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
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
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 email@example.com
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!
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
On January 15th SIB-Amsterdam went to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague. The OPCW is the implementing body of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC or Convention), which entered into force on 29 April 1997. Currently the OPCW has a total of 193 member states and one member state (the United States of America) that is currently in the process of destroying their owned amount of chemical weapons. Under the nation states that did not sign the convention are North-Korea, Israel, Egypt and South-Sudan.
SIB-Amsterdam’s excursion to the OPCW started around 9.00 for most participants, who took a shared train from Amsterdam to The Hague, while others traveled separately and joined the group later. The visit started off at 11.00 with a quick tour through some of the halls and rooms of the building, during which the Nobel Peace Price (2013) was admired. Many participants took the opportunity to take a picture. After the tour the group was brought to a separate room and after a short informative video, a representative for the Political Affairs of the OPCW gave us some insight into the structure and way of operating of the organisation. After this introduction there was an opportunity to ask questions. The topics of the questions varied from topics as excluded nation states and the likelihood of them signing the CWC, to the judicial capabilities and the possibility for repercussions in the case of chemical weapons being used in any of the member states. Among the topics discussed were also different attacks in which chemical weapons have been used, such as in the Syrian Arab Republic and The United Kingdom. During this, the element of fear and the difference between chemical weapons and military weapons was also pointed out. The group gained some understanding about the difficulties of having a comprehensive insight into and control over the amount of chemical weapons that are stored, as nation states themselves are responsible for reporting the amount of chemical weapons owned and due to the fact that member states do not necessarily have insight into the amount of chemical weapons that non-state actors (such as terrorist groups) hold. Interesting to hear was also that the OPCW does not have the competence to do an independent investigation about the amount of chemical weapons being stored in a specific nation state until chemical weapons have in fact been used, after which a ‘’fact checking mission’’ will be initiated. The conversation was an interesting opportunity to learn more about the actual way of operating of an international institution as the OPCW and it’s admirable effect on the minimal use of chemical weapons worldwide.
After the visit the group enjoined some drinks in a café downtown, during which the consequences of the learned information was discussed. SIB-Amsterdam is grateful to the OPCW for its time and hospitality in receiving us and the organisation’s contribution in minimizing the use of chemical weapons worldwide.
Last weekend Mundunsa went to Hamburg Model United Nations where they spent four days representing a country in a mock session of the United Nations. This is their experience!
In the early morning at the Flixbus Station at a rainy and dreary Station Sloterdijk the delegation of Mundunsa was gathered for the bus to Hamburg. After a long bus ride to Hamburg – an opportunity for several delegates to sharpen their knowledge of the topic they would be discussing and the country they would be representing – they arrived for the opening conference, which hosted a speaker from NATO that was flown in by the organization. After the obligatory speeches and pounding of the hammer, the Mundunsa delegates were off to their different committees.
Kevin represented Botswana in the Economic and Social Committee. The main topic of the conference would be trade for which Kevin came prepared. Referring to Smith and Ricardo he addressed the committee often. Botswana might be a small country but within a MUN each vote counts for the same and Kevin made his vote count! Denis was representing Ethiopia in the United Nation Office on Drugs and Criminality (UNODC). His perspective was unique bringing the experience of his country with Khat-abuse to the table and he was instrumental at drafting the resolutions.
Hannah was in the United Nations Environmental Program. For most of the conference they discussed water scarcity, a very relevant topic for the country she was representing: Australia. While the committee might have agreed that it’s a problem, she often found herself disagreeing about the possible solutions. Konstantin and Liora were both in the European Council representing Lithuania and the Czech Republic respectively the main topic being migration. Both weren’t happy about the idea of reforming the Dublin Regulations and having to host more migrants. For a short period, Konstantin changed countries when Greece didn’t show up. When Greece (a day and a half too late) did eventually show up he graciously changed back. Both did extremely well in maintaining the Dublin Regulations as much as possible.
