Yearly Archive 2019

ByWeb editor SIB

MUNDUNSA is look for a new delegation!

Sign-up for next years MUNDUNSA delegation has opened! We will participate in HamMUN (a MUN in Hamburg) from the 28th of November till the first of December, and are visiting a MUN from the 16th till the 22nd of March, but we are not sure which one yet. Trainings will be on Thursdays between 19:45 and 22:00 at Roeterseilandcampus. We are looking for motivated, engaged and enthusiastic members, so we expect you to be at every training and both MUN’s. The deadline is the 21st of September (in two weeks) so be quick!

MUNDUNSA is the youngest committee of SIB. We are focused on debate and Model United Nations (MUN) and related skills such as public speaking, rhetoric and negotiation. MUNDUNSA is a both a delegation and an activities committee. As a delegation we will be visiting MUNs around the world. As an activities committee we organize trainings and debate nights.

ByWeb editor SIB

Long Trip to Greece & Tunisia

Imagine you wake up one day and see announced there is a SIB trip to Greece and Tunisia. You can expect anything possibly happening during such a trip! But what you would not believe is all kinds of different events we actually went through together with our fellow travellers this past July. Hold and keep reading if you want to be astonished. If you follow the current EU situation and the refugee crisis, you can’t go to Greece and not have any curiosity about the refugee situation there. Therefore, since we, the SIBers are nothing but curious, we arranged a visit to ActionAid, one of the most successful NGOs in Greece, which helps on the second stage to every immigrant’s integration in a host country. We received a detailed presentation and a tour of the activities they provide. Moreover, we were so fascinated by the work they do, we participated in a voluntary activity at Caritas, another NGO which provides the basic needs to the newcomers, as well as the locals in need, such as shelter, food, water, and shower.

The following day something very unexpected happened: a strong earthquake (magnitude 5.3) shook the streets of Athens. Power and phone networks in the city got knocked out. Some of us were having lunch at a restaurant while others were exploring the city. A few seconds after the earthquake, people ran out into the streets and there was some panicking going on. Fortunately, the earthquake didn’t last very long and everybody was alright. After
that, we visited the Hellenic Parliament for a tour, where we got to learn more about the form of government in Greece, parliamentary procedures and the history of the building, which is also the first royal palace of modern Greece. After waiting for days the day has arrived, the weather was amazing, the sky was blue, everyone had their beach outfits with them and there was one thing that we were all waiting for to do: Island hopping! We started off our journey by taking the ferry from port Piraeus, to the beautiful island Aegina. Once we've arrived at the island we were really mesmerized by how beautiful, crystal clear and blue the water was. We were all starving, so the perfect solution was to go for some mediterranean brunch with fish and Greek salad, as the most
local dish to have.
After brunch, we took the ferry to the next island Agistrii, in which we could finally relax on
the beach go swimming in the beautiful crystal clear blue water. The closest jump from Greece to Tunisia, was Sidi Bou Saïd, since its beautiful architecture and landscape is considered to be the city in Tunisia most similar to the Greek white&blue picturesque scenery.

In addition, imagine landing in a different country, different continent, where everybody speaks in an alien language, and the first thing in the morning you have to arrange is a group of 13 people to be in an Embassy by 10am. That, in Tunis, was not a piece of cake, so we were a bit late for our appointment! However, to our surprise, instead of being welcomed at the Embassy we were, in fact nothing less than, very warmly welcomed at the private house of the Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Tunis. Mr. Ton Lansink and his co-workers had the kindness to share breakfast with us, as well as to open a deep and interesting conversation.

Afterwards, we explored the Tunis Medina accompanied by a lovely tour guide, Marwa, who is a local from Tunisia. She showed us all the highlights in the city centre, such as an old Quran school with an amazing view of the city, a carpet shop, a perfume shop with authentic scents made from local spices, flowers and oils. In the last few days of our trip we went to the beautiful beach city, Hammamet. With a quad ride through the mediterranean landscape and some good parties we used our last energy and had the time of our lives.

