A few days ago, some students were sitting in a room discussing the briefings we had received earlier. When we saw that a few hours had passed to witness us still debating the principles of human rights, we realized it would be extremely interesting to record these discussions and show others the complexities and intricacies of the topics we study in ways that a simple blog post could not. We felt that a discussion allows for the development and exploration of ideas and the struggle between perspectives that a lone text is unable to convey.

This idea sparked a fire in us, and after a few iterations we have produced a pilot for such a discussion series. We hope to continue this series on a very regular basis, and to cover a myriad of different topics as we find them provoking and engaging. On behalf of the participants of this episode of Chautauqua on a Rooftop, I hope you enjoy the musings of a few students who are a bit too interested in how the world works.

http://www.spreaker.com/user/7441073/june-12th-2014-austerity

“What is the Belgian identity?” I asked my host father, Yves.
He laughed. “What Belgian identity?”
 
According to the secessionists of the N-VA, there exists none. The Flemish people have their own weathered, long-standing culture of hard work and strong identity, something a Walloon could never understand. Even Bruxelles, the paragon of Belgian unity and solidarity, is a foreign land that holds disproportionate influence; there may be jobs in Bruxelles, but no home for the Flemish. And to the Walloons, les Flamands are hostile, reactionary, and altogether too nationalistic for their own good. They are uncompromising in their old provincial politics, unable to embrace their neighbors to the south and open their eyes to the grand vision of a united Belgium.
 
It has been almost 200 years since the founding of Belgium, yet there is little unity between the two regions of the country. According to Yves, the Walloons and the Flemings only agree in three areas: the Belgian monarchy; their mutual dislike of the Netherlands, Germany, and France; and football. Only when Belgium is competing will you see these two groups come together as true Belgians, drinking and celebrating the victories of the Red Devils. Politically, economically, and culturally, the two sides to the Belgian coin are as disparate as could be. Despite two centuries of cultural integration, intermarriage, and interregional movement, somehow Belgian identity is so weak that the N-VA holds a plurality in the federal government.
 
Historically, attempts at building a strong relationship between the two regions have been thwarted by one side or the other. When the Flemings decided to teach their youth French, Walloon did not reciprocate, and as soon as the Walloons found Flemish worthwhile to learn, the Flemings turned to English. And each time one region finds economic success, it scoffs at immigration from the other, forgetting that the balance has shifted to tip in either favor multiple times in the past. Even now, in 2014, there is a political fuss to keep the Flemish identity of its schools intact, because there are simply too many French-speaking children in attendance.
 
Belgium was a nation created on paper, and perhaps it is naive to expect a national unity that has no real historic or cultural foundation. But to me, looking at Bruxelles is enough to believe in the dream of a unity– even if it may be more synthetic than organic– and the successful coexistence of different peoples. Here, half a dozen cultures live together, aware of the divisions between them, yet willing to work past them. As Yves put it, because there is so little agreement between the two groups, the Belgians have become experts at compromise, and when NATO or the EU finds it difficult to negotiate, they look to the Belgians to lead the way to solidarity and compromise. Yes, history may foster culture, and ethnic ties may foster harmony. But there is still reason to hope for a strength, tempered by the fires of conflict, that will hold the country together through hardships, no matter the source or the intensity.
 
Maybe Belgium is too young to have a united, distinct identity, but perhaps one day it will be one unparalleled in compromise, understanding, and unity.

I don’t want to steal much of Andrew’s thunder because his previous post was simply fantastic, so I will (try) to keep my reflections about our visits to SHAPE brief and instead focus on the European Parliamentary elections, which occurred yesterday (25 May).

What an honor and a privilege it was to meet and discuss pertinent global security issues with General Breedlove, SACEUR, at SHAPE headquarters on Saturday, and a very special thanks to President Peterson and Georgia Tech for the wonderful reception following the briefing.  What a once in a lifetime opportunity.  As it has been in our security lectures, burden-sharing was among the most discussed topics with Gen. Breedlove and he offered us a unique perspective on the topic.  His answers posed as an interesting juxtaposition to the answers we received at NATO Headquarters the previous week, which did not directly address some of the challenges facing the alliance.  Not so from the General.  He recognized the real problem and stated that due to the recent crisis in Ukraine, many member states have now pledged to increase their defense spending and get it up to that 2% of GDP mark that is required for a NATO member state.  Additionally, the United States is taking measures to helping those states that simply can not devote that about to defense spending by advising them on how to spend more wisely.  Thus, while the trip to NATO headquarters was a useful one, the General’s matter-of-fact answers provided a much greater level of detail and candor.

European parliamentary elections were held yesterday (25 May), and were advertised under the slogan, “This time, it’s different” in an effort to increase voter turnout.  It is indeed different due to the Treaty of Lisbon going into effect in 2009, which, among other changes, called for a new process in the appointment of the President of the Commission.  Essentially, when the Council of the European Union chooses the new President of the Commission they must take into account how the voting in the Parliament went, and the the Parliament can veto this choice if it is believed that it does not line with the vote.  Since this is the first time this has ever occurred, what exactly will happen remains to be seen.  If the Parliament vetoes the choice, there could be an uneasy stalemate and could give credence to the growing number of euroskeptics.  Regardless, it is different this time because, in theory, the 500 million residents in the EU have a more direct say in who the next President of the Commission will be.  Still, voter turnout only increased from 43% in 2009 to 43.11% in 2014, but had steadily declined until then.  There does not appear to be the same amount of enthusiasm concerning the vote for EU institutions, but instead voters pay more attention to national elections.  Concerning national elections, I have the incredible fortune of staying with a host family where the father happens to be a regional Belgian senator.  I can say from conversations at the dinner table that very little of their time goes into the outcome of the EU elections.  Furthermore, I asked my Polish friend who lives above me if she was voting in the EU elections, and she said that she had not even registered and when I pressed as to why she responded that she was not overly concerned with the outcome.

It is an interesting conundrum that the EU faces with these new changes, as the parties that are highly euroskeptic made great gains in the elections yesterday.  How this new European government takes shape will be determined in the next few weeks and its effectiveness will be determined in the next few years.