Days 14, 15 & 16 - Brussels, Amsterdam, and Brugge

Ok,

So I know this is probably not what you were all wanting, but if I didn't finish off this blog this way, I'd never get it done. So here is a quick recap of all the things I missed.

On June 21st, the longest day of the year, we visited the Canadian Mission to the EU. Again.

Ironically, this also seemed like one of the longest talks ever. The subject was Canadian journalism and reporting on Europe and EU affairs.

Our first speaker was responsible for liasing with Ottawa and directing reporters to the appropriate officials and essentially making sure that Canada's image in EU press was what Canada wanted it to be.

However, because the EU and Canada share very similar values, there isn't much to report. There were lots of things in the press about the G20 meeting that was happening that weekend, but other than that, one of the more contentious (and I think politically trivial issues) was the Seal Hunt. That's it. Europe was upset by the native Inuit seal hunt.

Other than that, there isn't much drama within the trans-Atlantic partnership between Canada and the EU.

Because of this lack of presence in the press, I felt like this woman's job was pretty obsolete.

After the press rep, a Canadian journalist working for the independant EU Observer, Leigh Phillips, spoke to us about the relationship between the Canadian press and the EU.

Again, while some of his views on EU issues were interesting, I didn't find the talk all that intriguing or stimulating.

The highlight of that day for me was discovering Cliff Tailors (Rue de Tongers 10-12). This amazing haberdashery had a ton of different designer and luxury labels--GANT, Ralph Lauren, Dsquared (a Canadian Label!), Band of Outsiders, etc. I was enamoured with the section of the store that were three floor to ceiling walls of cashmere sweaters. (drool) Unfortunately, I am a poor starving student who is travelling Europe. Sigh.

June 22nd was a day that I had been looking forward to the entire trip. We were supposed to go to the Hague to visit the International Criminal Court and EuroJust. This was going to be the highlight of the trip for me. I could tell. I could already envision myself sitting at the prosecutors desk in the grand chambers with my team of 4 or 5 other lawyers persecuting George Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against humanity (our argument for Bush was that his stupidity was an insult to the entire species--the judges all agreed).

But this day was going nothing like I had dreamed.

Our first train was fine, got on that one bright and early at 7:30am. But then we had to get off at Antwerp because of some technical malfunction. Then one train that was going straight from Antwerp to the Hague just plain didn't show up. The rail staff were just as confused as we were. After waiting at the train station for 2 hours, we were already 30 minutes late for our meeting.

"No worries," I thought, "This isn't the only meeting we've been late to. Missing 1 1/2 out of a 3 hour tour isn't that bad."

When we finally got on a train destined for the Hague, we were all a little more relaxed. Nicole, Yas, myself, and a bunch of others had soothed our Starbucks cravings with the only Starbucks in Belgium in the train station (they weren't in dress code and things were DEF not made to spec. Who where's black jeans to work at Starbucks? Honestly!).

As I finished my Quad Grande No-Room Americano, we pulled up to Den Haag HS Station with the city off in the not-so-distant distance and Professor Brooks informed us to get our things ready because Den Haag Centraal was our next stop and our final destination. So all of us were buzzing and chatting about this and that.

And about 25 minutes later, we heard the conductor anounce "Schipol" as the next stop. Now all of us stopped talking and looked out the window: fields. We had completely missed the Hague.

We found out later that that train never stops at Den Haag Centraal and that we were on our way to Amsterdam.

Most of us were ecstatic, I was a little dissappointed.

Anyways, we spent the day in Amsterdam (and watched Dr. Brooks try and explain to the lady from the ICC that we wouldn't be making our meeting today while the automated tour guide in the canal cruise was telling us about the construction of the Gentleman's canal.).

The next day we went to Brugge. This city was absolutely gorgeous.

We all wandered to a cathedral that was massively gorgeous. The archways, and artwork (some by Michelangelo), and the sheer grandeur of the building was overwhelming and relaxing at the sametime.

