Our last day before the long weekend (and our last day at GTL!) was full of presentations and tying loose ends together before we head to Brussels! To start the day, Dr. Birchfield treated us for our last day of class with a variety of tasty pastries from a local bakery. After getting our sugar fix, we started with brief group presentations for Dr. Markley’s Human Rights class.

For these presentations, we referred back to our EU member state that we did presentations on a few weeks back, and this time focused on what human rights offenses are present there today. We grouped ourselves based on development level/similarities between countries (ex: well developed democracy, post- Communist state, etc.) and then focused on one human rights issue in this region that we found particularly interesting. My group consisted of Romania, Bulgaria, and Croatia, and we chose to focus on the discrimination against the Roma people in Romania and elsewhere. We first began by giving a history on the Roma people and their migration from India to Europe, as well as the history of discrimination against them in Europe. For many centuries they were enslaved, and still today face discrimination preventing them from obtaining jobs, housing, and education around Europe. Dr. Markley’s first-hand Romanian insight was particularly helpful, as she was able to further fill us in on the Roma’s access to education, and the conflict between the cultural Roma tradition of pulling girls out of school and the need for education as a basic human right. She compared the treatment of the Roma during the Communist regime (during which the Roma were forced to change their culture to fit that of Romania) to today, where they are heavily discriminated against, but maintain the ability to act in accordance with their own culture. From here, we had a brief discussion on the difference between acculturation and assimilation in relation to human rights, particularly for the Roma people. Other groups gave interesting presentations regarding topics ranging from Finland’s data collection to the refugee crisis and mistreatment of refugees in Hungary, Greece, and others.

After presentations, we took a brief break in which many of us decided to return our rental bikes to the shop in Metz. Despite our own doubts about our ability to bike all the way into town (in a group of 19!) without a crash or fall, we all successfully made it to the bike shop, enjoying the beautiful sights of Metz along the way for one of our final times. Afterwards, many of us feasted on delicious crepes in town before heading back to GTL for the afternoon session of class.

Back in class, we all continued to work on our argument for our scenario for the future of Europe, as outlined in the White paper. This paper presents five future possibilities for the European Union by 2025, with possibilities ranging from simply improving the current EU setup to decreasing the EU back to just an economic community. My group was given scenario 1, entitled “Carrying On”, in which the EU maintains its current institutions as well as improving upon policy and functions of the EU. This includes a more outlined and communal immigration process as well as improvements on the stability of the Euro. Each group gave a brief “rough presentation” on our scenario, to be perfected during our time in Brussels, and debated again a few weeks from now when we have more polished research and first hand experience from our site visits and briefings in Brussels.

Today was a perfect wrap up for our time in Metz, with the future of Europe scenarios helping to fuel our thinking before our time in Brussels, when we are fully delved into the world of the EU. As class ended, Dr. Birchfield gave us a brief overview of what our next few days will look like, getting everyone excited for what’s to come!

June 6^th, 2018

6:45 CEST

Our day began earlier than it ever had before, on a sunny morning at 6:45. We loaded onto the bus, sandwiches in one hand and passports in the other. Our itinerary was stock full, beginning with a two-hour travel time to the city of Strasbourg. Strasbourg is a town full of brightly colored houses and tourists crowded into gift shops. However, on this particular day, we were visiting the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is an organization of mostly European states that get together to discuss human rights violations. The Council does not have the power to enforce its rulings, but it plays a crucial role in making human rights an internationally discussed issue. The entrance to this impactful building displays the flag of each member state, lined along bright green grass.

After being ushered inside by a security guard, we began our tour that started with an introduction to the member states of the Council. They had a map on display, showing a fully filled in Europe, all except for Belarus. Our tour guide informed us that Belarus refuses to outlaw the death penalty, one of the main requirements to join the Council.  Then, we were led to the grand meeting room of the parliament. The meeting room is crowded with row after row of chairs and desks in place for a multitude of representatives. This room is where countries from all over the region gather to bring about change and the hopeful betterment of people. The council members do not sit in order of country, but in alphabetical order of their last name. This system is one way to prevent bias because the goal of the Council is to represent international interests as opposed to national interests.

Our passionate guide then led us to be informed by none other than Angus Macdonald, a Scottish communications officer of the Council of Europe. Angus, sunglass clad and sitting atop a desk, spoke to us about why the world needs the Council and how it inspires change across the globe. Angus welcomed our questions throughout his talk, addressing our concerns about migration reform and members attempting to leave the Council. He introduced the Council by exemplifying the distinctions between the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Council has 47 member states, while the EU is soon to have 27. The idea of the Council is in fact older then the EU, Winston Churchill mentioning it in 1943. There was also some confusion expressed on why the Council and the Union have the same flag and the same anthem. Angus clarified that the Council had both its flag and anthem first and that the EU decided to use them as well. He informed us that if the EU had the budget of the Council, then it would only last for two or three days. The budget discrepancy demonstrates how much human rights truly takes a backseat due to what a state considers a priority like trade and economic regulations. 

We departed the continent’s leading human rights organization, back on the bus to eat the five-star sandwiches Dr. B got for us. After a short drive with a scenic view of the surrounding mountains, we arrived at the Alsace-Moselle Memorial. This museum featured how World War II affected the region. There was an overhang that gave way to a gorgeous view of the mountains and little town nestled between them. Obviously, we had a photoshoot there, taking advantage of Hamid’s not so hidden photography skills. The entry room of the museum came as quite a shock to me. As we were led into a dimly lit room with portraits lining the wall, I saw the immense amount of history pertaining to Metz. There it was-photographic proof of the German occupation of Metz. It wasn’t just the Germans, but the Nazis in particular. It was such a strange experience seeing pictures of streets that I have walked several times a week that were packed with Hitler supporters instead of shoppers and their dogs.

Passing through the photography exhibit and rooms filled with flashing lights along with makeshift tanks, it was easy to see how well done this museum truly was. There were train cars with uneven floors, rooms lined with flags, and truly captivating videos presented throughout it all. Just before the exit, we were presented with an interactive projection style game. After hearing echoing laughter and shouts of agreement, Hamid and I walked into a brightly lit room filled with mirrors on the walls and images projected onto the ceiling. The majority of our little group had been entertaining themselves by ranking how important different aspects of the EU were. It was a very interesting set up and a good idea on the part of the museum designer. There were also impressive graphics displayed on the ceiling, often incorporating the flag of the EU (and the Council of Europe). We then flooded into the gift shop, surrounding the EU paraphernalia like the true fangirls we have all become. I bought a mug with the EU stars engraved on it; it shall soon be filled with hot chocolate and marshmallows.

Our day got increasingly heavier as we continued with each step of the itinerary: from the Council of Europe to the Alsace-Moselle Memorial to Natzweiler concentration camp. On my previous trip to Europe I had been to Dachau, so I sort of knew what to expect. The thing about concentration camps is that if you don’t read the signs, you don’t immediately know what it is. Natzweiler is at the top of a winding mountain road, surrounded by a grand expanse of cedar trees and blue skies. It was not until we entered the museum that the expected atmosphere was revealed. A somber black and white film depicted what life was like while the camp was active. Stairs led down into the exhibit, an extensive history of World War II and its respective human rights violations were on display. They had conveniently laminated English versions of the information in bins next to each section.

As soon as we began walking through the gallery, rain began pouring down outside. By pouring down, I mean exactly that-water pounding down and thunder echoing in our ears. Some brave souls decided to run into battle with the rain to head towards where the camp was. Soon after we saw them disappear into the ocean that the outside had become, hail began pelting down. This vastly limited the desire of the rest of the group to head to the camp. We all wondered around the upstairs for a while as Dr. Markley told us stories about Romania and we read about atrocities of the past. It began nearing our departure time and yet some of us had not yet braved the weather in order to go to the other museum and physically walk through the gate of the camp. A few of us decided it was worth seeing, even if only for a few minutes. With umbrellas in hand and our feet hopefully avoiding puddles, we ran outside. It is impossible for me to grasp how it must have been, being persecuted each and every day while being surrounded by a beautiful landscape of alps. The physical camp is very flat with long and short buildings on each end. There were also large patches of dirt covering the ground, just how it was at Dachau. The small museum they had at the top of the hill was also very interesting with lots of models of different portions of the war displayed. It was then time to leave, all of us heading toward the bus soaked from head to toe.