ByWeb editor SIB

SIB Diplomat Drinks 2019

On the 6th of June, SIB-Amsterdam hosted the Diplomat Drinks at De Brug, Roeterseilandcampus of the UvA. Diplomats from the UK, Ukraine, Turkey, Denmark, and the UN studies professor were invited to meet students and talk about their work and careers. We kicked off the evening with a presentation by Jaikini Bisselink, the Youth representative for the UN about the importance of youth participation in the decision making processes. This followed by the round table in which students had the opportunity to ask diplomats about their in-depth experiences and about the various political issues concerning their country. Topics such as the EU, Brexit and Crimea were up for discussion. Overall, it was a social and especially informative evening where students and diplomats could share ideas and extent their network.

ByWeb editor SIB

Lecture – Brexit: better get EUsed to it

The Committee for Intellectual Activities organized another lecture on the 27th of May. This time, the topic was about Brexit. The two speakers were Dr. Schrauwen and Dr. Davies, who were both experts in the field of EU (citizen) law and the consequences of Brexit on the member states of the EU.

In fact, Dr. Schrauwen’s mini-lecture dealt with the legal issues of Brexit. She explained the important element of the Withdrawal Agreement, the deal that regulates the exit of the UK from the EU framework. Thereafter, she explained the most contested points that lay at the foundation of the political clash between the EU and the UK. She connected these points with the domestic political dynamics in the UK. The Backstop, she stated, is crucial to understand the current stalemate between the EU and the UK. It comes down to a configuration with three options and all three options are impossible to accept, because it either does not bring a Brexit over all UK territory or even violates the sovereignty of the UK. The latter point is something that the UK (or any self-respecting state) would never agree with.

Dr. Davies dove deeper into the dynamics of the Brexit and linked the issues relating to it with the failure of former-Prime Minister Theresa May and, more importantly, the elections of the new leader of the Conservative party. He believes that former-Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, who resigned but still remained in Parliament, will be elected as the new leader of the Conservatives and therewith as the new PM of the UK. In any case, whoever becomes PM should deliver Brexit. Dr. Davies thinks that going to Brussels and negotiating cosmetic changes that make the deal more appealing to the British rather than real solutions to the problems that the Brits have with the Withdrawal Agreement is the way that Brexit will unfold.

On June 17, we will have our last event of the academic year: a masterclass on the Venezuelan Crisis with an open bar at CREA’s Muziekzaal! We hope to see all of you there!

ByWeb editor SIB

SIB Masterclass: 70 Years of NATO

On Thursday the 18th of April, the Committee for Intellectual Activities organized a masterclass about NATO’s 70 years existence. They invited Dr. Artemy M. Kalinovsky who is a teacher of East European Studies. Dr. Kalinovsky started with a brief overview of the coming-to-existence of NATO after the Second World War. The expansion of Soviet influence was the prime reason. The security of the West European states came under the American umbrella. However, he emphasized that it was an “Empire by invitation,” which means that the European states were free to join whenever they wanted. Another salient detail is that NATO can see the exit of a member without any significant or structural effect: France moved out of NATO in 1966. Nonetheless, France kept on cooperating tightly with NATO.

Another topic that Dr. Kalinovsky touched upon was the disintegration of the Soviet Union. One of the pillars on which Gorbachov allowed for such disintegration was the promise that NATO would not expand eastward in case of a breakup in the Warsaw Pact. How wrong he thought you might think: NATO includes even the Baltic states now. Yes and no. Yes, because the inclusion of the Baltic states is indeed a stab a soul called “honor” for the Russians. No, because American troops designated for NATO (the most important troops of the alliance) did not expand eastward. Basically, there was a discussed on the spirit and letter of the “gentlemen’s agreement.”

