Today we arrived at our beloved conference room in the Euroflat Hotel for our last series of lectures from the esteemed Italian Brigadier General.

He enlightened us on the topic of International Security & Geography beginning promptly at 10 am. We started off learning that geography is the study of features and patterns formed by the interaction of natural and man-made environments. Geography impacts nature, development, perceptions, relationships, and politics. Speaking of which, “geopolitics” is defined to be the influence of geography upon politics, and developed from the 19^th Century on through four different schools of thought.

Subscribing to the Anglo-American Classical School of thought was Mackinder (1904) who believed that the Heartland was the key to ruling the world and that land power prevailed, while his counterpart Spyman (1942) alternatively believed that ruling the Rimland was more important along with sea power over land power. Students of the German Classical School of thought believed in Neo-Darwinism and thought that the State would naturally need Lebensraum to grow, as it naturally has a right to expand with only the fittest surviving. They also thought that it was the Manifest Destiny of Germany to rule.

Those in the American Cold War School believed that the containment of the Soviet Union went hand-in-hand with the Domino Theory. It was thought that containment should be achieved by surrogate powers through the three pillars:  American engagement in Europe, a strong Europe, and a strong China.  The fourth and final school of thought is the American Post-Cold War School in which divisions were thought to be cultural. According to this School, conflict occurs among fault lines between civilizations, and connected geostrategic regions generate a dynamic world equilibrium.

A strong point Mr. Cuzzelli made in his lecture was that seas unite people, thereby stressing the importance of maritime transportation. He said that food, energy, and raw materials are necessary to form a country and later stressed his point that climate change is a human security issue. Global warming compromises space and food, determines migrations, damages land, hinders developments, makes water a scarcity, and leads less-developed countries into famine. As essential commodities continue becoming more and more scarce, resource wars will emerge, especially since the world population is increasing exponentially.

After learning all of this, we took a quick [2 hour] break for lunch and returned ready to learn more. Our second and final lecture from Mr. Cuzzelli focused on Security & International Law. We talked about the right to defend and the concept of “Just War.” An important change we focused on was the transition from punishing wrongdoers to punishing wrongdoings. UN Article 2.4 prohibits resort to force with the exceptions of collective measures, self-defense, and humanitarian-intervention. He stressed that hostile action by a non-member state qualifies as an attack, and therefore a response to terrorism makes for Just War. A controversial topic is that of anticipatory self-defense/ preemptive strikes, but in general habits and customs rule in International Law.

Moving on to some specifics, the Right to Intervene is only possible under a UN Charter so that intervention can combat threats to international peace and security. Humanitarian Intervention is very difficult to justify outside of a UN Charter and hardly acceptable. Some major strategies to succeed with humanitarian intervention are as follows:  act quickly and resolutely, withstand pressure from the public, engage with a coalition of actors, and plan an exit strategy. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) serves as a global commitment to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. This differs from humanitarian intervention because it is endorsed by the UN and it is comprehensive. The Right to Prosecute up to WWII deemed that a war of aggression was not an international crime, and national sovereignty is always paramount. After WWII, Germany was punished and forced to pay compensation, and the Nurnberg and Tokyo trials took place. (These trials served to punish wrongdoings.) As Jackson famously said, this was “not for vengeance but for justice.” After the horrors of WWII, the UN was established and the Convention against Genocide & Universal Declaration of Human Rights took place. Additionally, an International Court was established (to which the US does not adhere).

To sum up, war is formally prohibited as a means of resolution of international controversy, self-defense is an inherent right, there are doubts on preventative action, the right to intervene is limited to UN Mandate, and R2P is a more formal and legitimate version of humanitarian intervention. Whew! That sure was a lot.

After absorbing all of this information, we had a few hours before heading over to our group dinner with the host parents who could attend. Inside of those brick walls and amongst the white tablecloths, families, students, and Tech alumnus conversed and enjoyed a lovely three-course meal. We got to meet other students’ host families and find out a little bit about their lives in Brussels. Once everyone had taken their last bite of cake and wrapped up their conversations, we all trekked back to our houses to end the night.

