Dr. Birchfield has always described the EU program as “real-world politics in real time,” and this summer’s program definitely proved that to be true. As we learned about the challenges of European integration in the classroom, we saw exciting political events up close.

We arrived in France just one week after Emmanuel Macron’s historical election to the presidency. After the Brexit vote, this election was critical to the future of the European Union. Because we were in France, students could discuss with French citizens (and even policymakers during our site visits) the importance of this election to the future of French and European foreign policy.

A few weeks later, we visited Paris during the French legislative elections. In another historic result, Macron’s En Marche! party won a majority in the National Assembly. This second show of support for a centrist, pro-European government in France was another indication that France will continue to positively contribute to the European Union.

Students also had the privilege of visiting the George C. Marshall Center in Paris. 2017 is a special year for the Center because it marks the 70th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. The success of this plan to break the cycle of European conflict endures today, and despite challenges to Transatlantic relations.

During a day trip to the German city of Trier (or Treves, as the French call it), we saw a protest through the city center. It was clear from the signs that the protest was about the refugee crisis, but we were uncertain at first whether the march was pro- or anti-refugee. Luckily, an English-speaking protester explained to us that the march was in support of refugees. Specifically, a family of refugees that had settled in Trier was then sent back into a dangerous country, and the people of Trier were protesting to bring them home to Germany. Seeing this show of support shed light on the complex and controversial issue of refugee resettlement.

Students visited the European Court of Justice while in Luxembourg, and they heard a briefing on a case against Google regarding privacy protections. While we were in Brussels, a major judgment against Google came down from the Court. Lucky for us, we had an appointment at Google Europe in Brussels the very next day. After a tour of the facility, we got to sit down with policy analysts and discuss the possible implications of the judgment for the future of tech companies in Europe.

Also while we were in Brussels, the European Parliament hosted a High Level Conference on Refugees, which we were thrilled to attend. The question of refugees is a critical current issue that we’d been discussing throughout the summer, so to learn more about viewpoints on the subject was a great opportunity. Furthermore, we’d learned about the big names in European politics — High Representative Federica Mogherini, Commission President Jean Claude Juncker, Parliament President Antonio Tajani– and we got to hear them speak on this pressing issue in person.

These are just a few examples of the once-in-a-lifetime experiences we took advantage of this summer! Getting to see these things in person after learning about them in class is one of the many unique benefits of a study abroad like the EU program.

On our free day, Sean and I went to Tempelhof Airport, which was constructed by the Nazis in the 1930s, and was one of the world’s busiest airports before the start of World War II. The airport and the land it was built on has been at the center of German history for hundreds of years. The land initially belonged to the Knights Templar in the middle ages. It was then used as a parade field for Prussian forces and then unified German forces until World War I. It was also used as a parade ground for massive Nazi demonstrations. The airport was used for commercial travel before the war, but closed down after Germany banned commercial flights during the war. The Nazis used the airport terminal as a huge factory to build and repair airplanes damaged in fighting, and then flew the repaired planes back to return to fighting. After the War, the airport was in West Berlin, and became the terminus of the Berlin Airlift in 1948-49.  The Airlift was an operation that was so hugely symbolic and really highlighted the competing economic and ideological trajectories of post-war Europe. After Stalin cut off land route from West Germany to West Berlin, the people of Berlin had no other supply of outside food and fuel, and relied on the Allied forces to keep the supply corridors open. The Allies flew over 200,000 flights in just one year, landing a plane every 30 seconds at Tempelhof Field. The sheer scale of the operation really showed the Allies’ commitment to the people of Berlin, and against the oppressive regime of the Soviets, and the stark differences in ideology of the two sides.

We also visited the DDR Museum, which was an interactive museum covering the history and society of the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, during the Cold War years. It was an interactive museum, which was interesting because I got to see a lot of the propaganda and advertising the GDR utilized. They had mock classrooms, houses, and examples of state-sponsored music. When the GDR was in charge, they outlawed popular music like rock and roll because it was said to be suggestive and provocative. Along with this, the government actually made up dances that students had to learn and perform. Because of this extreme oppression, citizens became very creative in their methods of protest. People wanted Western music and culture, and oftentimes secretly played banned music or held dances that were not state sponsored. The museum also had examples of “underground” publications and newsletters that citizens produced secretly, with news other than what the GDR supplied. I was shocked by the number of spies that were secretly working for the government during the cold war era.  I enjoyed actually seeing examples and artifacts from this era, and seeing how far reaching the government of the GDR really was.

The day began with a trip to the Reichstag building, the home of the Bundestag: the German Parliament. The Reichstag building has a rich history dating back to the late nineteenth century. It has been the home of the German Parliament under three different forms of government: the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, and now under the modern German government. In 1933, the building was badly damaged by fire, which the Nazi government used as an opportunity to suspend regular meetings of the Reichstag Parliament. The building fell into disuse during the Cold War and was badly damaged in World War II by Soviet forces. However, after German reunification in the 1990s, the parliament relocated from Bonn to Berlin, and the building was restored to become the home of the Bundestag. When we visited, the parliament was not in session, but we were still able to take a trip to the top of the building to enjoy the panoramic views of Berlin.

