Visiting KU Leuven: First Meetings and New Friends

By Victoria Prince

Illinois students and staff explore Brussels with representatives from Leuven

Our semester of exploring transatlantic relations happened not only in two separate classrooms across the world, but were intertwined when students from each side were able to personally travel this distance. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the University of Illinois delegation that traveled to Leuven, Belgium to meet our international classmates in person. The trip was filled with amazing experiences and unforgettable people that have made a huge impact on me and whom I hope to maintain friendships with throughout my lifetime.

I would say that the first full day of the program best exemplifies how incredible the entire journey was. On the Monday morning of our trip, we met in person with the professors of our course and the five students that would be our counterparts traveling to the United States a few weeks later. We saw the diversity in the student body and the impressive program at KU Leuven. We were then escorted to a lecture by the Leuven students and even during the short walk, began to create bonds that would deepen throughout the week. Professor Kolja Raube led the lecture and we were again impressed by the knowledgeable student participation in the course. We gained insight into the understanding of EU governance by citizens of the European Union. The lecture was then followed with a walk through campus to lunch at the university dining hall. Again, giving us an opportunity to bond and learn more about the Leuven students and faculty.

With a short break after lunch, the day continued to amaze us with the CEURO Roundtable on Transatlantic Relations. The panels consisted of brilliant professors, including the author of one of our program's required course's textbooks; officials from the different European Union institutions, and a representative of NATO. The panels covered many different topics concerned with transatlantic relations in the spheres of politics, security, economics, and the environment, just to name a few. Needless to say, I learned a lot from the panelists and was excited to continue learning from them during our dinner together following the event. Here I was able to have conversations with these intellectuals and explore even further the topics discussed in the panels, while also enjoying pizza! The bright side of the restaurant taking forever to serve our food was the opportunity to network with people from all over Europe and who are well informed in the affairs of both the EU and the US.

The exciting, albeit long, day did not end at dinner. Even though many of us were feeling the jetlag, we persevered to explore the campus nightlife with the Leuven students. Again, giving us an opportunity to bond with our new friends and realize that an ocean apart does not mean a world of differences.

Identity Building and Identity Breaking: Narratives for the Tides of Immigration

By Lindsay Ozburn

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 12-April 30, 2018.

Protest at the Bourse du Travail in Paris
Photograph by Rama, Wikimedia Commons, Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr

Immigration patterns into the European Union (EU) over the last few decades have brought about a myriad of discussions of how to care for, integrate, assimilate, and/or “deal with” the presence of sometimes vastly different cultures and sheer volume of new individuals across the EU member states. These questions and discussions are by no means ‘new’. As a hub of economic freedom, democracy, and multiculturalism, the EU is routinely a landing zone for the disenfranchised, those fleeing persecution, and those wanting to experience the successes and freedoms offered by this powerful area of the world. Discussions about the strength of a common European culture and identity are ongoing (see Council of Europe, 2005), recognizing the fundamental role diversity plays in offering these offered freedoms. However, as geopolitics are ever in flux and have been more recently flowing toward nationalist and isolationist sentiment, conversations for addressing immigration have changed substantially in certain parts of the EU.

Depending on the time period (early 1990s, 2015, or sometime in-between) and the geographic location of the host country, these conversations range anywhere from supportive narratives aimed at integrating peacefully and holistically new groups of immigrants (take Sweden and Germany, for example) – regardless of their status as either a refugee, asylum seeker, or economic immigrant – to threatening narratives that seemed geared toward ‘damage control’ and the quick assimilation or ejection of said immigrants (take Hungary, for example). The difference in the underlying assumptions behind these different narratives is that one (positive narratives) assumes the immigrants are likely to stay within the host country regardless of the circumstance from which they came; and the other (negative narratives) insists on returning to the status quo as soon as the refugee/asylum seeker’s sending country is safe, if not sooner. These positive narratives focus on proactive responses to immigration: occupational skills training (see Androulakis et al, 2017), mentor-based language immersion courses, community forums to bridge cultural divides (see Sjösvärd and Braddell, 2017), etc. The negative narratives focus on reactive responses aimed at triaging what are seen as negative impacts on the host society: forced detention camps, unattainable citizenship requirements (see Pulinx and Avermaet, 2017), repatriation, etc.