We also climed the famous Belfry Tower and I signed my name in a beam at the top (its ok, it tends to burn down every two hundred years or so....)

Then Victoria and I had probably one of the best meals of the entire trip: sauteed mushrooms, rotisserie chicken wings, camambert, baguette and a basil plant. All for the radically low price of 10 euro for the both of us. The farmer's markets in Europe are AMAZING for this kind of eating.

After exploring the city just the two of us and taking a nap in a gorgeous park with the swans, we got back on a train and headed home to Leuven.

Days 12 & 13 - Leuven & Waterloo: Relaxing, the Beguinage, and Napoleon

On Saturday, June 19th and Sunday, June 20th, I really didn't do a whole lot of anything.

It was a very relaxing weekend.

On the Saturday, I spent my morning at a coffee shop with my friend Helena. We just sat and talked for a bit. I did some choreography work and later some laundry.

Dr. Brooks stopped by to take us to le Grand Beguinage--an enclave where wives of crusaders used to live while their husbands were away.

This little village is now used to house the many students and professors that attend the many universities in Leuven, but it seems like a perfectly preserved peaceful piece of medieval European society. The little squares with wells and a tree and the canals and bridges--all within a very small area of the city.

During the Crusades, women would go to live there with their children. Men weren't allowed to live there, but they were employed to take care of the place. Built in the 13th century, it still amazes me that structures like that can withstand the test of time.

On the other side of town, the main square was filled with people and carts for the Summer Solstice fair that happens in Leuven on the longest weekend of the year. At one point, Adam and I were standing in the main square watching Korean drumming and a Judo exhibition. There was something that didn't feel quite right about watching Asian arts performed by white Europeans in the middle of an Early Modern-designed European plaza.

On Sunday, we got up early to see the largest re-enactment of the Battle of Waterloo.
The drive would have been unbareably long as we sat in traffic (bumper to bumper with no movement) for about 1 hour. Fortunately, Dr. Brooks' friend Marguerite was driving our car. She's a character and a half! But, Waterloo wasn't made for recieving 40,000 people by car--it was made for recieving 500,000 soldiers on foot and by horse. But they got to remove the obstacles in their way.

And despite the chilly, rainy weather, it was a spectacular show that only occurs every 5 years. This year was the largest they've had so far. They had 3,000 reenacters, 250 horses, 50 pieces of artillery, and 40,000 spectators.

The reality of the battle (minus the killing people and the spectators and number of soldiers, etc. etc.) was really quite astonishing. From the uniforms, the the reenactment of the French cavalry charge, to the cannon fire (you could see the air vibrate everytime a cannon was fired). And they had real projectiles flying out of the cannons! For anyone who has played Total War, the movement of the units was pretty much exactly the same--the long lines and the reorganization into squares when the calvary attacked--it really was something I can check off my bucket list.

There were a few injuries apparently--watching a flourescent yellowambulance drive through the field was an interesting anachronism.

But my favourite part was definately Napoleon. He had the coolest costume and the best (and biggest) hat. I admire Napoleon as a political leader for his ability to administer his empire and to even build his empire across Europe--even though it didn't really last that long. His drive to keep expanding and to create a United Europe (under France) loosely ties into our course, studying the European Union. In a way, Napoleon attempted to create the first European Union. Just by force instead of diplomacy. Many rulers have attempted to bring Europe under one power: Charlemagne, Charles V, Hitler. Most of them attempted to do so by force, but none of them ever succeeded. Considering we're closer to a united Europe than ever before, maybe we're on to something with the Union.

After the reenactment, we went back to Leuven and finished off the rest of our weekend relaxing.

Day 11 - Bruxelles (just to change it up!): European Policy Centre and the Open Society Institute

Ok, on to Day 11!

This was one of my favourite educational days so far.