Thus, the Soviet Union disintegrated together with the Warsaw Pact. Now, what happened exactly? NATO expanded, with or without troop deployments, and Ukraine became the new point of reference when talking about NATO-Russia relations. The annexation of Crimea alongside the Russian intervention or support for the separatist movements in the east of Ukraine created new tensions along the Russo-NATO axis. Russia feels threatened. And while the NATO did not have any real existence after the Warsaw Pact stopped existing, the actions of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin added to a list of weak reasons a strong reason for NATO to continue to exist. Whether on purpose or not, NATO has reinforced its right of existence in the current post post-Cold War era.

Emre Demirkiran, member of the Committee for Intellectual Activities

ByWeb editor SIB

SIB Masterclass: Right-Wing Austrian Politics of Kurz

On the 15th of April, the first of the two SIB Masterclasses of this month took place. It focused on a small, but still internationally observed country: Austria. Ever since 2017, when Sebastian Kurz became one of the youngest chancellors on the international stage, Austria received considerable attention. With Kurz’s tough stances on immigration policy, the country gathered both support and criticism in the European Union. What is the Austrian political position within the wider European context? And how is the current political situation embedded in the longer history of Austria?

These and more questions were the topic of the Masterclass. The speaker of the evening was Dr. Monika Baar, professor and historian for Central European studies at Leiden University, with a special focus on Austrian studies. Baar herself completed part of her studies in Austria’s capital Vienna, therefore bringing not only theoretical but also personal knowledge to the lecture.

Professor Baar started by providing the historical context of the current political situation in Austria. The Habsburg monarchy, that lasted for over 600 years, strategically managed to increase its hold of power in Europe from the 13th century onwards. However, it ultimately crumbled due to difficulties with its many nationalities. The defeat during the first World War resulted in an identity crisis, leading to the Anschluss of Austria to Nazi-Germany in 1938. This event was collectively remembered in Austrian history as Austria becoming the first victim of Hitler-Germany. Only in the 1980s and 1990s was Austria’s open commitment and engagement in the Nazi cause openly acknowledged. Part of the circumstances that lead to this open discourse was the so-called “Waldheim-affair”: The then president of Austria, Kurt Waldheim, was diplomatically isolated, after his indirect involvement in Nazi-crimes became public.

The brief historical reflections laid the foundation for a discussion about contemporary Austrian politics. Sebastian Kurz became Austria’s chancellor in 2017 at the age of 31. In his campaign and later political policies, he build on an anxiety about unchecked migration, argues pro-EU, but nevertheless cuts into the integration budget. He frequently argues for “safe borders”, employs anti-Islam rhetoric and sees the welfare state being misused by international migration. Part of his coalition is the Austrian right-wing party “FPÖ”. Its party-leader Heinz-Christian Strache frequently has to deal with accusations about his involvement as a teenager in Neo-Nazi-leaning groups. Later in 2018, Austria decided to withdraw from the UN migration pact.

Baar ended her lecture by showing a speech by Austrian writer Michael Köhlmeier during Austria’s Holocaust Memorial Day in 2018. There, Köhlmeier warned that sometimes many small steps can lead to “big evil”, especially when anti-semitic or racist statements are trivialized. The ending of the presentation opened the way for an engaging discussion among also many Austrians in the audience. Their personal experiences with the Austrian political system provided for an all the more encompassing debate.

Jakob Pallinger, member of the Committee of Intellectual Activities

ByWeb editor SIB

Mundunsa in Madrid

Mundunsa in Madrid

Members of SIB Amsterdam who participate in the MUN and Personal Development Committee of SIB Amsterdam “MUNDUNSA” visited Madrid to participate in Harvard WorldMUN, the Olympics of Model United Nations. This is their experience.

