Today saw the EU study abroad program traveling to both the Human Rights Watch office in Brussels and to the Brussels Regional Parliament. We started off the day right after lunch by reuniting with Dr. Markley. We were all anticipating her return, ready for further discussions about human rights and the impact of European integration on this timely subject. Many members of the 2018 EU study abroad cohort have an interest in the subject of human rights, making both Dr. Markley’s return and the visit to Human Rights Watch an anticipated event.

We began the visit by entering the unassuming lobby of the office building, just a five minute walk from the main European Institutions. Similar to Google Europe, we all perceived a different feeling in this non-governmental organization compared to traditional political and governmental bodies that we had visited. Our presenter, in hiking pants and an untucked button down shirt, greeted us by setting a very comfortable and open atmosphere. He started the conversation by discussing the structure of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and some of the ways that they conduct their work.

He broke down the work of HRW into two main categories: investigating human rights abuses and advocating to stop these abuses. He then explained how the workload in HRW is divided among these two roles. Researchers work to investigate the abuses by going into the field, collecting evidence, interviewing witness, and analyzing information channels. After researchers publish their report, which often exceeds 300 pages, the advocacy and communication teams step in. First off, advocacy work involves trying to directly stop the abuse that is occurring in a certain country. This can occur by sitting down and trying to directly influence governments by meeting with officials and making efforts to change policy. However, if governments refuse to meet or act in an aggressive, obstructive behavior, HRW can conduct public information campaigns that bring light and shame to governments for the abuses that are occurring under their watch. The communication team within HRW focuses on developing these campaigns, and they also focus on making 300 page reports more accessible and appealing to a wider audience for a greater ultimate impact. Additionally, our speaker touched upon the fundraising aspects of HRW and non-governmental organizations in general. He highlighted how important a diverse source of funding is to keeping an organization non-governmental and as an objective third party. Core funding represents their main funding sources as opposed to project funding, therefore they have options in how their money is spent and where the funding sources focus on.

After he explained the general background on HRW, he opened the floor to questions. In this section students asked about EU advocacy, the relationship with China, and more specific questions about HRW work on the ground. In terms of EU relations, he explained how HRW directly interacts with EU institutions with MEPs in the Parliament and members of the Commission. Moving on from the EU advocacy, he expounded upon some of the dynamics with economics and human rights in regards with China. He believed that the creation of a separate dialogue on human rights took away some of the incentive to include human rights conditions in traditional trade discussions between the EU and China. They already have a separate forum, therefore, they do not need to discuss human rights in the key trade discussions. Finally, he discussed some of the positive directions that human rights was going in, one country would be Uzbekistan where HRW researchers are now allowed to work and the government is more receptive to advocacy efforts.

Ultimately, hearing from an NGO perspective was incredibly insightful for the entire group. This organization places real men and women on the ground to talk to people who suffer from human rights abuses and to influence governments to adhere to human rights laws. In this meeting we learned about such details like digital and personal security for these researchers. One of the main takeaways from the meeting was that human rights work is a tangible, dangerous endeavor. There are real stakes at play. It is not just international accords and governmental discussions. Real people suffer from human rights abuses and real people risk their lives to stop these abuses. It was a powerful message to hear that this work progresses everyday no matter the political rhetoric that flies around through the media. There are real steps moving towards the respect of human rights in the world.

Following HRW, we travelled to the Brussels Regional Parliament and met with the President of the Francophone Brussels Parliament. This visit began with a tour of the Parliament building, which was originally the palace of the governor of Brussels. In 1995, Brussels was given its own regional status and therefore needed a home for the Parliament, the current building became that home. The building complex itself blended three centuries worth of architecture into one unified parliament structure.

Moving through the building we encountered a variety of symbolic art installations that spoke to the values that the Brussels parliament embodies. One commission room featured a large image of Erasmus and Manneken Pis. This spoke to the support of constant development of mankind towards progress, shown in Erasmus, and the Brussels sense of humor in the Manneken Pis. In the center of the room, a large metal cube dangled from a thin wire thread. This was intended to represent the weight and importance of democracy, but the wire represented the fragility of the ideals and the project of democracy itself. In another commission room, we viewed a work by an artist who placed potato peels in the form of Arabic script, a controversial piece, but also a powerful work to place in the Brussels Parliament. Brussels has a significant Turkish and Moroccan population. This contemporary art hosted in the actual working rooms of the parliament is a testament to the parliament’s attention to their region and looking into the future to make things better for their citizens.

After viewing the working rooms of the parliament, we had a Q and A session that explored everything from the actual inner workings of the regional parliament to what democracy means to us and our own thoughts on US foreign policy. Throughout the tour, we felt a sense of politics for the people on a regional level.