Our first speaker was Amanda Paul. She's a journalist that currently works for Today's Zaman, a Turkish Newspaper and The European Policy Centre--the think tank that was presenting to us.
Along with Amanda Paul, who was our main speaker, Shada Islam (who I think I recognized from CTV who sometimes uses BBC news clips) also gave her two cents every once in a while.

Our topic for this meeting was Turkey and the EU. This is an interesting topic for me as I wrote my paper for my History of the EU class on whether Turkey will be able to enter the EU. My thesis essentially claimed that because of rising right wing, anti-Islam, and racist sentiment, Turkey will never be welcomed into the EU, especially when countries like France, the Netherlands, and Austria are fervently against its accession.

In order to acceed to the EU, there are certain criteria that need to be met along the lines of democracy, rule of law, human rights, and economy. Turkey doesn't yet meet all of the criteria along those lines and still has a way to go with constitutional reform in order to have a freer deomcracy that comes with less military intervention and free press. They also have some human rights violations that need to be dealt with regarding minority rights of Kurds and Alevi people living within the country.

One of the main blockers that we talked about was Cyprus. Cyprus, which is divided into the Turkish North and Greek South. Turkey and Greece are so passionate about their own people and their right to self-determination that they will not budge on the issue of support. Because The Republic of Cyprus (Greek) is a member of the EU, Turkey cannot become a member until it resolves its dispute with the state because of the "Good Neighbour" clause in EU treaties.

Because of this dispute, Greece has actually blocked the commencement of certain negotiations (every decision at the higher levels of the EU need be made by consensus).

The three main arguements that people make against the accession of Turkey (aside from the Cyprus dispute) are as follows:

1. Turkey is too populous and would overwhelm the Union. (Turkey's population measures 90 million people)
2. Turkey is too Muslim (but apparently Albania and Bosnia which have Islam as the national religion are allowed to be considered for candidacy even though Turkey's constitution is vehemently secular)
3. Turkey is too Poor (even though its the 15th largest economy and came out of the last recession in a stronger position that the EU)

These excuses (except maybe the first one, but why is that such a big deal?) are all bogus according to Amanda Paul and the EPC.

Politically, Turkey's admission to the EU has its plusses and minuses. It's good relations with many Middle Eastern countries is a plus, but its poor relations with the Caucasus countries (Armenia in particular) is detrimental, especially given the European dependance on Russian natural gas pipelines that run through those countries.

This talk took a lot of turns and we more than expired our time with them, exploring facets of Turkish-EU relations, EU-Asia relations, Turkish-Canadian relations and international relations in general. Shada Islam was very insightful with regards to the Canadian perspective of Turkish-EU relations and was one of the most entertaining speakers we've seen so far.

I'm also reading a book right now called The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century by George Friedman. This book explores the possibility of Turkey becoming a major regional player in the future, which I agree with given its economic, geographical and geopolitical position on the world stage. Turkey has poor relations with very few countries, is the EU's largest trading partner (if I recall correctly), and has a booming economy, even after the financial crisis. Turkey will be a country to watch.

Personally, I don't think it will become a member of the EU because it already has trade agreements with the EU. And if it does become a member, the design of its membership will look very similar to Britain's membership--with opt out clauses to maintain a certain degree of autonomy.

I could go on about Turkey forever. To continue more Turkish debate, post a comment below and I'll try to reply :)

Our last presenters of the day were Romani People from the Open Society Institute. Martin Domarowski (A Macedonian-Romani) and Violeta Naydenova (A Romanian-Romani) were great at letting us catch a glimpse of the institutional and societal framework that systematically persecutes the Roma across Europe.

They shared with us a history of the Roma, who were a people who left the Punjab area of northern India and settled between there and Spain, and eventually travelling to the Americas. Because of this great migration (of which there is no discerable timeline) the Romani (commonly and rudely known as Gypsies) are often depicted as wandering caravans. To a certain extent, the Romani maintain that migratory status because of the persecution they face in all countries.