After spending the morning working in groups to prepare for an upcoming US-EU negotiation simulation, our group headed to the Council of the European Union (formerly known as the Council of Ministers). The Council of the European Union or the “Council” is one of the main bodies of the European Union. It is a forum through which EU Member States may promote their national interests. The Council is in a unique position of creating one coherent position on policy issues out of possibly twenty eight differing opinions of Member States. The Council consists primarily of 28 ministers, one from each Member State, who are Member States’ ambassadors to the EU. It is chaired by one Member State which rotates every six months. Malta currently holds the presidency, and in July it will pass the baton to Estonia. Through the “codecision” process, the Council of the European Union works closely with the democratically elected European Parliament to revise and adopt legislation. In addition the council meets in ten different configurations, each of which specializes in a different subject area. For example, the Foreign Affairs Council configuration brings together foreign affairs ministers from the Member States who work closely with the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to shape EU foreign policy.

Today we had the pleasure of hearing a presentation on migration and asylum policy from Mrs.Susanne Nielson. She has previously worked on EU enlargement policy and EU Africa policy. Mrs. Nielson now works directly with the president of the Council to get general consensus on different policies with a focus on migration. Her presentation provided insightful details about EU migration policies which we had heard a little about at the High Level Conference on Migration which we attended last week. In recent years Europe has experienced a large influx of migrants and refugees, notably from the Middle East and Africa. Migrants to Europe travel through three main routes.

Eastern Mediterranean Route:

The first migration route runs from Turkey to Greece. Due to the crisis in Syria as well as other Middle Eastern states, Turkey has received millions of refugees and migrants many of whom travel to Greece and other Balkan states. Irregular migration to Greece peaked in October 2015 with Greece receiving hundreds of thousands of migrants in one month. After various initiatives such as the EU-Turkey arrangement in 2016, irregular migration has steadily declined and is now close to zero. Migration along this route has decreased by 79%. Greece, however, continues to receive thousands of migrants legally.

Central Mediterranean Route:

The second route or the Central Mediterranean route runs from Libya and other northern African countries to Italy. Libya serves as the departure point for 90% of migrants traveling to the European Union. This has, however, proved to be problematic since it is illegal to be a migrant in Libya. Migrants discovered by the government are sent to detention centers.  Organizations such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) are often able to successfully negotiate access to detained migrants and return them to their country of origin if the person wishes to do so. The central mediterranean route is generally longer and therefore more dangerous than the Eastern Mediterranean Route with thousands of deaths already recorded in 2017. Migrants usually pay large sums of money to smugglers for passage across the Mediterranean. The smugglers put groups of migrants on rubber boats which are usually not equipped to handle large capacities. Smugglers also may not provide enough gas for the boat, and many boats sadly never make it to the European coast. Some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have boats waiting outside the Libyan maritime zone to help these migrants board sturdier boats and guide them to the Italian coast. Such organizations must, according to Mrs. Nielson, navigate between saving lives and helping smugglers by doing their job for them. With their profits smugglers often engage in the arms trade in Libya further contributing to the instability that causes mass migrations to Europe in the first place. They then profit from these migrations by offering passage to Europe at high prices which many are forced to pay in order to flee instability in their home countries. Migration along this route has increased by eighteen percent between 2015 and 2016.

Western Mediterranean Route:

The last route runs from Morocco and Algeria to western European countries such as Portugal, Spain, and France. This route has recorded the lowest number of irregular and regular migrants. In 2006 this route was the most common route for illegal border crossings into the EU. At its peak in 2006 over 31,000 irregular migrations occurred to the EU. Even within Western Africa, there were around 180,000 migrants in 2016.

Common migration routes to Europe
Source: https://xchange.org/the-dangerous-routes-migrants-take-to-the-uk/

       After arriving in the EU, migrants enter the asylum process laid out by what are known as the Dublin Regulations. Dublin III which entered into force in 2013 provides the most recent laws regulating this process. Migrants must apply for asylum status once they arrive in the European Union. The state in which an asylum seeker applies for asylum is responsible for either granting or denying asylum. Until a decision is made, migrants must remain in their respective Member State. In Greece migrants must stay on the Greek islands until their application is processed. If granted asylum, the person can live in the Member State from which they were granted asylum but may not necessarily travel freely to other EU countries unless granted permanent residence or EU citizenship. If asylum is denied, the asylum seeker may not reapply for asylum in another Member State and is generally sent back to the country of origin. These regulations aim to prevent “asylum orbiting” in which asylum seekers travel to different Member States and submit multiple asylum applications until they are granted asylum. In addition to EU Member States, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Iceland also participate in the Dublin Regulations.