These politicians work with everyday people, for example, they open the main parliament building once a month to an audience of 100 citizens of Brussels to have a discussions about issues facing the citizens. Ultimately, the fruits of these discussions are turned into real policy proposals. We were all incredibly grateful for the time given to us and discussions that we had about the intricacies of European integration, regional politics, and the future of the transatlantic relationship. We also were able to share soda and chips in the office of the President of the Brussels Francophone Parliament! The conversation travelled to discussions about our own goals and aspirations for the future of Europe and US relations. We all took away a sense of politics working for the people and hope for the future in the uncertain times that we currently live in. It was a wonderful second to last day in Brussels before heading to The Hague.

We began our day by making our way from our host families’ houses to Brussels Central Station, excited to see Bruges and Ghent while taking a break from the rapid pace of the week-long securities module. It was on this walk that I encountered a humorous campaign to promote Brussels through posting pictures of Donald Trump with the caption that Brussels is great, a backlash to his comments calling Brussels a “hellhole.” There were also pre-stamped postcards ready to be mailed to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the message that contrary to claims by the President, Brussels is in fact great!

Once we arrived at the train station the journey to Bruges was only an hour, however, as it turns out Einstein’s relativity also applies to train travel in Belgium as the hour-long journey was a seemingly longer endeavor in the heat of the railway car with the broken AC. Nevertheless, once we arrived in Bruges, we were immediately taken away by the allure of the “Venice of the North”. The narrow streets, medieval buildings, flowers, and the vibrant wooden doors which were painted in all shades of red, yellow, and green made the city truly different than anything we had seen before. After making our way through the charming streets we got on the tour boat that guided us through the canals of the city. Although, contrary to our expectations, the “captain” was in no way short of puns and proved to be wittier than anticipated. While we were exposed to some of the city’s history, especially with the wool industry before the industrial revolution, the majority of the tour proved to be comedic relief from the heat of the sun!

After the tour we were allowed to explore the city for a few hours before getting on the train to Ghent. We took this time to grab lunch and enjoy the many parks and canals of the city, some of us even took a nap on the river bank!

The day continued with our trip to Ghent, which although different, was every bit as charming as Bruges. Ghent felt bigger, less touristic, and more habitable for everyday living and lacked some of the charms of Bruges that were subtle reminders of a different era. Once our group paraded through the city, we were greeted with what was perhaps the highlight of the day, the Adoration of the Mystic Lamb by Hubert and Van Eyck. Many of us recognized the painting from the movie Monuments Menand it was intriguing to stumble upon it at St. Bavo’s Cathedral in Ghent. We then dispersed into groups to enjoy Ghent, like many of the locals, by sitting next to the river and watching the city go by. After sufficiently replenishing our vitamin D reserves and soaking in the sun, we headed back to Brussels. In the span of a day we had been to three different Belgian cities, and yet each one had its own character and was vastly different from the others.

Upon arriving in Brussels, we saw the whole city getting prepared to watch the Japan-Belgium soccer game. While some of us watched the game, others just felt the trembling grounds, shouts, and screams coming from all corners of the city. Apparently, it was a very intense game.

This Wednesday gave us a fun mid week break from security lectures in which we were able to focus more on some of the historical background that led to the creation of the European Union. With a meeting time of 10:40, we were able to sleep in a little more than usual before taking a bus ride to our first stop of the day, Waterloo. After learning so much about the famous battle that led to Napoleon’s downfall, we were all excited to see where the battle actually took place as well as learn more about the background and details of the battle. We first stopped in the interactive museum, which took us all the way through the battle, beginning with the Enlightenment and rise of the French Revolution. From here, the museum began to focus on the rise of Napoleon and his conquests throughout Europe. With portraits and details from many of the major battles during his rule, the museum gave strong context for the growing tensions from all of the other major European powers that led to the battle of Waterloo. Further, maps from different years showed Napoleon’s conquests around Europe and his growing power, as well as growing number of enemies. With this historical context in mind, the museum continued with a detailed description of the battle of Waterloo. What I found particularly unique about this battle was the vast number of different nationalities working together against a single common enemy. Many of the soldiers fighting against France had previously been under the control and leadership of Napoleon in the past, adding another layer of complexity to the battle. The partnership against Napoleon shows a strong forge against a common enemy that overcame language and cultural barriors and previous conflicts. Further, Waterloo as a whole is a strong representation of the need for a European Peace Project, as the Congress of Vienna (which took place after the defeat of Waterloo in an attempt to re-establish European borders) serves as an early example of an attempt to prevent major European conflict. Overall, our visit to the museum at the Battle of Waterloo site helped put the necessity of the EU into stronger historical context. After visiting the museum, we all decided to climb the nearly 300 stairs to the top of the battlefield memorial. While we were all exhausted after the small hike, the view from the top was beautiful and provided a great view of the memorial and the surrounding area of Waterloo.

View from the top of Waterloo memorial

After our visit at Waterloo, we then boarded a bus and began the hour and a half trek from Waterloo to Ypres. Once arriving in the quaint Belgian town, we immediately went to In Flanders Field, a museum focused on the major World War I battles in the area. While we have already spent some time learning about WWI and its European and worldwide consequences, this museum was a great reminder of the real-life human consequences war had on this area of Europe. Different interactive activities, like videos with “doctors” from the war further emphasized the deadly impact of the war. Further, the museum featured a fake trench that we could walk through, meant to accurately display the dire conditions soldiers lived in during the war. A small, but touching detail at the end of the museum was a list of major conflicts (civil wars, genocide, battles, etc.) that have occurred since the end of World War I. While we could find no description for this list, we interpreted it as a representation of how WWI was not truly the “war to end all wars”. This helped to directly tie the museum into our studies on the EU as a peace project, and how ultimately its purpose is to prevent Europe from being engulfed in such dangerous conflict again.

After a day full of travel and museum visits, we were all starving and excited for dinner in the beautiful town of Ypres. Dr. Birchfield treated us all to a delicious Italian dinner, and then we were all ready to head home after an exhausting but exciting day. Can’t wait to see what else the rest of our time left in Belgium has to offer!

It was a toasty day in Brussels, odd for the city, but we were all grateful for it nonetheless. We approached the Parliamentarium with eager hearts. Walking into the building, it was incredible that such an amazing museum would be free to the public. It truly showed how much the European Parliament cares for educating the people of the European Union.

The museum is extremely interactive and narrated entirely by an audio guide. You are able to walk up to pictures and artifacts and understand the complete history behind them. Initially, you are introduced to the concept of European integration, and then the topic is expounded upon as you venture further into the museum. We were able to see the parties that the European Parliament is comprised of (which would be helpful later in our visit).

The museum finished with people being able to type their hopes for the future of the European Union, which I found to be an uplifting note to end on.

The museum was just the start of our visit to the Parliamentarium. The group meet up again in anticipation of our role-playing game. This section of our visit began with us entering into a room with four televisions and stadium seating. It was here we were informed of our new roles as MEPs (Members of the European Parliament). We were each assigned a political group that we would be apart of; Ecology, Liberty, Solidarity, and Traditional. These groups seemed to be generalizations of current political parties in the Parliament.

Learning our future as MEPS

The two directives we would be dealing with were the Water Solidarity Directive and Personal Identification Directive. When we were released to our parties, I was put on the Personal Identification working group. We were sent to “talk” to citizens, researchers, and NGOs, as well as, left to handle the office. The office portion was wild to participate in because of how busy it got. There would be calls and emails coming in constantly.

Working hard

Finally, once they decided we had accumulated enough information, we were sent into a debate. Each party was asked questions directed at their viewpoints and given 15 seconds to respond. After this whirlwind debate ceased, we were sent to our working groups to discuss amendments on the directives that would allow them to pass in the Parliament. Each party had objectives they would not budge on, one of ours being the stance against using chip implantations for security reasons.

Debate time

Once amendments were agreed upon, we went back to the full parliament to vote on the amendments. We voted to pass the amendments, which was a feat with our strong differences on position. The problem arose when the Council gave their opinion on the amendments. They did not support our decisions. In fact, they seemed to want entirely different things, so we were sent back to research more. Suddenly, we got news that a tragedy had occurred. There had been an earthquake that had devasted an entire region. They news reported on the fact that the trans-European water pipeline had indeed survived, so the people were not without water. We were also informed that those who had been implanted with chips were easily found in the wreckage. What a coincidence this would happen right in the middle of our negotiations?!

Negotiations

Going back to the working group, the Council was willing to negotiate with us. I think we were all willing to give on some things because of the disaster we had just witnessed and the effects the chips had had on the situation. The final amendments our group agreed on left each of us with a sour taste in our mouths because we had given up some of our core objectives, but alas we returned again to vote on the directives. Both were passed with a minimal margin.

I think this role-playing helped to put the harsh reality of these negotiations into focus. It is a tedious process that leads to more disappointments than wins. Sometimes your parties’ core objectives are lost in favor of the majority. I also think it helps to show how current events can sway decisions. While these situations are important to the decision-making process, they may sway decisions too quickly without fully processed thought behind the decisions. Overall, the process is chaotic and can be disappointing, but it is a necessity for the European Union to continue progressing.