Violeta shared a story with us about going to a regular school (many Romani are put in schools that are either separate or are for the mentally-disabled--this happens today across the European Union) and telling her friends that she was a Roma. After this, her "friends" excommunicated her from many school functions. She was teased, threatened and discriminated against in as many ways as you could possibly fathom. When she reached university (not a common occurance for the Roma because of the poor education they are given in seperate schools), Violeta concealed her identity for 3 years.

I found this story very interesting. As a homosexual, I can relate to the fear of revealing your identity. Even now, when I meet a new group of people, I have to put out feelers to see whether or not my sexual orientation will be shrugged off as a non-issue or whether I'll recieve sketched-out sideways glances. This presentation hit home for a number of reasons.

While I've come to terms with my sexuality and I am comfortable and proud of it, I have many friends who are much more conservative about that aspect of their life. For me, talking about my boyfriend is just making good conversation. For them, it's viewed as social suicide or the gateway to potential physical harm.

Being gay is something that can (sometimes) be easily concealed. Being Roma is also very similar. Violeta's skin and facial structure looked very similar to my Romanian Don that I had when I first transfered to Huron College. But Martin was darker skinned and, to me, looked ethnically Roma.

The Roma within the EU is an interesting subject because not much has been done about it. There is no education about the Roma, no recognition of them as a stateless people or a minority within the EU.

But there are some success stories out there: some universities have introduced quotas that send them looking for Roma students, encouraging higher education among the isolated Roma communities. Violeta is a member of one such success story.

Another aspect that we explored involved the similarities between the First Nations of Canada and the Roma. My classmate, Adam Fearnall, worked with Natives this past year and has an interesting take on this matter. You can check out his blog post on this talk here.\

There was something important that I pulled from this talk: the Roma are no different that you or I. The only difference is opportunity. They rarely have any.

All in all, this day was very politically stimulating and provided great insight into two of the issues with the EU: Turkey and the Roma.

I hope to continue following both of these issues after I get home.

There--another post done! Woohoo! only 5 days behind now!

Day 10 - Wezemaal: Biking, Trappist Beer, and Ice Cream

Day 10. This was a day that I was looking forward to since the beginning of my trip: a bike ride though the Belgian country side.

And was it ever gorgeous.

After going to pick up the bikes we rented from the train station, we travelled in a pack of 12 (some others went to Ghent), with Dr. Brooks taking the lead. Having lived just outside Leuven in the small town of Wezemaal for a year while he was teaching at the Universitet Katholiek Leuven, he knew his way through the narrow dirt paths in the fields and along the river.

It was breathtaking to look out over the swaying fields and see the skyline dotted with trees, cottages, and the occasional church steeple, signifying the centre of a village.

While biking along the train tracks and the cobblestone sidewalks of the villages we passed through, I was struck with awe at the number of poppies that seemed to grow like scarlet weeds.

It was hauntingly just like John McCrae said in his poem, In Flanders Fields: the poppies grew everywhere.

I think back to my great-grandfather, who was a World War II vet, and to the Canadian tradition of wearing a poppy on Remembrance Day. To be in the place that those poppies represent was something that took me completely by surprise. I felt instantly (and oddly) patriotic--my country helped liberate this place and my compatriots' blood was spilled on this land to keep them free (how very stars and stripes of me...).

But to see and understand what the 11th of November is all about--the freedom and prosperity of a country under its own self-determined government and the sacrifices that Canadians made for people on the other side of the world is truly enchanting.

As we cycled through the paths lined with the pride-inspiring poppies, we were all joking and taking pictures. Nicole and Yas were very busy video blogging the trip (I'll post all the links to that later--they are EXTREMELY educational, I assure you.)

Yas also declared herself the group megaphone. Whenever there was a potential obstacle up ahead, she made sure that everyone knew (for example, "OLD LADY WITH CHILD AND TOY!"). I would like to thank her for making sure we didn't have any obstacle issues (unless your name happens to be Nicole and you happen to be video blogging while biking--you can fill in the blanks).

When we finally arrived in Wezemaal on a quiet cobblestone street, lined with small, narrow town houses, each with red window gardens contrasting the light blue sky and green of the fields in the distance, we pulled up to a cafe which the former mayor of the village owns (we didn't get to meet him like previous years have). Many of us were feeling quite peckish after the 12 km bike ride (yes Mom, it's nothing compared to the 225km bike ride you completed this weekend--proud of you!).

I decided to go for traditional Belgian food and drink. I ordered an Orval which is a trappist beer made by monks in a monastery. While it was refreshingly clean and floral, I wasn't a big fan.

For lunch, I ordered sausage with applesauce. And I had two choices of sausage: white or black. not really understanding what the difference would be, I ordered one of each. After I had taken my first bite of the "black" sausage, Dr. Brooks asked if I would like to know exactly what I was eating.

"Well it sorta has a liver-y texture..." I said.

He chuckled and responded: "That's because they didn't drain the blood out of the meat. It's blood sausage."

Now, looking back, I'm surprised I didn't gag and throw up. I'm not into Twilight or True Blood so eating blood doesn't really rub me the right way. But instead I nodded in interest and kept chewing. It was actually very good. The texture was unexpected but the apples complimented the blood sausage very nicely. Will I order it again? Probably not.

After lunch, we hopped back on our bikes for the return journey, bellies full of traditional Belgian fare and trappist beer.

For desert, Dr. Brooks treated us to some homemade ice cream (actually made in their home--i asked to use the bathroom and they let me in their front door and I had to walk through their living room). It was a refreshing treat on a hot day (when I got a little sun burnt).

The rest of the day was spent relaxing and schmoozing.

Our first cultural day was a great success and a pleasure. Riding through the fields of Belgium was a relaxing break from the political talk and me plotting how to rule the world.

Day 9 - Brussels (yet again): Belgian Parliament and NATO

To start off, I need to thank my friend, Victoria, for lending me her notebook for the rest of this trip (she has two computers...) because my motherboard on my stupid HP has been fried. Thank you sooooooo much Victoria!!

Ehem...now that that's out of the way and everyone knows why I haven't posted in 6 days (eep!) I may have to combine some days....they will come at a later pace. Again, I'm sorry. Don't get an an HP--they suck.

Ok. So Day 9 of our trip consisted of a tour of the Belgian Parliament and Senate and a meeting at NATO.

I didn't find the Belgian parliament all that interesting except for the actual architecture and decor of the building. The Belgian House of Representatives is represented by the colour green. Everything is decorated in green. The Belgian senate is decorated in red. Literally everything for them is red. the funny part is that they share the same building. Their governmental structure is bicamaral (obviously with the senate and house) and is very similar to the Canadian system except when you break it down to the regional and linguistic level...

The tour guide (who was the spitting image of Cogsworth) at one point mentioned how the plaques in the senate that were a memorial to the dead of WWI were removed because of the Nazi invasion of Belgium during WWII. He spoke about the Nazi flag that covered up the holes where the plaques were and Hitler speaking from the speaker's podium. That actually happened. It was more than haunting to imagine.

On a lighter note, the Belgian Parliamentary gift shop was ripe with booty. I got a swank leather dossier to keep all my papers and things in while travelling throughout Brussels from meeting to meeting. I must say, for only 15 euro, it's pretty snazy.

After lunchtime, we had to catch our bus from the Royal Park to NATO.

Visiting NATO was very interesting. We weren't allowed to bring any cameras, cellphones, or transmitting electronics of any kind.

When we arrived, the first thing I noticed were the Czech hedgehogs that lined the compound. This was some serious business.

After one of the more rigorous security checks I've ever endured, we were seated in a bland meeting room. The first person we met with was Benedicte Borel. She was a member of the "public diplomacy" division. She was sent to talk to us about the functioning of NATO and give us an overview of the directives and missions.

She briefly explained the current operations of NATO:

• Afghanistan
• Kosovo (KFOR)
• Iraq (NTM-I)
• Operation Active Endeavour (in the Mediterranean)
• Counter-Piracy (in the Gulf of Aden)

She also described the 3 stages that NATO has been through historically. The first was the Cold War, when NATO was created as a response to the Communist threat from the Soviet Union. Next there was the transformation. This started just after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and continued until about 2000. During this time, NATO was not too sure of its place in the world, seeing that it's number one foe had been dismantled and essentially disarmed. But the post-9/11 NATO is just called "Missions." This time has been of seperate security missions in places that are of international concern: the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Mediterranean, and the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia.

Ms. Borel also spoke of the next possible enlargement, which is supposed to include Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia (technically its the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or FYROM to NATO out of respect for Greece). The membership of Georgia and the Ukraine were discussed but Ms. Borel assured us that the Ukraine would probably never join and that Georgia wasn't quite ready to join (more like the other countries in NATO aren't ready to join to protect Georgia from Russian invasion, but hey...its all in your point of view right?)

This discussion took a bunch of different turns which I could talk about for hours, but I need to start wrapping up soon (early day tomorrow). One that I did find interesting was NATO as a world police. If you think about it, the anti-piracy initiative and the Afghanistan and Kosovo missions are just extended police initiatives. This is an interesting angle to look at NATO from. It definitely means that its lost its original purpose as a collective security coalition.

The next speaker from NATO was French General Erik Sandahl whose last mission was to Kosovo (he also acted as a personal advisor to the French Prime Minister on the ex-Soviet republics in Eastern Europe). He was a great speaker--different from the politicians and press people we've met previously. General Sandahl told it like it was.

"Is there an end in sight for Afg--"

"nope."

Answers that short were not common though. He would go on and on explaining everything, which was tiresome and interesting all in the same time. He had everyone hanging on his everyword because he could drop big names or big experiences any time.

Never at anytime in my life have I felt closer to the elite of the high political world. This guy was a military attache to the French ambassador in Romania, advisor to the French Prime Minister and NATO General. Like seriously...

He had some good advice for us too. Military operations and love are a lot a like--it's either too late or not enough.

He also introduced me to the interesting concept of dynamics within the relationship of NATO (which I think can be used with any relationship): the security provider vs. the securty consumer. Who gains more security out of the relationship and who needs to pick up the slack of the other? Its amazing how much politics can be just like life and any other relationship you can have with another human being.

I hope that I'll be back in that heavily guarded fortress soon. But hopefully I'll be going in for business instead of education, arguing a new treaty or trying to lobby for a certain issue.

Sigh. To dream of the future.

Posts from other days will follow shortly! Promise!

Day 8 - Brussels (again): The European Commission, International Federation of Journalists, and The Canadian Mission to the EU

I first want to point out that as I write this, I'm having an amazing 6 euro dinner. It consists of a 3 euro bottle of Spanish red wine, a pear, Camembert, and a baguette. Absolutely perfect. Eating like a student here is way easier than back in London. Hopefully I can retain these eating habits (which is what I said when I came back from France in 2004, but that didn't really work...)

Well, today was a packed day. We started off at the European Commission at 10am. Our presenter was a Danish fellow hired by the commission . He explained the European Commission, which is essentially the executive body of the EU. They have political and visionary power, but no legislative power. Essentially, they dictate to/advise the other institutions on which direction they want the Union to go in, and give advice on their legislation and directives.

The Commission essentially acts like the Cabinet of a country. So the Minister of Agriculture in Canada would contact the Commissioner for Agriculture to discuss matters of agricultural trade between Canada in the EU. Each country has one commissioner responsible for a different portfolio. Beneath those commissioners are Directorate Generals and below them is a directorate. Each directorate has different units that are responsible for specific policy issues. It sounds like a simple breakdown.