The glass dome at the top of the Reichstag building was added when the building was restored in the 1990s. While the dome was closed for cleaning when we visited, we were still able to see the outside of the dome. The glass dome offers 360 degree view of the city, along with a history of the building. Inside the dome, there is a direct view into the meeting chamber of the Bundestag. This is intended to represent transparency to the public, and remind the parliament that the public is always watching. Anyone can visit the dome and the top of the building, even if the parliament is in session.

The second trip of the day was to the German Foreign Ministry. However, during our break between our visit to the Reichstag and the Foreign Ministry, Dr. Weber guided us to a memorial to those who had lost their lives trying to escape East Berlin during the Cold War. Located near the Brandenburg Gate, this memorial is made up of white crosses with the names of those killed and the dates they died. This memorial reminded us all of what length people were willing to go to in order to escape the Communist regime in Eastern Berlin.

We arrived at the German Foreign Ministry, the building has gardens all through out it, including one on the roof of the building. We were briefed by a young German diplomat who explained German foreign policy in a variety of areas during an hour long Q&A. We were able to discuss many different issues, including the strained relationship between Angela Merkel and Donald Trump, the Nordstrom Two Pipeline, and German military objectives such as the 2% NATO spending target.

These two visits gave us a brief glimpse into the workings of the German political system and the changing transatlantic relationship. Not only that, they also provided us an understanding of the German place in the world, including the relationship between Germany and the EU, Germany and the Middle East, and Germany in Africa. When discussing German roles in different arenas, we were able to better understand how the country takes an active roles in some areas, but remains neutral in others. For example, when discussing peace in the Middle East, Germany takes a very passive position due to complicated relations with Israel, but supplies Israel with non-nuclear submarines. However, when dealing with the European Union, Germany is more likely to push Brussels to achieve their specific policy objectives.

After visiting both the French and German foreign ministries, it is clear why these two nations are known as the “Twin Engines” of the European Union. The two most important founding members of the EU must work together on a variety of complex issues to help the EU be as efficient as possible. Because these two nations do differ on a variety of issues, the relationship between them is complex and ever-changing. As the diplomat mentioned, the relationship between Germany and France has been reinvigorated by the election of Emmanuel Macron due to Macron’s pro-EU stance. The diplomat even pointed to Macron’s walking out to “Ode to Joy” as an omen for future EU cooperation between the two pro-EU nations. After visiting Brussels, Paris, and Berlin, it is clear that these three cities are vital to the every day and long term functions of the EU, and they are at the heart of global and European issues.

After having some great traditional Dutch Pancakes and a cool walk down the beach the evening before, we went back to business. Our first site visit in The Hague was to the International Criminal Court. It was a beautiful glass covered building with a nice “moat” in between the security clearance and the actual entrance of the building. After passing the security check we were all busy admiring the picturesque view of the building, which unfortunately we weren’t allowed to take pictures of.

(A fact we learned after this picture was taken)

A very insightful intellectual conversation with our lovely TA Emma Smith followed where she mentioned the criticisms that surround the court’s impartiality and legitimacy. We learnt that the United States was one of the countries that opted out of the Treaty of Rome which ratified by 124 countries established the International Criminal Court.

We had a short tour of the history and purpose of the court. Using iPhone-like devices and headsets we went through the exhibition learning about the procedures the court undergoes in order to persecute those who commit crimes against humanity in the world. A particularly interactive segment of the tour involved a camera and microphone that displayed how the evidence provided by witnesses is distorted in order to keep them anonymous and safe. Following this tour, a representative of the communications division of the court gave us a briefing on the current cases of the court. We learnt about previous convictions the court had made and about the big role that cooperation between the member states and the court played in order to make the process work.

We were given a choice over which on-going trial to observe and were taken to the gallery to do so. It was a unique experience. It really changed our perspective of the court to actually get to see it in action. The prosecuting team announced to the judge that they were going to play a video as evidence. The defense objected and said the video hadn’t been presented at the start of the trial and therefore they hadn’t had the chance to confirm its origins and accuracy. This discussion brought forward another case in itself where the accused had to be taken out of the room while the court decided whether the video should be played. After a 30 min recess the decision was that the video could be played. We were all awaiting to watch it but then the prosecution decided to do a “short” interrogation of the accused to preface the video. This turned into a showcase of the poor management of the translators, where the English and French versions contradicted each other and the accused had to repeat his testimony over and over. At some point, he even spoke in English to clarify a fact contested by the translators.

Long story short, we sat in the gallery for 2 hours in order to watch a 30 second video that at the end got pushed back to the afternoon session which we couldn’t attend. So much for efficiency in the International Criminal Court I guess.

Next up was the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). We started with a short briefing where the position of the ICTY under the MICT was explained, as well as its own characteristics. The ICTY was scheduled to finish its cases and close permanently on December 2017, so we felt very lucky to have the chance to visit it before then. We got to observe an ongoing retrial of two politicians of the former Yugoslavia who were accused of purposefully pushing away Serbians from the areas of the country they were in charge of. The first trial had acquitted them, but now they were being retried. This case had more information and seemed to be moving forward much more efficiently than the one at the ICC, however a large part of it was held in private session. This meant that in order for confidential information to be discussed in the court room, the recording was silent and us observers couldn’t hear what was being said in the room. A particularly long private session brought us to leave the court.

Overall, we had a very exciting day where we had the chance to watch on-going trials in two widely recognized international courts. We had never been so close to the inner operations of international law as today. It was a unique experience to see how the courts operate and formulate our own opinions and views on the efficiency and accuracy of each of the courts.