Governments often use small players as pawns in their global games of chess. Two weeks ago the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-US Safe Harbor (“Safe Harbor”) framework, turning Internet businesses into expendable pawns in a government game. But for the past fifteen years, Safe Harbor allowed data flows across the Atlantic—fostering innovation and incredible economic development.

The Safe Harbor agreement mirrors the original goal of the Internet, ubiquitous information sharing regardless of borders. Now, with quadrillions of bytes of data transferred daily between our nations, accounting for trillions of dollars in trade, the Internet is essential for the global economy.

It’s no surprise that European institutions are looking for leverage to force the US government to negotiate further surveillance reforms. What’s troubling is the “strategic” move by European governments to conflate Snowden revelations of government surveillance with commercial data practices, in order to invalidate Safe Harbor. European governments don’t like that the American government spies on them and are using the Safe Harbor to reshape the negotiations. And while privacy is a fundamental right in Europe, it feels like governments are fighting and that private citizens and businesses have become the pawns.

But while the battle of global powers goes on, others are trying to misapply the European Court’s decision for their own benefit. Last month, at an Internet Caucus Safe Harbor event in Washington, EU panelists avoided discussing the European Court’s decision and instead turned their fire on private-sector data collection. However, the sinking of Safe Harbor was not about private businesses; it was about government surveillance. If we want to address the concerns of the Court, this sleight-of-hand is a dangerous distraction.

For more than 30 years, the EU has recognized that “cross-border flows of personal data are necessary to the expansion of international trade.” Since the Court’s decision was solely about government surveillance, the solutions must come from government-to-government dialogues. And only governmental entities can address these problems.

Our industry has pushed for surveillance reforms and we’ve achieved quite a bit in the U.S. since the initial Snowden revelations. Internet companies lobbied Congress to pass the USA Freedom Act, which prohibits the bulk collection of communications metadata under various legal authorities. NetChoice member companies have also been instrumental in pushing for enactment of the Judicial Redress Act, which the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed unanimously. Additionally, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board published two comprehensive reports with concomitant recommendations related to key sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

But these surveillance reforms must occur on both sides of the Atlantic. The US government should reform its surveillance, and European governments should do the same. Indeed, the European Court’s decision raises serious questions about whether surveillance laws in EU member states can withstand legal scrutiny under European law. Fortunately, there are wise folks in Europe who are now looking inward and realizing that their own laws are susceptible to the Safe Harbor legal challenge.

To overcome this Internet setback, governments on both sides of the Atlantic should enact government surveillance reforms as they enact a successor to Safe Harbor

Governments may see international diplomacy as a game of chess, but they’re playing with fire if they treat Internet businesses as game pieces to be attacked and taken off the board.