And then you bring in the European Parliament, the European Court of Justice, the Council of the European Union and the European Council (there is also the Council of Europe, but that has nothing to do with the EU). I feel like the administration and institutions of the EU are all waaaaaay too complicated. Because they're so complex, some world leaders (Barack Obama was mentioned a couple of times with reference to the Spanish Visit to the White House) cannot figure out which institution of the EU to contact regarding certain matters and just goes to the national governments.

But I was discussing it with some people in my program: "Why don't they just have 'the European Union' and then divide the organization into 'Executive' and 'Legislative' or 'Representational' branches?"

We came to the conclusion that It's because of the attitudes within the member states. If you create the leadership of the EU in that model, it resembles that of a state too much. A common theme we've been getting from all our presenters is that member states are not ready to hand over a lot of power to the EU.

However this makes it difficult for the EU to function properly and efficiently because national governments want to show their electorate that they are still in control of anything of national interest.

This conflict plagues the EU, but its slowly changing. More and more powers are being granted to the EU, but at a slow pace--which is most likely the safest way to build the Union into a Federation (which is personally what I would like to see happen).

Our next visit was to the International Federation of Journalists. That was an interesting visit. We managed to work it into the program because of the human rights that journalists are entitled to (as they are human too) are often ignored during conflict and even in some countries where conflict is not necessarily evident.

We discussed the freedom of the press quite a bit. It interestingly tied in with our discussion on the definition of democracy that we had that the Council of the European Union. Our speaker there suggested that Italy's press, of which 90% is owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, isn't a free press because of the government ownership. Similarly, our speaker from the IFJ, Ernest Sagaga, suggested that a free press is the only way to have a truly free democracy because people need to know the truth. It certainly provided a view that I wasn't used to on democracy and freedom of speech.

Lastly, we visited the Canadian Mission to the EU. It was really interesting considering that at the US Mission, we had to leave pretty much everything behind and be escorted through the entire building (they even stood outside the stall door when you went to the bathroom. Talk about pressure.) After checking all our bags and passports, the security guard at the Canadian Mission left us alone in the front to go get our presenter. We Canadians are much more trusting apparently.

The first guy at the Canadian Mission (Jared something-or-other) explained essentially how the Mission worked. I didn't find his talk very informative and he seemed very defensive to our questions, which I found odd as I didn't think that our questions were very aggressive...just inquisitional. But the second speaker, Holly Edwards (Counsellor Immigration), spoke to us about immigration to Canada from the EU, migration within the EU, and answered our questions really well.

There was much discussion about the Roma people and the visas that are required for the Czech Republic. Because of so many asylum applicants from the Roma minority in the Czech Republic, Canada reinstated (for the second time) its visa requirement on Czech citizens.

The entire time though, I wondered about legislation in the EU about the Roma compared to Canadian legislation on aboriginal affairs. The Roma, being a migratory people, are a large problem in Europe because they have such trouble integrating into European Society. But the conflict lies in that the EU isn't allowed to dictate their culture, which rotates around migration and temporary settlements. So which takes priority? The European culture of permanent cities and citizenship of a state or the Roma culture of loyalty to a family group and migratory living?

The EU has an initiative and a legal obligation to respect the rights of minorities, so how can that the EU (or any state for that matter) integrate the Roma?

I compare them to the First Nations within Canada because they follow their own law upon their own lands. They act as an autonomous entity from the Confederation of Canada and that raises issues of integration which can be obviously seen in the separation of the Native populations on reserves throughout the country. This question of integration seems to resonate quite strongly between the EU and Canada.

Anyways, we took a few pictures by the entrance to the city of Brussels. So here are a few:


Cheers!

