Debate: Foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union, including disinformation - Election integrity and resilience build-up towards European elections
Date: THURSDAY, 1 JUNE 2023
Speaker: Sandra Kalniete
Country: Finland
Language: EN

I often hear that democracy around the world is in retreat. I would say that is an incorrect statement. Democracy is not simply in retreat; democracy is under attack. In today’s intervention, I would like to especially focus on two overarching aims of the report. First, link our work in the ING2 Committee with following up the implementation of the recommendations of the first report, which was approved last year. Second, we must examine the issues under the mandate of our committee vis-a-vis Russia’s ongoing brutal war against Ukraine and to build on the lessons learned. Our assessment shows that we have significantly increased our situational awareness, and several necessary steps have been launched and progress has been attained (Digital Services Act, Democracy Defence package is on the way, growing expertise acquired). However, in view of the upcoming EU elections in 2024, we still should urge for stronger measures and more coordination to protect our European democracy. Allow me to outline some of the priorities from our report, which would make a significant difference in making our Union more resilient. First of all, we need to move beyond a reactive approach centred on fact-checking, debunking, etc., and instead focus on resilience-building and ‘vaccination’ of our societies against disinformation. Therefore, we need to establish a dedicated EU programme to invest in our democracy in a sustainable way. It will not give a solution tomorrow and it will be expensive, but it is certainly a worthwhile long-term investment. Another important conclusion of our report is that in tackling disinformation, the EU is still suffering from a fragmented approach, without a clear coordination mechanism and goals. We simply cannot afford splintering our resources when our democracy is at stake. Third, we should also greatly raise the costs for perpetrators. Therefore, I reiterate that the toolbox of the EU countermeasures should include a specific sanctions regime on foreign information manipulation and interference. Russia’s imperial war of aggression against Ukraine has clearly exposed the interconnection between hostile information warfare, weaponisation of energy, attacks on critical infrastructure, and threats to the EU, to our immediate neighbourhood, as well as to global security and stability. Europe now understands that the Cold War logic of buffer states is over. Today, grey zones in European security only create instability, risk and opportunities for hostile interference. The EU must invest in closing these grey zones and supporting the resilience and integration of Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia into our European family and NATO. To strengthen our resilience, we must learn both from our partners like Ukraine, in building resilience and tackling disinformation, but also from our own misjudgement allowing to fall into the trap of energy dependency and elite capture in the past. When I recall the state of affairs even three years ago, I am glad to say that, today, Europe is far less naive about Russia, China, and other adversaries. A few words about structural priorities and the new challenges we are facing. For years, we have been following a country-agnostic approach that treats all foreign influence efforts in the same way, regardless of their source country and thus the aim, scale and the impact. We should not be afraid to call out those seeking intentionally and in a coordinated way to manipulate our democracy. Therefore, we are suggesting moving towards a risk-based approach based on objective criteria. A similar approach already has been used in the EU legislation in money laundering and terrorist financing. An immense challenge is presented by the rapid development of artificial intelligence tools. If so far we still are able to identify what is fake, artificial intelligence will make creating disinformation at scale much easier and cheaper, and much more difficult to recognise. We await the artificial intelligence act with great expectation. Another challenge is the speed of decision-making process. We must face the fact that today’s legislation concerning consequences of the digital revolution already addresses the problems of yesterday. This is not only the EU challenge. It is a global problem to be addressed together with like—minded partners. Moreover, I am convinced that this House in the next legislation will need a dedicated, cross-sectoral committee dealing with foreign interference and information manipulation issues, including new technological challenges. In conclusion, I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation through this entire process, and also the secretariat and our political advisors. Working on the challenges of the INGE1 and INGE2 Committees has certainly been one of the most important missions throughout my time as a Member of the European Parliament. I truly hope that all of you can support the report.