Last week Mundunsa spent 8 days in Madrid to participate in Harvard WorldMUN 2019. Harvard WorldMUN is the Olympics of Model United Nations. It is the most premier simulation of the United Nations, held in a different city each year. At such simulations, students pretend to be a country in the United Nations debating and negotiating with other students in a committee of the UN to agree (or not) on a resolution. MUNDUNSA got to represent the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

On a grey and drab Friday morning the members of Mundunsa were arriving at Schiphol Airport to take the plane. The conference wouldn’t start until Monday, but we decided to take an extra weekend to explore Madrid and prepare for the conference. We were hosted at “The Hat” in Madrid, a trendy hostel right off Plaza Mayor with an excellent rooftop terrace. We were welcomed with blue skies and a temperature of 22 degrees Celsius. Not bad after weeks of rain, wind and grey skies in the Netherlands.

During the weekend our delegates were busy preparing their speeches and strategies for the coming time. However, for those up for it there was also time to explore the city and visit sights such as the Royal Palace, the Prado Museum and some even went on a hiking trip to the Sierra de Guadarrama outside of Madrid. We all got to enjoy the great food of Spain and the amazing hospitality, helping to prepare us for the conference. On Sunday, the first social activity of the conference already started with a club night.

The conference began with a rather chaotic process of registration as certain delegates were not yet fully recovered from the night before. There was a gap between registration and the opening conference which already led to the first round of lobbying and socializing between delegates before the conference had started. There were intense security procedures and screening as the opening conference featured a range of prominent speakers. These included the Mayor of Madrid, the Minister of Education (also a former astronaut) and notably the King of Spain.

Then the conference fully began. Many of our members were in “General Assembly” committees with 150 countries, each represented by two delegates. One is supposed to be in the committee debating aspects of a topic and a resolution while the other is outside of committee lobbying and writing a resolution. While before the conference some had been slightly disappointed with being Afghanistan – hoping for a more prominent country – this disappointment soon abated when our delegates saw that others were representing the Marshall Islands, Equatorial Guinea or the Holy See.

In between days of debate and lobbying – which were intense due to the academic level and the sheer size of committees – there were nights of social events. These included Global Village – where different countries showed off their culture. Quite often this came down to their local variety of hard yet cheap liquor. There was also Cabaret Night where different delegations showed off dance performances from their respective countries.

In the end the delegation had a good time and found training for and participating in WorldMUN to be a great experience that they learned a lot from. Furthermore visiting Madrid and meeting delegates from across the world was fun. MUNDUNSA is currently looking towards future MUNs to participate in. Do you want to train your debate and negotiation skills while travelling the world and meeting people from different culture? Keep up to date with our activities and send us a message at mundunsa@sibamsterdam.nl

ByWeb editor SIB

Our Geneva Trip!

Our journey began on Monday, in the early morning. Seventeen motivated students – all suited up –travelling to one of the most important cities in international relations: Geneva! The trip was organized around the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) eCommerce week 2019, but it ended up much more extensive than that.

After a relaxed flight and a quick stop at the hotel to drop our luggage, we started with a visit to the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross (the ICRC). After a short introduction movie about the work of the ICRC, a presentation was provided by Robert, Head of the Project Management Office. The Red Cross is divided into three different layers. The National Red Cross, the Federation and the ICRC. The ICRC is only applicable in armed conflicts and other situations of violence. The main goal of the ICRC is to protect and assist victims of war and to prevent violations of the law on war by educating governments and other parties. The ICRC is neutral, impartial and independent. That is, in my opinion, the main reason why the ICRC is allowed entrance in so many conflict areas. The ICRC does things its own way. The organization does not provide evidence to (criminal) courts. It is solely there to protect the war victims. The personnel do not carry guns. Nor are they being protected by UN peacekeepers. In the last six years, the ICRC has grown immensely. It now faces challenges because of the new digitalized world. New, modern technologies – such as artificial intelligence and a huge digital database – are now part of the organization. We were very impressed by the ICRC and all the important work it does in the world. Since we had some time left before our next visit, we decided to have lunch in the restaurant at the ICRC. With a clear sky, a nice temperature and a beautiful view on the Palace des Nations, it was also time for some (maybe a little bit to many) photos.

