I am in South Korea for about two weeks to start my part of the next big project: understanding the relationships between defence agencies and the militaries they are supposed to, um, uh, something. A few years ago, I would have said oversee, but this project essentially started with an interview with a ministry of defense official who said his agency's role was to protect the military from the civilians, which is very much the opposite of oversight. So, Phil Lagassé, Ora Szekley, and myself are traveling to a bunch of countries to catalog the various roles that these agencies think they have and then to explain the variation. Tis another cool project that engages in heaps of comparative civil-military relations.
I started on this road by accident. The experience I had in the Pentagon raised questions about NATO, but once I realized officers wearing two hats, their NATO role and their national command responsibilities, would always care more about the national hat, the research would have to take place in a variety of national capitals, rather than in Brussels or Mons (the military hq of NATO). And that was cool for me as it meant lots of interesting travel, many fascinating interviews, and eventually my favorite book: NATO in Afghanistan: Fighting Together, Fighting Alone. It essentially asked why countries had different rules for their contingents in the field--who had to call whom for permission for what kinds of activities.
Which, of course, then lead to the next question: is anyone watching to see if those contingents are staying within the rules? Since many countries had legislatures writing those rules, we wondered if they watched to see if those rules actually constrained behavior. Early conversations with Canadian parliamentarians suggested not so much, and we found that Canada was not alone in that. That book is now awaiting review at a couple of publishers, hopefully to see the light of day at your neighborhood book shop (or online one, anyhow) in ... 2025?
The next question, as mentioned above, is whether defense agencies are overseeing their armed forces. Our case selection this time is mostly repeating the previous cases--because we have some understanding, if not expertise, in these cases, we have contacts in these places, so the research should be fairly straightforward.
So, that is why I am in South Korea. It was a fascinating case for the legislatures book, and is pretty interesting thus far after two interviews. What have I learned thus far?
- there are places where you can get a private room and a set menu to have a lunch meeting/interview, but wow, the food keeps on coming. I lost track of how many dishes we had for lunch. It was terrific, and the room was quiet so I could tape the interview.
- I don't remember being turned away from BBQ places last time, but they apparently don't want solo eaters, at least in this neighborhood.
- I need to be more careful as I deleted today's pics.
- I learned that Google and South Korea are having a spat, so I can't use google maps to give me good walking directions. I have had to download alternative apps that work ok, but not quite as good.
- I need to pay more attention to the signs on tables. For dinner tonight, I went to a place that serves a variety of basic dishes, and it had a clear sign taped to the place where one can use a screen to order food: foreigners order at the counter. I got handed a multilingual menu, pointed what I wanted, paid, and sat down. When my number came up, I got my food and sat down. But no silverware, no chopsticks. There was a self-serve hutch that had forces, glasses, and some side dish stuff. No chopsticks no napkins, no spoons. Turns out the spoon/chopstick markings on the table indicated a sneaky side drawer containing those and napkins. I only realized that 3/4s of the way through the meal when I noticed someone accessing their stuff.
- I learned garlic fried chicken is really good for dinner and also good cold for breakfast.
- I am off my game a bit, not just with deleted pics, but my taxi from the airport train took me to the wrong hotel--there are two hotels of the same name here, and I knew that, so I should have been clearer. Not a huge deal, but at the end of a very long travel day, it was not welcome.
More reports from the field and perhaps fewer deleted pics in the days ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment