"When it comes to preventing mass slaughter of civilians," wrote journalist and foreign policy expert Jonah Blank, "the United Nations guard dog often seems less Rottweiler than Chihuahua." The reason UN forces are so inept, says Blank, is that member states refuse to put their best troops in harm’s way to protect foreign refugees: "So the U.N. tends to send into war zones professional but cautious European and often ill-trained Third World troops without the equipment and rules of engagement needed to impose order."
In his article for U.S. News and World Reports (Dec. 30, 1996), Blank proposed that the U.N. create a permanent, professional rapid reaction force consisting of Gurkhas, the "highly professional, strictly apolitical, combat-hardened soldiers" from Nepal that have served with the British Army for over 200 years. (Although the U.N. has still not created such a force, Gurkhas have served in Lebanon, Sierra Leone, and the Congo (Zaire).) Blank’s proposal, while not entirely novel, is noteworthy for legitimizing the idea of using mercenary forces for peacekeeping missions.
Because they are fully integrated into the British Army, the Gurkhas (like the French Foreign Legion) are not technically mercenaries. But such a distinction is relatively new, for paid foreign troops like these Nepalese warriors were, historically, considered respectable mercenary units. The term mercenary--typically defined as a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for private gain, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations--now carries an almost universally negative connotation. The UN, for instance, remains fundamentally opposed to mercenaries, arguing that there is no "distinction between respectable mercenaries and non-respectable mercenaries."
Enter the Private Military Company (PMC). Like mercenary units of the past, organizations like Blackwater (American), Sandline International (British), and Executive Outcomes (South African, defunct) are armies for hire. But unlike their forebears, these companies focus almost exclusively on defensive operations, including refugee protection.
The shift has helped such firms gain a modicum of respectability, and even gained the notice of the UN. Secretary General Kofi Anan who said that "when we had need of skilled soldiers to separate fighters from refugees in the Rwandan refugee camps in Goma, I even considered the possibility of engaging a private firm. But the world may not be ready to privatize peace."
Leaving peace to governments, however, doest’t appear to be too effective. The 7,000 African Union troops serving as peacekeepers in Darfur have been ineffective in preventing the death of over 180,000 Sudanese and displacement of over 2 million refugees. As the Boston Globe admits, "There's little question that companies like Blackwater could be more effective operationally than the African Union"
PMCs have many distinct advantages over UN led multinational forces. Sandline, for instance, claims to be able to deploy troops within five days, while the UN’s proposed reforms aim for thirty to ninety days. And the claim of reducing cost, if accurate, is also significant:
''We offer the ability to create a right-sized solution-which creates a cost savings right off the bat," says [Chris Taylor, Blackwater's vice president for strategic initiatives]. By contrast, [Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association] notes, ''NATO is insanely expensive; it's not a cost-effective organization. Neither is the [African Union]. Private companies would be much, much cheaper. When we compared their costs to most UN operations, we came up with 10 to 20 percent of what the UN would normally charge."
In fact, there is little doubt that private firms can be effective. ''The question isn't their operational ability," says David Isenberg, senior analyst at the British American Security Information Council, ''they've demonstrated an ability at least equivalent to a decently run UN operation. It's a question of political will."
There are, of course, legitimate concerns about the use of PMCs. Questions of accountability and oversight would need to be addressed and protections put in place to prevent such atrocities as pedophilia, rape, and forced prostitution, accusations that now plague UN peacekeepers in Africa. While such abuses could also occur under PMCs, it is doubtful that a for-profit company could be allowed to cover up such crimes for over a decade as government-funded UN troops have done.
PMCs are certainly not a panacea for the world’s pandemic warfare and genocide. But something must be done, and since the international community refuses to stop the bloodshed, we are left with few practical alternatives. "People were saying that if we use private sector in the Congo, the international community will never get its act together," says industry spokesman Doug Brooks. ''But that was 3 million dead Congolese ago. The international community isn't going to wake up no matter how many people you kill. I think that it would be a good idea for the international community to get its act together. But we've got to find another way."
Sources:
"Want Peacekeepers With Spine? Hire the World's Fiercest Mercenaries", Jonah Blank, US News and World Report (December 30, 1996 p 42-43)
"Peace Corp.", Rebecca Ulam Weiner, The Boston Globe (April 23, 2006)
"Dogs of War or Tomorrow's Peacekeepers?: The Role of Mercenaries in the Future Management of Conflict", Tanya Cook, The Culture Mandala (2002)
1
Geez, what breathaking...nah, better not say that.
The reason mercenaries are so verboten is they potentially disrupt the status quo of the nation state by providing explicit means for any current club member's destrution via the ultimate political authority outside it: money.
The US will inevitably decline in political power in the world; we're seeing that right now accelerated thanks to the wise policies of Dear Leader.
Imagine what happens when the new top-dog decides we're a bit too much like Carthage was thought of by the Romans and decides to, sub rosa, launch a series of outsourced Punic Wars. I can even name a country with a 1 child policy that might be the perfect candidate to supply the manpower.
And no, you can't nuke 'em unless you're more genocidal than Hitler.
posted on 04.27.2006 5:34 AM2
A considerable amount of speculative fiction pictures the world of tomorrow as ruled by multinational corporations, not governments. Already we see a number of functions traditionally considered "government" being bid-out (education, prison, road and bridge management). Welcome to the United States of [insert name of multinational corporation here]? Seriously, perhaps we need more theoretical analysis of the advisability of this kind of shift from representative democracy (think voters) to a kind of quasi-democratic multinational conglomerate (think shareholders). Hello neo-con think tanks, this means you.
posted on 04.27.2006 9:02 AM3
"The US will inevitably decline in political power in the world; we're seeing that right now accelerated thanks to the wise policies of Dear Leader."
Our political power is tied to our economic power. That will tank when oil is traded in euros instead of dollars.
Though I think the idea of the U.N. commanding an army of mercenaries is a terrible one, we won't have to worry about being attacked here by any force other than terrorists because it won't be necessary.
4
Mercenaries would be a great idea for fixing most of these problems. They'd save the UN a lot of money and would give the UN no excuse to maintain a standing army because it could simply "buy a peacekeeping operation" when it needed one like in Darfur.
posted on 04.27.2006 9:59 AM5
It's not an unthinkable idea, except for all the reasons Machiavelli originally pointed out.
And you're right, systems would need to be put in place to prevent such abuses as:
- torture:
A mix of military personnel, FBI, CIA, and private contractors have been involved in interrogating prisoners. The Fay-Jones investigation suggests that private contractors were involved in some of the worst incidents at Abu Ghraib. . . .
and also:
A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein.One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him.
Hired guns from a wide array of private security firms are playing a central role in the US-led occupation of Iraq. . . .
The investigation names two US contractors, CACI International Inc and the Titan Corporation, for their involvement in the functioning of Abu Ghraib.
- sexual abuse:
In 2002, U.S. courts heard evidence that a private contractor, DynCorp (engaged to protect Hamid Karzai, and involved in Iraq), bought young Russian and Ukrainian women in Bosnia during 1999 as "sex slaves" for their private troops. The two men involved in this case were not charged; indeed, DynCorp fired the two whistleblowers.
- slavery and human trafficking:
The top U.S. commander in Iraq has ordered sweeping changes for privatized military support operations after confirming violations of human-trafficking laws and other abuses by contractors involving possibly thousands of foreign workers on American bases . . . .Two memos obtained by the Tribune indicate that Casey's office concluded that the practice of confiscating passports from such workers was both widespread on American bases and in violation of the U.S. trafficking laws. . . .
[T]he military also confirmed a host of other abuses during an inspection of contracting activities supporting the U.S. military in Iraq. They include deceptive hiring practices; excessive fees charged by overseas job brokers who lure workers into Iraq; substandard living conditions once laborers arrive; violations of Iraqi immigration laws; and a lack of mandatory "awareness training" on U.S. bases concerning human trafficking. . . .
Halliburton subsidiary KBR . . . has outsourced much of [its support-contrat] work to more than 200 subcontractors, many of them based in Middle Eastern nations condemned by the U.S. for failing to stem human trafficking into their own borders or for perpetrating other human rights abuses against foreign workers. . . .