It was once again time for a two-hour ride back so we all passed out quite quickly. When we woke up, Pedro informed us that Dr. B was getting pizza for all of us, bringing a cheesy end to our day.

We hit the ground running for our second day with Dr. Markley! To get our minds warmed up, we took a short quiz on the readings and some of the material covered from our first lecture. The five question quiz was based on the Donnelly chapters we read before the class began. The questions covered topics from characterization of periods in our history, to different models of human rights, to ways in which human rights are used as a foreign policy tool.

After the quiz we continued lecture from yesterday. We began by discussing the whether an international human rights regime has developed after WWII and the major issue that national implementation of international human rights is a slow and difficult process. There were a variety of opinions about 172 countries agreeing to International HR being a regime. I personally believe that out of the almost 200 countries on the globe, the current 172 countries agreeing on a set of rights is an accomplishment, especially with such differences among all of us. There is of course always room for improvement—one day I hope that all humans, regardless of nationality, race, gender, sexuality are granted equal rights across the globe.

A question that garnered a lot of attention in our class was “Why do countries ratify conventions but don’t apply international human rights laws?” We concluded that many do it for political and international validity. Signing on to a convention also holds the country accountable to their citizens. Another topic of discussion is why we should be concerned with other countries human rights practices. It’s important here to emphasize that we are discussing human rights. Therefore, we should value all human lives regardless of nationality. We also have to remember atrocities in our history, such as the holocaust and Rwandan genocide. Many countries turned a blind eye to what was happening in these countries and countless lives could have been saved.

We followed this with a couple of open discussion questions regarding the division of human rights, and how to define them. We ultimately came to the conclusion that human rights can be divided into social and economic rights versus civil and political rights, and this often dictates how countries implement human rights policies. Some value civil and political rights over social and economic rights. However, Donnelly says that we need to value both equally. This brought us to the term cultural relativism— you have to understand human behavior in the context of its own culture. Countries often cannot come to a consensus on what rights should be established and how to enforce them. That’s what makes it so difficult to implement human rights legislation and policy on an international scale.

The discussion on human rights was wrapped up with a review of the three models of human rights—cosmopolitan, statist, and internationalist. We discussed how these play a role in an anarchic international system, or a system where the actors are states and there is no supranational organization. The class was broken into two groups who compared and contrasted cosmopolitan and internationalist and statist and internationalist. Cosmopolitan is more individual focused, human rights should be implemented by the individuals, while statist argues the states are the primary enforcers of human rights, and internationalist argues for a supranational organization to enforce the human rights that are determined by the states. We also pointed out that implementation of an international human rights law takes some sovereignty away from states, and this can be a major problem for states.

The final activity of the day was to prepare a presentation for Thursday. Our task was to find a human rights violation in the member state that we were assigned and then to find other member states with a similar political background or in the same region and make a presentation on these violations. My member state was Finland, so I grouped with Gemma, Shekinah, and Hamid who worked on Ireland, Denmark, and Sweden, respectively. We decided to make the focus of our presentation Finland and their violation of the right to privacy—both in the physical and digital worlds. Finland does not require a court order for search and seizure of property, and they are now implementing a legislation that allows for civilian and military surveillance by the government. This requires altering the constitution, and violates the right to privacy that is important to citizens. It draws to many people’s attention the fact that human rights need to be extended beyond just the physical world, as much more of our lives is playing out in the digital sphere.

All in all, day two of human rights lecture with Dr. Markley was full of introspection, discussion, and a new understanding of how complex human rights is. She creates a safe space for us to express our points of view, and challenges us to think differently. I can’t wait to visit the council of Europe and for our site visits in Brussels where we will hear about how these human rights theories are put into practice!