Though the Dublin Regulations and subsequent reforms have greatly increased the efficiency, new regulations are needed. Because the Member State in which the asylum seeker submits their application is responsible for the individual, border states such as Greece and Italy are forced to house thousands of refugees while states such as Hungary chose to close their borders. The European Commission proposed the Dublin IV to reform the current Dublin III Regulations. In an effort to relieve Italy and Greece of the large number of refugees arriving on their shores, the Council adopted Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 in 2015 which collectively relocate 160,000 refugees to other Member States. Decisions are legally binding, but some states have refused to accept relocated refugees or even declare how many refugees they plan to take in. The European Commission has recently begun infringement procedures against the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. If the European Union is to cope with the migration crisis, its members must be held accountable and evenly share the burden. Great progress has been made by the EU, but the migration crisis is far from over.

Today we woke up bright and early in order to prepare for the high level foreign policy related briefings from officials at the European External Action Service, which is more commonly referred to by the acronym EEAS.  The EEAS is the institution in the European Union that acts almost as a diplomat by carrying out the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. As the world’s second largest economy (in nominal terms) and unique geopolitical situation, the European Union is undoubtedly a top global actor. They play an important international role in a number of areas including diplomacy, trade, humanitarian aid and development, migration, crisis response, financial matters and promotion of human rights. The EEAS brings coherence and coordination to all of these roles. In addition, it is responsible for carrying out the CSDP or Common Security and Defense Policy, and comprises the collective military expertise of the EU, which is crucial for peace-keeping operations and crisis management. The EEAS harmonizes all these policy areas, even in the context of an increasingly globalized world where Europe is facing a complex and uncertain security environment.

If all of this sounds complicated, a good comparison to help understand the role of the EEAS is to think of it is the equivalent to the US foreign affairs or the US department of state. Except that instead of doing diplomacy on behalf of the American people, the EEAS does it on behalf of the European citizens of 27 different nations; making sure their voices, and the collective voice of the Union, are heard all over the world. The representative of this job is called the High Representative, a position currently held by Frederica Mogherini, who also sits in on the European Commission meetings and the council of EU foreign ministers. The High representative position is a great symbol of how the EU coordinates its foreign policy by working closely with other EU institutions.

The first briefing we had the privilege of taking part in was by Mr Martin Dihm, the Senior Strategic Communications Advisor of the Strategic Communications Division of the EEAS, a highly qualified official who was previously the EU ambassador to Papua New Guinea. The subject of this briefing was the function and role of the European External Action Service. In addition to what I described previously, I found it incredibly fitting that he opened the briefing with a discussion about when the EU received the Nobel peace prize in 2012, emphasizing how the European Union primarily began as a project to facilitate peace among its member states after decades of war and far-reaching devastation. Even when talking about the origins of the EEAS, it’s imperative to understand it in the context of the European peace project. This was the first of three main points he asserts are crucial to the role of the EEAS in terms of European stability: peace, economic prosperity, and power. “The EU is rich” he put simply, and accurately, to summarize his discussion about the strength of the euro as a currency and the wealth of the European economy in terms of purchasing power. Economic prosperity is key to ensuring a stable Europe, and the single market is largely responsible for this prosperity. His final point was about the power of Europe, asserting that the EU creates a louder and larger voice through which all the member states can speak together. This is essential to understanding the importance of the European External Action Service, because as I mentioned earlier, it is the vessel through which this voice is heard throughout the world.

