On February 26th I attended an event at the American Security Project discussing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) from an American and European perspective. Below the link to my article about the event:
http://www.wita.org/en/art/1002/
Last Wednesday I was able to attend another event at the Cato Institute which consisted of three panelists debating if Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) should be implemented into the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), or not. The debate was very interesting and heated up.
I was surprised how emotional scholars can get when not feeling understood by their counter-arguers. One might think that people in academia always behave considerate and deliberate twice before making a statement, but that was not reality at this debate.
The expert supporting to definitely include IPRs claimed that it is a necessity to protect American patents, and that the other countries need to adjust to the American system.
The counter arguer to this statement is convinced that IPs only inhibit the the flow of a free-trade agreement, and make it more complicated to close the deal.
The third scholar, the only female representative, was mainly criticizing the bureaucracy and legislation of IPs stalled on the Hill. While being busy emphasizing the difficulties about protecting copyrights and patents, I had troubles to see her position if IPs should be implemented in the TPP, or not.
However, in the end she suggested to change the American IP legislation process, and clarified briefly to take out IPs entirely of the TPP.
Currently, I am working on the report for this event. I am cooperating with my colleague, and we plan to publish it sometime this week.
On Thursday, I had two seminars with my internship group. Our first one was with Senior Senator Pat Roberts from Kansas who well respected on both sides of the political aisle. He is a serious legislator, a long time fixture in Kansas politics, and a former Marine.
Pat Roberts made a very casual impression, but unfortunately it also got to a point where he seemed a little boring. The way he answered questions was very monotonous and it was difficult for me to follow his long-drawn explanations. His time was very limited so I did not get the chance to ask him my question in front of the group.
However, when shaking hands I made the comment that I would have loved to ask him what he thinks about American politics in comparison to European/German politics. Roberts took the time to comment briefly that even though Germany's past was very dark, it does a good job today.
I countered that the past is the past, and what counts is the present. He changed the topic and said that he hopes for more engagement by the EU and Germany in regards to the Ukraine crisis.
I answered that a strong cooperation between the EU and the US will definitely be helpful to try to improve the situation for the Ukrainian population. I felt like a politician when I heard myself saying that, and when finishing the conversation with a smile on both of our faces.
Our second seminar was with Colonel Patrick "Smack" McKenzie. He is a Kansas native, and a F-16 fighter pilot. Currently, he leads the U.S. Air Force Congressional Liaison office in the Rayburn House Office Building. This is one of the most important and prestigious jobs in the Air Force, because it puts him in daily contact with the legislators (and their staffs) who fund that branch of the military. Before he worked on Capitol Hill, he commanded Osan Air Force Base in South Korea.
"Smack" caught my attention, especially because of not having a lot of knowledge about the military life. He made a mentally strong and hard-boiled impression.
When I asked him about his most scaring and most dangerous missions, he told us that once when flying over Iraq, he did not even know if the plane will be able to reach its destination due to gas issues. Another example was that he feels the most pressure when knowing that comrades depend on him when bombing territories or other fighters. I got goose-bumps when I heard that.
When he talked about his missions and his plane flights, and about releasing bombs or firing missiles over Kosovo or Afghanistan, I felt as if he was talking about a video game. In his description he made it seem as if the world and the people on the ground are not seen, but the goal is to shoot at a certain position, no matter if there is civilization underneath, or not.
Smack explained that pilots cannot see what is happening thousands of feet below your machine, and he illustrated that you only see bombs falling down looking like cracking "popcorn" in the microwave.
I had the feeling reality was a game for him. However, I guess he simply did his job, and his job was to drop the missiles at a certain point to a certain time, and to fly back to his station.
When he told us about his stay in South Korea while North Korea was testing its nuclear weapons posing a huge security threat to the world peace, he revealed that the threat was completely exaggerated by the media. He revealed that the situation was no different than any other, and he would "stand on the golf course with a club in his hands" while citizens in the US and Europe fear a third world war.
However, he also admitted that it is kind of scaring to know that a 29 year old possesses nukes. He emphasized that this is definitely no safe situation in our world, and it is supposed to be taken seriously.
I learned a lot in the seminar with Colonel Smack. I have great respect for his duties and experiences, but I still think that a safer world does not depend on stronger and bigger military forces in democracies, but rather on better diplomatic skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment