Located at 77 Rue du Lombard, the Parliament of the Brussels-Capital Region serves as the governing body for the Brussels area, one of three regions that make up Belgium. The parliament is housed by two beautiful buildings of contrasting nature.

The older of the two buildings was the former Governor’s Palace. Entering the building off of a street inspired by the work of Haussmann in Paris, we were greeted by a historic marble entrance hall where we met the President of the Parliament and Host Mother to one of our students, Julie de Groote. To begin the visit, she took us on a short, informative tour of the building. She showed many different rooms, a dining room where she has hosted heads of states, one called “little Versailles”, and pieces of art all along the way.

Next, we proceeded to the newer Parliament building. When the building was under construction, a modern style was chosen to represent the evolving nature of democracy. The contrasting extravagant, gold plated design of the old building with the sleek, clean design of the new building is meant to represent the ever-changing work that the parliament does every day. Additionally, there was a large shift in the decoration of this building. Mrs. de Groote told us that when decorating the building, local artists were asked to “occupy” each room. This lead to some thought- provoking designs. For example, in one of the commission rooms, there was a modern depiction of the famous Manneken Pis standing next to Erasmus, the founder of humanism, representing various elements of the common Brussels spirit. Also, in the center of the room, a large concrete block hangs from a thread. This is meant to convey that the heavy, difficult process of democracy is often only held together by a small thread. In addition to the prominent symbolism at every corner of the building, it is sustainably constructed, using rainwater to power various functions throughout the building and lacking any central heating system.

After climbing a winding staircase to the top floor of the building, we arrived in the hemicycle of the parliament. Here Mrs. de Groote opened up the floor to questions that we may have had for her. Students from our group asked her a wide variety of questions, ranging from tensions between urban and rural Brussels to women in politics. In my opinion, the answers that Mrs, de Groote gave were detailed and informative. Once all questions were answered, she turned the tables and posed 3 different questions for us to think about. First, is it beneficial to have an obligatory vote? Second, she asked us to think about President Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” and what “Great Again” actually means for the future of the United States. She ended the tour with one final question, is it possible to speak about civil liberties in a world where social media is so prevalent? We were not required to answer any of the questions right then, but just to think about them and determine what our personal responses would be.

Overall, I found this site visit to be extremely interesting and unique. It was such a privilege to be shown around by the President herself and it offered a perspective that we could not have gained from anyone else. As a host parent for the program, the tour felt even more personal due to this unique connection. This program focuses mainly on supranational European Union institutions, so it was nice to visit a regional government to see how the EU Member States are run on a more intimate level. Consequently, I think that understanding this concept will help us better visualize the true magnitude of the EU’s work.

On Thursday, June 20, the Georgia Tech students on the European Union Study Abroad Program visited the Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military History of Belgium in Brussels. The panorama on top of the arches overlooking the Cinquantenaire Park provided a beautiful view of the city, despite the overcast weather.

When we entered the museum, we spent about 30-45 minutes previewing the World War I exhibit that provided a detailed analysis of the events towards the end of the war and the period after the war. After a short introduction of the exhibit, the group had lunch in the museum café located in the hangar, and we all admired the historical military air-crafts as we ate.

After lunch, we entered the World War I exhibit again to explore the artifacts in greater depth. From my high school experiences, as well as several other students on the program that I spoke with, the First World War was taught in much less depth than the Second World War. As a result, a large portion of the exhibit, such as certain statistics regarding destruction and other specifics, presented new information to me. This new information improved my understanding of the post-war period as well. For example, the exhibit featured U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points for world peace, and one of them mentioned the restoration of French territories that were invaded in the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. Understanding that the French wanted to address issues from the Franco-Prussian War helped to clarify why the punishments Germany faced after the First World War were so harsh.

However, the museum also reinforced the broad knowledge I had of the First World War before our class visit. The existence of alliances led to an unimaginable escalation of events after the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke, Franz Ferdinand, by a Serbian nationalist. The technological evolution of military weaponry coupled with the global scale of the conflict resulted in tremendously deadly trench warfare, and the destruction that ensued crippled societies, physically and psychologically. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919 in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, expressed the grief of the Allied Powers with its harsh punishments on Germany, but it also demonstrated the importance placed on creating a peaceful way to resolve conflicts by establishing the League of Nations.

I also believe the opportunity to visit this museum arose in a very timely fashion, considering our group is traveling to Versailles on Thursday, June 27 to attend the symposium for the 100^th anniversary of the signing of the treaty on the following day. We will have the opportunity to hear from multiple speakers with expert knowledge on the topic, and the added significance of the 100^th anniversary will greatly enhance the experience.

On Tuesday, June 18th, the students of the GT European Union program visited Bruegel, an economic think tank based in the city of Brussels. When the students arrived, they were greeted with refreshments and snacks, which they all enjoyed.