Comment Page illustration

The subject of the second briefing was especially relevant due to the recent US political environment: EU-US relations. The briefing was given by Mr Rafal Domisiewicz, an EEAS Policy Officer with Polish origins who works primarily in the US Canada Division. Recently, because of the upcoming NATO defense ministers meeting, the media has been covering the infamous and repetitive complaints by Donald Trump that the EU (or rather, 23 out of the 28 member states in his imprecise assertion) “owe massive amounts of money” and don’t pay their fair share for defense. Domisiewicz did a tasteful job of highlighting this issue by opening with a statement that building relations with the US is often about trying to emphasize the added value of the EU (to the US), and maintain that Europe is a valuable partner both economically and politically. He also discussed the Marshall Plan in a way I found unique, especially because I have studied the Marshall Plan in many different contexts – history, cold war ideological struggle, and European Union integration, you name it – but he explained it from the US perspective in a very novel way. He asserted that the Marshall Plan was never merely an altruistic gesture by the US, but that in addition to helping rebuild Europe after WWII it was most importantly an investment in the America’s own security interest because it helped the US gain strategic allies. This strengthened his argument that Europe is important and a vital asset in the strategic national security interest of the US. Of course, the Marshall Plan was one of the most important foreign policy initiatives to form the foundation of the EU-US relationship that exists today, one that has lasted for decades because of our shared values, the most important of which are human rights, democracy, and a free market according to Domisiewicz. He finished by mentioning that recognizing and maintaining these values is key to achieving our common interests on the global stage, notably in the military cohesion, space, energy, and trade sectors.

The third and final briefing was given by Mr Angel Carro Castrillo, on the subject of the global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy. Castrillo was an official of French origins, and a Senior Adviser in the Strategic Planning division of the EEAS. Castrillo used a simple equation (something the engineers in our group have been long missing at this point in the trip) to concisely explain the premise behind the EU’s global strategy for their foreign and security policy: shared vision + common action = a stronger Europe. To unpack that equation a bit, he meant that the volatile status of the world around calls for a more confident and responsive European Union, which requires an outward and forward looking European Foreign and Security Policy. This means that solidarity is vital among member states, because working together in a unified way will help the EU be more effective in achieving its objectives. He synthesized the argument for the importance of EU integration down into a phrase that will probably always stick with me: “There are two types of European states: small ones, and those who don’t realize they are small”. To me this means that a united Europe holds an economic and political weight that is much more profound than that of any individual member state. With an increasing number of factors challenging the internal cohesion of the EU, like growing inequality, the age gap, and climate change, speaking and acting with one voice and one united policy is the only way for Europe to maximize its interests in the current international environment. Visiting the institution that facilitates this process was a unique and compelling experience, and our group left with a much deeper appreciation for how European integration is necessary both for the prosperity of Europe and its strategic foreign partnerships.

Over the past two days we received lectures from Giorgio Cuzelli, a former military officer who later served in NATO for several years. The topics of these lectures focused on international security, which must be observed on three different levels: human, national, and international. Approaches and the evolution of crisis management were also discussed on the first day. On the second day, we learned about as much as one could ever hope to know about NATO, including its relationship with international security, as well as specific alliances on the Eastern, Western, and Southern fronts.

Day I: International Security and Crisis Management

“Security” was defined as the absence of danger as well as fear. It also includes the general stability of access to basic needs (food, water, shelter). Furthermore, the implementation of the term itself covers a far broader spectrum than just the mere use of military force. “Security” can refer to a risk of epidemics, the energy crisis, as well as even cyber security/ the security of digital information. When making a decision/ deciding that security must be more stringent, four basic questions must be asked. These include: who is the primary group in need of being protected, from what do they need protection from: (as well their perception of this threat… this is a very important point because perceptions themselves can cause fear), how/ who will carry out the implementation of higher security, and for what purpose?

*the answer to the last question is SUPPOSED to be something along the lines of  “allowing human relations for improve, to develop a more stable society.” However, as we later talked about in a discussion, there were many examples of when nations have intervened with an agreeable, just purpose, yet have had ulterior motives. One example would be the Vietnam War, when the US took advantage of the economic opportunities that France had been forced to leave behind, yet intervened in the name of democracy. A more recent example would be the US intervention in Libya. Although there were several atrocities going on at the time, the US saw an opportunity for a regime change and immediately grabbed it.

Cuzelli did note however that once something happens, it’s often too late. The goal of security in this sense is DETERRENCE; that is preventing the problem before it has a chance to manifest and develop.

In discussing the three types of security, and how they relate to one another, there was an interesting paradox.

National Security gives priority to the state, emphasizing it as the protector and defender of the citizens, (regardless of international relations with other sovereign states).

International security gives priority to peace between sovereign states, (regardless of national interests).

Human Security gives priority to the safety and well-being in of the individual, (regardless of international and national interests).