We soon continued our trip to another very interesting institution, located in a beautiful palace: the World Trade Organization (the WTO). The visit began with a tour through a part of the building, provided by Fernando, Press Officer. He brought us to an impressive conference room, where all the 164 Member States have a seat at the table. Representatives have a seat across each other, the first step to creating a dialogue. There is also room for observers; countries who haven’t entered the organization yet, but who are interested in following the work of the WTO. After the tour and (again) some pictures, we were provided a presentation in a small conference room. The WTO was installed in 1995 through the Treaty of Marrakesh. Member States gave up a part of their trade sovereignty in order to make sure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible. If parties can’t reach an agreement about a trade issue, the rulings of the WTO are binding. With the recent issues around trade in the world, we had plenty of questions for Fernando. Impressively, he was able to answer all of them. Again a very interesting institution, with a huge impact on the trade developments in the world. We closed day one together at a café restaurant called Scandale. A cold beer and great pizzas sure gave us new energy. All ready for day two: a day at the Palace des Nations!

We started day two with a few hours of free time. We met in front of the Palace des Nations at noon. We were accompanied by Tristan and Mariana, two interns from the UNCTAD Youth Team. They provided us with a tour through the gardens of the Palace des Nations. It was time for some pictures again! After that, we attended a High-Level Dialogue at the UNCTAD eCommerce week. The Dialogue was themed ‘From Digitalization to Development’. Representatives of various institutions took part in the conference, such as the African Union and the World Bank. The session was presided by Mukhisa Kituyi, the Secretary-General of UNCTAD. E-Trade for all, that is his main goal. There’s a digital divide that’s creating inequality, between countries but also within countries. This week’s goal is to make sure everyone profits equally from digitalization. Access to internet is still not guaranteed in some of world’s developing countries, while the internet is ‘the oxygen of eCommere’. Not only governments need to take action to make sure everyone profits from digitalization, also Digital Media Platforms have a responsibility. It was an informative and interesting session, with impressive delegates from the different institutions.

 

After all this new information, it was time for some food. Since two people we met separately recommended to have dinner at the Lake View and Fondue, there was no other choice for us than to have dinner exactly there. It was located on the peer at the Geneva Lake. Surrounded by the smell of melted cheese, we had a nice fondue dinner. After that, it was time to explore Geneva’s nightlife. We had some beers at a local pub and our star darts player Julie even got to play a game!

The next day was the final day. After a quick breakfast, it was time for us to go to the World Health Organization (WHO). We were provided two presentations there, an introduction to the WHO and a presentation on the eradication of polio. The WHO has 194 members, one more than the UN. The institution provides service to its Member States on health issues. The WHO sets norms and standards concerning health issues (for instance around vaccination, travel advice and policy on snake bites). The personnel of the WHO assist Member States in emergency situations (such as epidemic outbreaks, natural disasters and war). One of the latest outbreaks the WHO had to deal with (and still does), is Ebola. It go the chance to spread so quickly, because of many reasons, one of which is the difficult access to health care by the people of the countries who were struck by the epidemic. One of the successes of the WHO is the Polio Eradication Initiative: it went from 350.000 cases of polio in 1988 to 33 reported cases in 2018. There are three types of Polio, from which two have already been fully eradicated. Polio only exists now in Afghanistan and Nigeria. Over the past years, the WHO has vaccinated many children. WHO personnel and volunteers knocked on many doors and stood at the boarders of countries in order to vaccinate as many children as possible. With result, we can now conclude. This was, again, a very interesting visit at an institution that does a lot of good in this world. It was especially interesting for Isabelle and Femke, our two participants studying Public Health Sciences. They had the opportunity to ask many questions, from which we all learned a lot.