Day 7 - Brussels: The Council of the EU, the US Mission to the EU, and Dr. Annaleis Vertichel

Today was our first day of "class" if you can call it that. We're essentially supposed to go on a bunch of awesome field trips. Best class ever!

We got up at 7am to be on the train for 8:30am. After arriving in Brussels, we headed on the metro for Schumann Station to our meeting with the Council of Ministers of the EU (wiki).

This meeting was super informative. It was really interesting to hear about how the EU worked from someone who worked within the EU instead of studying it or observing it. The man who came to speak to us from the Secretariat of the EU was a great speaker. Along with having a wealth of general knowledge about how the EU works, he wasn't afraid to throw his own opinion out there which I think helps us think critically about the information he's giving us.

For example, not only did he mention the improvements that have been made to the EU over the last few years with the Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon treaties, but he also told us what he thinks needs to change. He gave me the same example that Marike did when I was talking to her about the EU: two official cities. Having the main office of the EU in Brussels and then the European Parliament in Strassbourg is costly (and environmentally unfriendly, as he pointed out. He worked for the Environment Ministers within the EU) when you are constantly moving across the continent like that. Not to mention that another important institution, the European Court of Justice, is in Luxembourg.

So after he gave us a general run down of how the EU works and his opinion of the processes, we got to ask questions and we did not hold back. The way in which he responded to questions about Turkey and the process of accession and the EU's involvement of national/domestic politics was really quite impressive.

One story that stuck with me was how the EU established political sanctions on Austria when an extremist right wing party was voted in to power in 1999. This surprised me because of the actions that the EU took as a result of domestic politics. It made me wonder how the EU would react to the anti-Islamic party in the Netherlands (PVV) that won a large chunk of the vote. OUr speaker assured us that there would be very little chance to use those sanctions because most parties have figured out how to conform with the EU's regulations on acceptable political platforms (which still seems somewhat undemocratic, but given Europe's history with Communism and Fascism, that seems acceptable.)

Another interesting point is language. The EU has 2 working languages--English and French, but every country needs to be able to access all information in their own language. With 27 member countries, I can imagine this takes up a lot of time and probably proves to be quite inefficient.

Lastly, this presentation really openned my eyes to the informalness of politics. While much of the show is put on at formal, official meetings and conferences, much of the political work is done in the hallways between meetings or during the lunches and dinners had by EU ministers. That's the kind of stuff that I want to get into eventually.

After this meeting, we went for lunch. Nicole, Yas, Adam and I had an interesting experience with an old man who had an mismatching suit, a pseudo-briefcase, and a yellowing newspaper tried to show us his favourite place to eat. He said he worked for the stock exchange but didn't know where Canada was. At that point in the conversation we decided to duck into a restaurant and hopefully lose him...

After lunch, we met up with Dr. Brooks who had just arrived in Brussels outside the US Embassy. We went through security 2 at a time and met with Virginia Stern, a diplomat with the Public Affairs department with the US foreign service. While I found most of her answers to our questions very vague, it was really great to meet her. She inspired me quite a bit, seeing as she was only 33 and on her second tour with the Foreign Service. That's quite young to already have a portfolio. It gives me hope that my time in the foreign service will come soon, if that's where I decide to go.

And the last item of the day was a lecture on Minority Representation Rights in the EU from Dr. Anneleis Verstichel. She's done a lot of work in exploring the way minorities represent themselves in parliaments and governments and political theory (from a legal perspective) on how minorities should be legally represented in a country.

Based on her presentation, it really seemed like there was no right way to represent a minority. However, her presentation did reinforce my dislike for the first-past-the-post system. She also exposed me and I'm assuming my fellow students to interesting electoral laws regarding the percentage of the vote you need to be a party in the Parliament (Russia and Turkey have had large problems of this kind). She used Canada and Quebec a lot as examples. But she didn't really seem to have a conclusion which I found interesting.

But seeing as it's 1:30am here, I think its time for bed.

Good night!