Both are presented as approaches to immigration control, sometimes in an effort to ensure the ‘European identity’ and ‘European way of life’ is maintained. We must ask ourselves, though: what is the European identity? We must ask the same question in the United States (US), particularly as immigration reform is rapidly shifting further toward xenophobia and isolationism through the use of curt words and an insistence on the power of walls to keep out unwanted ‘guests’. Are these European and American identities static, reflecting the individual cultures passed down through history and evident in the majority of each country’s infrastructure and society; or are they constantly in flux, accepting the reality that Europe, the US, and other ‘Great Powers’, are rooted as much in their history of freedom as they are tied to the multicultural groups of people who seek and fight for it (and have always done so)? If the later, then positive narratives aimed at cohabitating and integrating with newcomers to European societies and likewise to the US will continue to prove successful by teaching tolerance and acceptance with the understanding that this is a large world we live in and that differences are to be expected and cherished to ensure progress – as is the free movement of peoples in our irreversibly-globalized world. If the later, then, much like the static structures those sentiments cherish, any attempt at common identities and cohesiveness will crumble with the changing immigration tides.

__________________

References:

Androulakis G, Gkaintartzi A, Kitsiou R, and Tsioli S (2017) Research-driven task-based L2 learning for adult immigratns in times of humanitarian crisis: results from two nationwide projects in Greece. De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110477498-024

Council of Europe. European Culture: Identity and Diversity. In: Colloquy of the Council of Europe in cooperation with the French Minister of Culture and Communication and the City of Strasbourg, Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, 8-9 September 2005. Available at: https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/CulturalConvention/Source/CIMasterdoc_EN.pdf

Pulinx R and Avermaet P V (2017) The impact of language and integration policies on the social participation of adult migrants. De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110477498-008

Sjösvärd K and Braddell A (2017) Using workplace learning to support the linguistic integration of adult migrants – lessons from a decade of work in Sweden. De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110477498-044

Dependent for Soft Power: US-EU Relations After Killing the Iran Deal

By Victoria Bauer

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 12-April 30, 2018.

Earlier in May 2018, President Trump killed the Iran Deal which sends a strong message that the United States does believe that Iran’s nuclear programs are peaceful and nothing to worry about despite what the international community thinks and Europe’s best interests to keep the deal alive. Historically this issue has been problematic since 2003 after the US attack on Iran and how European leaders want to handle the situation. Smith and Steffenson describe the origins of the Iran Deal as such:

“During 2003–4, differences surfaced between the EU member states and the US over how to handle nuclear weapons programs in Iran. These tensions reflected a longstanding divergence of approaches, with the Europeans having emphasized the value of ‘critical dialogue’ with Tehran and the Americans having adopted a strategy based on containment or even ‘rollback’, Iran being one of the members of the so-called ‘axis of evil’. 

The problem was also underlined by the transatlantic disagreements that had emerged during the build-up to and the conduct of the US-led attack on Iraq in 2003. In the case of Iran, however, there was a united EU position in favor of diplomacy and a multilateral solution; the UK, which had been the most loyal and substantial of the US’s allies in the Iraq action, pursued a strongly ‘Europeanized’ line on Iran, and played a leading role through what became known as the ‘EU3’ group along with France and Germany”( 412). Since the debate of using the USA’s more traditional hard power approach with Iran by holding it accountable with inspections and promises to not work with certain substances. After many years of failed talks, debates on using European soft power versus the US hard power, in 2015 there was EU, US, China, France, Russia, Germany agreement with Iran to monitor its nuclear activity to make it peaceful. While this deal sounds great on paper, this is very much a European victory since it promotes peace, which is very soft power-esque.  While it can be argued that this is a European victory, with the deal recently killed by the Trump administration, it is clear that the US is the one with the most diplomatic power and that Europe’s soft power is ineffective without the United States. Despite this, there is still a joint statement between the UK, France and Germany that goes along the lines of the original Iran Deal. This situation symbolizes that with the Trump administration, it is obvious that EU influence and EU relations with the US are beginning to be weaker and have surface-level meaning.

---
Sources:

“Chapter 17: The European Union and the USA.” International Relations and the European Union, by Michael Smith and Rebecca Steffenson, Oxford University Press, 2017.

Visiting KU Leuven: Transatlanticity and Latin America

By Alberto M. Burgos Rivera

Prof. Gustavo G. Muller lectures at KU Leuven

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 12-April 30, 2018.

During the second day of our stay in Leuven, me and my colleagues attended a number of presentations, did some sightseeing of the city, and attended a lecture with the MAES students. The presentations we had during the morning were focused on KU Leuven’s promotion as a university institution. The first presentation we attended was given by KU Leuven’s Head of Academic Diplomacy Bart Hendrickx in which he talked to us about KU Leuven’s history, its academic programs, and its global ranking as an institution. The second presentation was given by the Vice Dean of Internationalization Professor Bart Van den Bossche at the Faculty of Arts. Unlike the first presentation, this one was much more focused on the graduate programs offered by the Faculty of Arts. After the presentations, we visited KU Leuven’s University Library and thereafter did some sightseeing of the city.

Personally speaking, the highlight of this day came during the afternoon when we sat on a course lecture on Transatlanticity and Latin America along with the MAES students. The two-hour lecture was given by Professor Gustavo G. Muller, a Brazilian national, who specializes in comparative regionalism. Although Professor Muller began the course discussing Latin America’s unique political features in relation to other regions such as Europe, most of the course focused on Latin America’s general history and its relation to the United States. Among Latin America’s unique features, Professor Muller emphasized the region’s history of populist politicians, its high rate of violence, its presidential political systems, as well as its low level of regional integration. Throughout the course, he discussed key political events in the region’s history beginning with the establishment of the Monroe Doctrine and concluding with Donald Trump’s presidential victory.

In a lecture hall that was mostly composed of European students, I believe I was one of three Latin Americans in the lecture hall, the other two being Professor Muller himself and my colleague Rafael, who is a Colombian national. Most of the material covered in the lecture we already knew either because we experienced it firsthand, or because it was highly emphasized and taught back in our home countries’ institutions. It is unfortunate to know that Latin America is a region that, as a whole, is not prioritized by the European Union which unsurprisingly explains the fact as to why the European population is generally ignorant on the region. After the course we then had dinner at Restaurant Domus along with Professor Muller where we continued the tradition of Belgian beers and French fries.

As a side note, it was at Restaurant Domus where I ate Belgian waffles for the first time. It was here where I learned that they are traditionally eaten as a dessert and not breakfast, as they tend to be eaten in the United States.

The Transatlantic Rise of Populism

By Victoria Prince

This blog post was written for the course "Current Issues in Global and EU Affairs", which took place from February 12-April 30, 2018.

Across transatlantic lines, there is an increasing trend of populist movements. This trend is spreading across Europe and can be found in both the post-communist countries of Eastern Europe and the well-defined democratic countries in Western Europe. Populist groups and even presidential candidates are gaining ground in the UK, France, Italy, and Germany, among many other states. They strive for a reversal of the European integration that resulted from the European Union. Populism has strong nationalist ideas and sees the EU as a threat to the nation's sovereignty. The entire development of globalization and connectivity has led the populist ideology to focus on increased xenophobic feelings and increased fringe politics. It is found that the rise of populism in Europe is a direct result of the Trump presidency in the United States.

Populism is often associated with a valorization of the common folk and a distrust of the elites. The leader of a populist group is often considered a man of the people to represent the people. This is how many of Donald Trump's supporters see Trump. American populism is growing, just as European populism is, as we can see with the current elected administration. The increasing view of politics as corrupt and led by powerful people that only have interests that serve the already powerful in the United States led to an unprecedented 2016 election. Trump utilized this ideology to gain support by creating distinguishers between "us" and "them" and created his voter base by playing into his role as a member of the "us" group who can expel the threat of "them." His slogan of "Make America Great Again" instills the nationalist agenda often found in populist movements and amplifies the distrust of the other.

This rise in populism on both sides of the Atlantic is making transatlantic relationships difficult. Populism does not support globalization and in order to counteract this to foster good relationships between the United States and the European Union, we must have leadership that encourages connectedness. Not only does the threat of populism hinder globalization by its ideology, it does so by creating a distraction by the other establish political parties. The focus in the country will shift to domestic politics and this is a detriment to the international relationships the country holds. The solution to the problem is in fact to continue building upon the established transatlantic relationships. Strengthening the bonds will lead to innovation and stronger, non-populist, leadership. Since the current administration in the United States is not supportive of increased EU-US connectivity, there must be other platforms to help this relationship flourish.