Therefore, in order for there to be peace and stability within a region, there must be a balance between the three types of security, since none of the goals of each directly align with one another. So many times what is best for a region of countries in conflict (such as the Middle East) is not going to be best for each of those countries individually, and therefore some sort of compromise is required practically every time. The first two paradoxes are fairly self-evident, and in a way they sort of counter-balance one another. However, the last one does not have such a counter-balance on it, and I believe that this is (at least one of) the root causes of conflict today.

The power of perception was brought up several times. It was said that our personal reality is 90% perception, 10% fact. I thought about this for a while, and began to question more and more the opinion of Western media. I tried to look at recent events with an objective lens, but I soon realized that this was basically looking at things from an Eastern perspective and balancing it out with the views I was familiar with. But I realized that no matter what conclusion I came to, it would always be clouded with at least some sort of bias, because I would never have an aerial point of view. It’s still hard to say if the two takes really balanced each other out.

Part of the reason the US (and other countries as well) tend to intervene so much is because of “human security,” or a “humanitarian crisis.” However “human security” is highly subjective, and in a lot of ways Western countries are able to bend the rules a bit. What I mean is that once they get to a country, after invasion with a supposedly just pretext, they often implement “regime change” as a form of “advancing human security.” Is this justified? In some cases, it might be. But them just doing it on their own accord, without accountability is not. Even if a country is de-stabilized, does that give another country the right to implement a form of government that they deem fair/ right, because it works for them? If this were the case, then Russia would have been legally able to overtake any unstable country and implement communism in the Cold War. However, it is not the case. There is no law that gives any country the right to intervene/ take over a government, because on the international playing field, states are supposed to have equal sovereignty. But so often this regime change is done in the name of “human security.” Because so many of the big military powers are democratic NATO members, this behavior is often condoned. However, it doesn’t mean that it is fair. Just because something is popular does not mean that it is the best. The US thinks that it has some sort of “divine right” exclusively because that specific form of government supposedly holds public officials accountable and hasn’t caused any major revolutions. However, does that mean that it’s the best form of government? Has it prevented corruption and poverty?

Crisis Management:

A “crisis” was defined as when the core values/ basic needs of society are at stake. It is a situation in which there is potential to not only worsen relations between nation states, but also escalate and lead to worse consequences. The key to effective crisis management, as mentioned before, is deterrence. Therefore, it is imperative to have a system of strategic monitoring so that the instant a situation occurs, nations can be alerted and prepared for the best course of diplomatic action. On the other hand, if intervention is needed, strategic surprise is a key element of success. This “surprise” can be in the form of WHO is intervening, to WHERE they are intervening, as well as WHAT exactly they are doing. Even after a crisis is effectively managed, it is just as important to continue following up so that it does not occur in the future. The example of Obama’s withdrawal of troops in Iraq and the resulting conflict that followed was used as an example as a time when “stabilization” and “monitoring any future risk” were not properly followed. There are many different actors in an international crisis scene, besides of course the government. These include anything from NGO’s to intelligence agencies to the media. In order for a crisis to be effectively managed, all of these institutions must work together. One recent example of when a crisis was effectively managed was the Ebola crisis. I feel like the reason for that success was is due to the fact that all countries involved had a common goal: save lives. They didn’t have ulterior interests, and because of that they were all able to cooperate so nicely. If only we could do that with climate change.

One other important thing that is not looked nearly enough into is the principle of an exit strategy. So often countries intervene with plans of destabilization or regime change or humanitarian aid… but the reality is that they cannot stay there forever. And often times when they leave, the country on its own is not stable enough to prevent another crisis from occurring. Fortunately, countries are starting to realize this, and more recently in the European Union there has been discussion of African and Middle Eastern economic investment, to basically address the root of economic migration crisis.

Day II: NATO & International Security

Since its initial founding, NATO has expanded from “collective defense” to crisis management and cooperative security. Technically, its authority is derived from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which states that nations have a right to defend themselves and/or attack a perceived threat. A common misconception is that the organization was founded as a military alliance. While partially true, the original intent was to unify nations who share the same interest of defending their dear democratic values. The organization is consensus based, although member states can abstain without preventing any action. Coalitions are formed by nations, on a case by case basis. This makes a lot of sense, since Belgium has entirely different security problems than Poland, who has entirely different needs from Turkey or Greece.