The group was then led into a large briefing room, and spent the next few hours learning from Secretary General Matt Dunn about what Bruegel does and how they are influential in the European Union.

Bruegel is a European think tank established in 2005, and the name Bruegel stands for Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory. Their mission includes helping to shape European economic policy with a focus on European macroeconomics, global economics and governance, and an emphasis on policy recommendations. Bruegel uses open and fact-based research, analysis, and debate to improve the quality of economic policy while being independent and nondoctrinal. They are inspired by leading US nonpartisan think tanks, but there are many differences between Bruegel and US think tanks such as the Brookings Institute.

For instance, Bruegel is funded by both public and private organizations. Their independent research agenda is set collectively by members and other stakeholders. There are three categories of members: state, corporate, and institutional; their members include 18 EU Member states, 34 international companies, and 14 international institutions. Bruegel is a non-profit organization classified as AISBL under Belgian law. They are non-partisan with a strong emphasis on public transparency and accountability, and they have an inbuilt balance of stakeholder representation that allows them to be non-partisan. For example, no organization can provide funding that is more than 4.5% of Bruegel’s annual budget, ensuring that no one member has significantly more influence over the think tank. The board is half-elected and half-appointed with 3-year mandates.

In terms of Bruegel’s research, they provide an annual report of research activity to members and have an annual collective exercise to set the agenda for the research. They also have bilateral consultations with the members on a draft programme, and board decisions are based on feedback collected on the programme. Execution of the research programme is carried out independently, and all of Bruegel’s outputs have a strategic design. In order to completely commit to transparency, Bruegel is also evaluated every three years by an independent committee, and the evaluations are published to their website.

Yesterday, we visited the European Commission! We walked in at 9:20 AM and went through security. We were first greeted by Nicole Peil and were given a few minutes to look around in the Visitors Center before our briefings. The Visitors Center is very interactive, with an entire wall dedicated to a touch-screen display of the current Commissioners. The opposite wall shows previous Presidents and their achievements. After ten minutes or so, we were directed to a presentation room.

Enjoying the interactive displays

The presidents!

The purpose of the Commission!

Our first briefing was from Simon Genevaz and Laurent Forestier on the topic of competition policy and what the Commission does about mergers. Mr. Forestier walked us through the Commission’s policies and rules in a theoretical sense. He described the history of the policies and what he thought the future might hold for competition policy. Mr. Genevaz then explained a case study- the Siemens-Alstom merger. He gave us a quick history of both companies and then illustrated how their merger would have negative consequences. He then asked us what we would do to solve the problem, and showed us a few potential solutions that were discarded. After we had thought for a few minutes, Mr. Genevaz unveiled the actual solution: the European Commissioner blocked their merge completely! At the end of their presentation, Mr. Forestier and Mr. Genevaz took our questions. One of the most interesting questions was Anika’s- she wondered if the Commission ever exerts merger control solely for security reasons. The answer Mr. Forestier gave us was no; the European Commission analyzes companies regardless of where they are from. When security is involved, different laws apply.

Laurent Forestier presenting to us!

Our second briefing was from Franco Roccatagliata on the topic of international taxes and the laws surrounding them. He was very nice and funny; he captivated us with an interesting presentation. Mr. Roccatagliata talked about how important it is for us to understand international law, especially as students of international relations! He even gave us his personal email so that we could reach out with any questions. He then explained tax havens in detail and showed us how they impact the economy of the European Union. He also talked about the criminality of tax evasion and the difficulties that come with the digitalization of our economy. It was more interesting than one would have guessed! Mr. Roccatagliata then took questions. One of the best questions was Kyle’s, which was whether companies should be concerned about taxation if they receive money for things that are “bad” or illegal, such as when Facebook received money from Russia to promote certain ads during the US election. Mr. Roccatagliata told us that the taxation is the least of their worries!

Our third briefing was on the topic of data privacy, given by Bruno Gencarelli. He spoke about the delicate balance between privacy and security. He also explained GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in great detail, which was really helpful. He told us what his responsibilities are- to the extent that he could! Mr. Gencarelli works with confidential information daily. The most interesting part of his presentation was the question and answer session. Jordan asked him what we all wanted to know- what was the Commission doing about Huawei? (Huawei is a Chinese technology company that is currently attempting to be the first global 5G provider. Many countries, including the US, are uncomfortable with this, as China could have easy access to individuals’ data.) Mr. Gencarelli told us that different countries had different opinions, and that the EU has not decided on one specific response. He stated that the EU has to see what other companies have to offer, and that they will pick the best network. He also reminded us that Huawei is not run by the government of China. He told us that at the recent G20 meeting, Japan started an initiative called Data Free Flow with Trust, which is a plan to create an alternative data pool, created on the basis of healthy human-centric values. This is the first time that conversation has happened internationally, so that was really cool!

Over all, it was incredibly interesting to be allowed inside the European Commissioner and to hear from some of its hardest workers on issues that interest us and the people around us!