Our second visit was at the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). We were provided a presentation by Masiha, an Associate Human rights Officer. The OHCHR leads global human rights efforts and speaks out objectively in the face of human rights violations. It also assists governments and individuals on subjects related to human rights. Masiha works in the department of Woman’s’ rights and Gender Equality. After a short introduction of the work of the OHCHR, we had the opportunity to ask questions around the topic of human rights. It was especially interesting for our law students.

The final visit of our trip, was at UNICEF. We met with Sohini, who provided us with a presentation about UNICEF. It began with an introduction about UNICEF and the work it does in the world. The organization was established in 1946 to provide short-term relief to children in the aftermath of World War II. It became a permanent part of the UN in 1953. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (the CRC) forms the bedrock of the work of UNICEF. UNICEF works in 190 countries across the world. It advocates for the protection of the rights of children, the fulfillment of their basic needs and the expansion of opportunities to meet their potential. UNICEF also responds in emergency situations. After the introduction, Sohini gave us an insight of her career. She is currently working in the Private Fundraising Division. Sohini started her career at UNICEF in 2008, working at a regional office in India. She made efforts to bring back the number of cases of child marriages and school drop outs by girls. By setting up a system by which parents receive money if their daughter finishes high school or university, UNICEF influenced the lives of twenty million people. At UNICEF, we noticed the connection between the various institutions we visited throughout these three days. For instance, the WHO and UNICEF work closely together when it comes to vaccinations. And the ICRC, the WHO and UNICEF work together in war areas. Sohini closed her presentation, saying that if you work in the field, it’s okay to sometimes lose the fight, as long as you win the war. Sohini is an extraordinary woman, who had a huge impact on the lives of children.

After this final visit, it was already time to go home! We look back on a very interesting trip with a great group of students. We met many impressive diplomats and got the chance to visit many of the interesting institutions located in Geneva. See you next year, Geneva!

ByWeb editor SIB

Masterclass: 40 years of Revolution in Iran

On the 4th of March, we had a masterclass on the Islamic Republic of Iran. The speaker during this event was a freelance photographer, journalist, and Iran expert Reinier Zoutendijk. Interestingly, Mr. Zoutendijk visited our events during his student time. For this masterclass, he sought to answer three questions: (1) “why is it important to study Iran and the Iran-deal in its broader context?”, (2) “what is the impact of the US withdrawing from this deal?”, and (3) “how has this influenced Iran’s international reputation?”.

Mr. Zoutendijk started the evening with a very short history of Iran. Before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was ruled by a monarch (the Shah) from 1953 until 1979. During this period, the monarchy saw a period of industrialization and centralization of power. In sum, the Shah had eliminated almost every part of society. Before 1953, the country was ruled by a Prime Minister. This was Mossadegh and he got ousted in a coup by the British and the Americans, who reinstalled the Shah. The reason for this coup by the Western powers was due to their dissatisfaction of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry.

The second topic was the security doctrine of Iran. Iran deploys the concept of “strategic loneliness” as it sees itself surrounded by enemies. During the Iran-Iraq War, all Arab countries except for Syria supported Saddam Hussein. However, Iraq lost and right now, Iran is repaying its dues to Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The overall strategy of Iran’s security doctrine is to maintain territorial integrity and sovereignty. But, Iran’s military capability is limited. Nevertheless, they have sufficient capabilities and, in addition, apply asymmetrical warfare to protect their borders. The missile program also belongs to these capabilities.

This program together with the nuclear program of Iran was cause for concern for the West. The (Five) Permanent Members of the UN Security Council together with Germany and the EU negotiated a deal that was popularly known as the Iran Deal. It was supposed to regulate the nuclear program of Iran and reintegrate the country into the international community. When Trump became President, he unilaterally retreated from this international deal. But why?

The deal, according to the International Agency for Atomic Energy, was followed to by Iran. The measurements to monitor and control the nuclear facilities of Iran are very high-tech that even include biometrical protection measures. In other words, it is almost impossible for Iran to not adhere to the deal without the IAEA knowing it. However, even though the deal was watertight, the US retreated from the Iran Deal due to its foreign policy of isolating Iran.

The result was an economic crisis that heavily hit Iran. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Zoutendijk, it is not the economy that the Iranians worry about. The Iranians fear a crackdown by the government, especially when the moderate candidate and incumbent president Rouhani loses the upcoming elections.

So what are the Europeans and the Chinese doing? They are busy with setting up a payment method that bypasses the almighty US dollar. Because that is just the problem for the Iranians to engage in international trade: international trade is often conducted in US dollars and the Americans hold tight control over the payments and transactions that are made in US dollars. Thus, by setting up a parallel network that allows for international trade to be done in Euros or barter-like trade, the Europeans and Chinese are trying to circumvent the American grip on Iran. However, this trade is limited to only food(stuffs) and medicine.

In the end, the Iran Deal and political affairs surrounding Iran are very complex. There are many dimensions that all differ in importance and level of cooperation. The current status of the Iran Deal is not necessarily one that is a defeat. Nevertheless, without American support, the Europeans and Chinese are not able to do that much. America still dominates the world and Iran, sooner or later, has to find a way to integrate into the international community again.

— Mehmet Emre Demirkiran, member of the Committee Intellectual Activities

ByWeb editor SIB

Lecture – Two Years of Trump: What’s Next?

He wanted to build a wall between the US and Mexico, he used protectionism to defend US-industries from foreign competition and he withdrew from climate and trade agreements: Donald Trump is probably one of the most controversial political figures at the moment. Last February marked the first half of his Administration. That was opportunity enough for the Committee of Intellectual Activities to organize a lecture on this topic. Two of the most central questions that were discussed: Has Trump really made America great? And what’s going to happen at the next presidential election?

The two speakers were Frans and Paul Verhagen. Frans Verhagen is a journalist that focuses for more than 35 years now on US politics. He has also written two books on the history of the United States. Paul Verhagen is the son of Frans Verhagen and works as a data analyst at The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies. Obviously, the two speakers were a well-experienced team and complimented each other in their explanations: While Frans Verhagen focussed on the domestic politics in the US, Paul Verhagen analyzed the foreign policy of Donald Trump.

Both of them were not soft at judging the past two years of the Trump administration. Frans Verhagen started with analyzing the economic impact his presidency had: Government deficit in the US has increased despite Donald Trump had promised to reduce it, the income inequality has widened due to new tax cuts for the rich, and the purchasing power of US-citizens has not increased in the last years. In addition, many urgent problems remain unresolved or even neglected: There have not been new investments in urgently needed infrastructure, the health insurance Obamacare is slowly deteriorating and student debt is continuing to grow since the financial crisis of 2007.

Paul Verhagen’s analysis of Trump’s foreign policy was not optimistic either but carried with it many ironies and hidden jokes to brighten the mood in the audience. He started by describing the main ingredients for US foreign policy: American interests, values, and enemies. Its interests are America First, which means protecting Americans, Businesses, and Consumers. The values are democracy, freedom and – yes – apple pie. The enemies are those who threaten Americans (Iran, North Korea), challenge America (China) and “the Communists” (Venezuela, Cuba). Needless to say, in between all this, geopolitics matter as well: It is, therefore, no coincidence, that the ports of the powerful US-navy fleet are located right at the chokepoints of major oil routes.

Finally, Frans and Paul Verhagen discussed the question of who might follow after Trump. Names like the democratic politicians Joe Biden, the representative of Texas Beto O’Rourke or even the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, were mentioned. Great attention will be given once again to the Electoral College system, where each state gets a certain number of electors based on its total number of representatives in Congress. Which states will be decisive? “Ohio, Ohio, Ohio”, says Frans Verhagen. One question that probably many in the audience had on their minds finally concludes the evening: What if Trump makes it again? Frans Verhagen is sure: “It’s not gonna happen.”

-Jakob Pallinger, member of the Committee of Intellectual Activities