Although the organization began as a sort of Cold War organization, the cold war has been over for almost 30 years. So, NATO has gone through quite a bit of an evolution, in a way redefining themselves. Different summits in the 21^st century have led to increased engagement against ISIL as well as counterterrorism itself, a new cyber defense initiative, as well as an increased “forward” presence in Eastern Europe. The latter hadn’t always been the case. In fact after the fall of the Soviet Union when several former Soviet states joined, NATO worked hard to form a bilateral alliance with Russia. This began in the early 1990s, and eventually evolved into a NATO-Russia Council, which was an active cooperation group. However, after the 2008 Georgia crisis, this was placed on hold. Although some cooperation resumed in 2009, this was abruptly halted in 2014 after the Ukrainian crisis. Currently the “forward presence” includes multinational battle groups in 4 eastern states as well as ballistic missile defense. Cuzelli offered an interesting perspective on Russia. He said that ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, Russia has never been the same. Basically this treaty introduced the concept of Western sovereignty, which would eventually evolve into shared Western Sovereignty. However, Russia has always seen its neighbors as a few weak states, never a true threat. But when all of a sudden those few neighboring countries joined an alliance of like twenty others, and “engaging in conflict with one, meant engaging in conflict of all of them, it is no wonder that they feel threatened. Russia is now symbolically bordered by a huge landmass of military alliances, geographically comparable to the size of the United States. This is quite a huge difference from a few weak countries, formerly part of their very own Soviet Union. And on top of that, they have no natural borders. Put in perspective, recent actions now make sense. Not only do Ukraine and Crimea have very close historic ties with Russia (Crimea also being a holy land) but they are also strategic points of land that once controlled enabled Russia to have a better defense and eye on the West. Although I don’t think Russia’s actions were necessarily justified, I can’t say that ganging up on them was the best idea either.

Many times in recent years, there have been are unilateral US initiatives and national/ continental issues of European countries that have sparked conflict. The most recent one I think would be the controversy of defense spending. Europeans have sometimes been described as “free riders” hiding under the umbrella of US nuclear safety. However with the recent 2% rule this is slowly coming to an end, as Europeans are starting to build up their military strength.

Later NATO’s “relevance” was discussed, and at least from my perspective it seems stronger than ever. The collective defense promotes not only “mutual commitment” but also “solidarity amount member states.” Not only does it strengthen Euro-Atlantic relations but it also helps stabilize the Eurasian continent by providing a counterbalance to emerging threats (as well as Russia). Recent agreements like the 2003 Berlin Plus followed by the 2010 Lisbon treaty have resulted in increased coordination and planning capabilities with the EU. It remains one of the primary respondents to international crisis, and the consensus-based decision making process ensures that decisions made are the best ones, always putting the common values of the member states before individual interest.

Towards the end of the lecture today, there were a few questions brought up, one of which had to do with Americans. I don’t remember the exact specifics, but I do remember the answer, which basically put Americans in a very positive light. This struck me as odd at first, because for a while I had been under the impression that at least in Europe, the typical American stereotypes was sort of what defined us, at least in current times. Of course, before coming on this trip I had taken history courses and knew enough about the European Union and the US and NATO to know that we were strong political and military Allies, who fought through not only two World Wars but also the Cold War together. Well obviously our governments are close, but what about the people? No, my experience with Europeans hasn’t been terrible, but I wouldn’t say I’ve gotten the vibe that we were absolutely loved, like Cuzelli said we were. He hasn’t been the first person to say that. In fact, each time any European official brings up the German Marshall Fund, there has been practically eternal praise towards the US.  Even though there has been quite a bit of conflict since the end of World War II, and things haven’t always really been that rosy between the US and other countries, I really don’t think we give ourselves nearly enough credit. Even though our current government and administration is so easy to criticize, the fact that we are able to criticize our government so much is part of what makes the system so amazing. Because we don’t have restrictions on public media, we are able to at least somewhat hold our government accountable. Not even all “democratic” countries have that. And even though the majority of Americans don’t look at the data/policy/information of each Congressman/ different US Departments provided to us, the fact that our government is so transparent is what makes it so great. It’s really quite easy to be cynical about our government and even the world in general today. But just looking at the past 100 years at least with the UN and EU, not to mention all of the international NGOs all working together, I think it is truly amazing how far countries have come. Yes, there are still a lot of problems in the world today, but what people sometimes forget is that so many of them have been at least partially solved, if not fully reconciled.