the multilateral crisis and for good reason, but many of these processes do still work. It hasn't collapsed, it's reshaping. And maybe if we have. handle this moment, right? It could even reshape to a more just world. And so that radical hope, I think, keeps me going. Yeah, great. Thank you. And I really think that we have to really work for reshaping in order to keep what's left from our terrorism because it's really burst the endeavor. Finally, and I liked that part very much, we would like to talk about the little treasure you've brought with you. And as a brief explanation to our listeners, we always ask our guests to bring something that relates to the episodes seem in a personal way. And this time, we asked for something that illustrates how you view and experience the current state of transatlantic relations. And I'm really curious. And Natalie, would you like to begin? Yes, Dan. Thank you. I actually have a letter from my grandmother. And she wrote it for me when I left England to go to Germany and study law in undergrad. And I've taken it with me all the way across the Atlantic to now where I'm doing my masters in the U.S. And it means a lot to me, like not only because of my grandmother's identity, she was born and raised in Guyana and then went first to the U.S. and then to London in a time that was very different to this one. And she has pioneered for me, in my personal life, a lot of things that were a given. And I had that luxury that, and that framework that I could then look out and see, yeah, unfortunately, the world works differently sometimes. But that is something that I really hold on to and something that really gives me a lot of hope. Thank you so much. I mean, it was really personal and really wonderful. Amanda, what did you brought? Yeah, so I brought my special treasure, which are my past ports, which I have to say are quite a treasure to me, in that, you know, I am a U.S. born person to a Greek immigrant family who now, as of the last, I think, three or four months now, also has German citizenship. And having lived now in Germany for over eight years, I really have often felt in between places or, you know, trying to find my footing in a new environment. And so, you know, getting this passport really meant so much to me to be able to feel rooted in a place. And thinking about the transatlantic relationship, I guess, in some ways I think I embody a lot of it. And so I think that definitely makes particularly this particular German passport, but both passport treasures in my book. Thank you so much. And that's very personal in both ways. I find it so beautiful, Natalie, that you brought the little off your grandma, because it also shows how many women have provided the path that we're now walking on. And the same for the passport, it's actually, I carry my passport around everywhere, also because I know as a German, it's a true privilege to have that German passport, because it enables me to travel to many, many different places, even without a visa. So Natalie, if you want to add on that, please. Yeah, I also just wanted to add on this conversation and the concept of passports and maybe the letter that I brought as well, not only the privilege of passports, which I noticed for the first time after the Brexit vote, because I have a British passport and a German passport. So I definitely noticed that. But also about shifting identities that I feel like there is one constant identity. And then also a shifting one as we move from place to place and what we take with us and that it's a very enriching thing. It can't be difficult, but it's a perspective that I wouldn't give up for anything. So Natalie and Amanda, thank you so much for joining us today, it was a true pleasure having you and all the best for you and your project and for sure we're going to see you around. For more information on the topics of today's podcast, the photo project and much more, visit our website at www.helmutmanussmitt.de and of course you find this and more information in our show notes. Yeah, also from my side, a very big thank you to both of you. It has been really a fascinating conversation. Unfortunately, that's all for today on across the pond. To all our listeners, thanks for listening, stay tuned. We will be back soon. And my name is Dan Kausel. And my name is Verinakal. Until next time, take care and keep taking action. [Music]