Two of our delegates were in a bit of a different committee: a crisis committee. This is a committee with less rules, focused on responding to a (historical) crisis with more personal freedom. Delegates represent a person and not a country. The goal is not to draft a resolution that reflects your views the most but to advance your personal goals the most, if necessary by bold-faced backstabbing. Bas was in the Austrian Cabinet during the Second Schleswig War playing a Hungarian noble. Thanks to his efforts Hungary erupted in revolution against Habsburg rule which led to him being expelled to Prussia. Jared was the main general of the Roman Empire: Aetius, defending against Barbarian invasions and the impending fall of Rome.
In between committee sessions there was plenty of room for social activities. On 3 out of 4 nights Bas managed to eat hamburgers in Hamburg. Every evening there were social activities ranging from a pub crawl through the historical city center of Hamburg, to a silent disco in a nightclub on the Reeperbahn [If you feel the Amsterdam Red Light District is dirty and shady, try visiting the Reeperbahn – Patrick], to a very fancy black-tie ball, ironically held in the left-wing anarchist squat neighborhood of St. Pauli. The social elements of the trip contributed to several delegates having to do dances or read out verses from Fifty Shades of Grey as punishment for coming in late.
Liora – one of our more experienced delegates, having earned her stripes at MUNs organized by Oxford and Harvard students – won a best delegate award in the European Council, leading the block of Eastern European countries into negotiations with the rest of Europe and managing to get a favorable resolution passed. No small feat in a committee where all decisions can only be passed unanimously. Denis got an honorable mention for his performance as Ethiopia in UNODC, being instrumental in drafting the resolution. In a committee with over 40 delegates and having never done a MUN before this is incredibly good.
Jared in his crisis committee also got a best delegate award using his language and problem-solving skills to help protect the Roman Empire from a barbarian invasion – at least temporarily. At one point he even had a rap battle with a Barbarian King. With two best delegate awards and an honorable mention our delegation has performed well in the awards, but it must be emphasized that all our delegates did extremely well, Bas and Jared doing crisis for the first time, and with the exception of Liora and Konstantin (who did it at high school before) all other delegates doing MUN for the first time. We are looking forward to our next MUN in Madrid. After this registration opens again and many in the current delegation are looking to Tel Aviv as a possible MUN destination this summer.
We couldn’t be prouder of our delegates and their hard work. On the bus ride back to Amsterdam few delegates were be able to keep their eyes open.
On the 19th of November, SIB Amsterdam visited the International Court of Justice in The Hague. We received a warm welcome by the First Secretary of the Court and Head of the Information Department Mr Andrey Poskakukhinin in the ICJ building, the magnificent Peace Palace. He guided us into the ICJ court room which is also known as the Great Hall of Justice. It was a privilege to seat in the courtroom where entry is restricted to the parties of the case and the others have to seat in the balcony. Mr Poskakukhinin then gave us information of the court, its proceedings and selection of the judges. He also pointed out some important cases handled by ICJ. We discussed about how the United Nation’s Security Council has influence in selection process of judges to ICJ. It is important to note here that the ICJ has precedence over court of a state as long as the state constitution allows it. We thanked Mr. Poskakukhinin for this opportunity. On the way back home, we took an ad-hoc tour of the Dutch parliament. Here we discussed the Dutch political parties and their representation in the parliament. The balance between the King and elected representatives was also a point of discussion. It was a wonderful day!
Abhijit Bhanudas Mahale,
member of the CEA
From the 13th to the 18th of November, SIB-Amsterdam got to explore the wonderful cities of Rabat and Fes, respectively the political and cultural epicenters of Morocco. Every year, SIB travels to a destination not too far from its origin during the late Autumn. This year we chose to focus on Morocco due to its unusual political position within Africa, often acting as a communicator between Africa, the Middle East and Europe. We learned more about the international relations, domestic hardships and the involvement of the Netherlands with the country.
We started our trip traveling from Amsterdam to Brussels South Airport, where we took a flight to Rabat, the current capital of Morocco. After arriving, we treated ourselves to a group dinner complete with tajines, incredible salads and traditional mint tea – poured from over a meter high! The next morning, we walked over to the Dutch embassy, where we spoke to a senior diplomat, who informed us of the numerous projects the Netherlands is doing in the country as well as the issues faced by Moroccans living in the Netherlands. In the afternoon, we hung out with Sahar, the former president of SIB-Amsterdam who is currently studying in Rabat, as she showed us around the medina and Kasbah of the Udayas. Afterwards we visited the NGO, Heinrich Böll, where we got a different view of current cultural trends, specifically in ecology and public services.
After a night in the city, we took late morning taxis to Fes, the previous and historic capital of Morocco. We were met by our Riad host, Mohamed, who took us past the Blue Gate through the souks and winding alleys to our humble abode. After settling in the Riad with a warm welcome of tea and hospitality, we were given a generous tour by another local, who showed us all the main historical sites, best places to eat and the wonderful handicrafts ranging from tanned leather to textiles and tapestry. After a night of sleep in our lovely medina dwellings, we received a luxurious breakfast, and after which, a small group of us traveled with our host to a Hammam, a traditional Moroccan bathhouse. Refreshed and revitalized, we indulged ourselves in a steaming plate of couscous to energize us for an afternoon of exploration. Some of us wandered through the souks while others took a journey out to a viewing point, which had a wonderful view of the distinctive shapes and colors of Fes. In the evening, we all met up for our final group dinner in a ornamental restaurant with lively tiles and boisterous ceilings – where we ate our last tajines before having a nights rest and heading back to Rabat the morning after. Following a train ride, a flight back to Brussels South, a night in Charleroi and a subsequent bus ride back to Amsterdam, we completed our trip with sleepy eyes and fulfilled hearts.
On the 14th of September, SIB Amsterdam departed from Sloterdijk station for the traditional trip to the capital of the European Union, Brussels. The introduction trip has already an established role inside the association, as it brings together old members with prospective ones, and gives newcomers the opportunity to discover both facets of SIB: the professional and intellectual side, ready to transform bright and curious youngsters into young adults with a deep knowledge about international relations, and the lively and inviting side, unable to say no to a challenge or a good party.🎉
The trip thus began in typical SIB fashion, with a packed group of people hurrying from Brussels North to the first activity on the list, VNO NCW, in formal attire and suitcases sliding rapidly on the pavement. Once there, we were introduced to two of the employees and one intern of the organization, that shared with us the process and challenges undertaken to represent the Dutch businesses’ interests in an international climate. Afterwards, we went directly to another lobbying firm, FleishmannHillard, where we amongst other things discussed more in detail the particular challenges faced when representing a client in the health sector, while also putting emphasis on the ethical side of the dealings. What followed was a walk among the European institutions, followed by a delicious meal at Café Novo and the indispensable beers at famous Delirium bar in the centre of Brussels. What better occasion of getting to know each other?
We started the next day early in the morning, equipped with rich coffees, and headed for a walking tour that included some of the best touristic spots in Brussels, such as the Manneke Pis and Grote Markt. Next, the traditional introduction game brought us to Grand Place, where we separated into small teams and spread through the city, in a quest that challenged our imagination (and French skills😉). We spent the last evening in one of the most fun bars of Brussels, Le Corbeau, and ended the night in Au Quai, an underground club that played a cool mix of electronic music and French rap, that oozed talent and good vibes!
The last day brought about a mix of activities that people could freely choose from, such as a visit to the Parlamentarium, the Atomium, the Palais de Bruxelles, or a laid back afternoon taking advantage of the international comic book festival in Parc de Bruxelles and the sports festival in Parc du Cinquantenaire.
So, if you’re considering joining SIB, you want to visit a city that offers the best mix between professionalism and boisterous activities, or you simply are into meeting a diverse group of people, be sure not to miss “Brussels 2019”!