[S]ome subcontractors and a chain of human brokers allegedly engaged in the same kinds of abuses routinely condemned by the State Department as human trafficking. . . .
[S]imilar allegations had been raised in September 2004 with Joseph Schmitz, who was then the Department of Defense inspector general. Schmitz did not respond in any detail until nearly a year later . . . .
Schmitz resigned about two weeks later amid accusations that he stonewalled investigations. He took a job with Blackwater USA, a private security contractor.
- or just plain complete lawlessness:
On 8 July, three Americans were arrested at a clandestine private prison in Kabul. There, the Afghan police found eight Afghanis in various stages of “interrogation”. Four of them were hanging by their heels from the ceiling.posted on 04.27.2006 10:14 AMThe leader of the group was former Green Beret sergeant Jonathan Keith “Jack” Idema, a US bounty hunter and mercenary popularised by Fox News and right-wing publisher Random House. The other two turned out to be Edward Caraballo, a TV producer working on a documentary by Idema, about Idema, and Brent Bennett, a former US soldier who was apparently assisting Caraballo.
Of all the misfits, sociopaths and loonies thrown up by the War on Terror, Jack Idema is surely the most flamboyant, but he’s symptomatic of a sprawling network of contract killers, special forces soldiers and zone-of-silence types let loose upon an unsuspecting world by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. . . .
Upon news of the arrests, a US spokesman in Kabul denied that Idema, whose men had been swaggering around Kabul for months, was anything to do with the US. . . . But within days the US military admitted they had previously taken into custody at least one prisoner turned over to them by Idema’s Task Force Sabre 7 group.
6
"Mercenary" became a cussword during the period between the First and Second Russian Revolutions, when it became a Party Line snarl word for the Comrades and Fellow Travellers. "Mercenary", "Bandit", "Reactionary", "Running Dog", "Goldsteinist", et al.
Note that Mercs lost some of their rep after the Second Russian Revolution, when a lot of Cubans, East Germans, ex-KGB, and other Comrades started mercing out themselves. (Ex-East German STASI commonly merc out to Third World hellholes as pre-assembled secret police for the local Glorious Maximum Leader. This is OK, because
"Ees Party Line, Comrades.")
7
I like this idea. I mean no disrespect at all, but to some extent our current volunteer military is already mercenary. In general, people sign up not for a specific cause they believe in (I realize there are many exceptions), but to serve and to gain benefits. It's a far call from the old idea of citizen-soldiers or a volunteer militia. In the same way, our paid police forces and firefighters are also "mercenary."
I would want the soldiers in such a venture to take an oath to something more than just a paycheck. How about the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?
posted on 04.27.2006 2:10 PM8
I would want the soldiers in such a venture to take an oath to something more than just a paycheck. How about the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"?
Why would you expect mercanaries to take an oath to the UDHR seriously when 90% of the nations that ratified it don't?
posted on 04.27.2006 2:27 PM9
Having read the book "Shake Hands with the Devil", by Romeo Dallaire, the commanding officer of the UN forces in Rwanda, I think hiring mercenaries would solve a lot of the problems with UN forces (which by the way, most of the posters on this board don't seem to understand that as the reference point, and are totally off topic).
However, I can see one problem-who's going to give them the authority to go over there? The UN, which is why we are in a deep hole in Sudan anyway-the UN won't commit forces there. No matter how tough a group of troops you give the UN for peacekeeping, unless the UN has the spine to deploy them, they will do no good.
10
I think Chris makes a good point. The real problem is that many, if not most of the nations supplying "peace keeping" troops are despotic, kleptocracies and their troops treat their own people in much the same way. Why should we think that simply putting on a blue beret is going to change anything?
posted on 04.28.2006 6:25 AM11
Joe:
Interesting post -- looking to turn entrepreneur? [SMILEY . . . not a serious point!]
More on point, the issue is which is more likely to become inefficient and out of control. Especially, in a world that foes not any longer take the foundation of rights and of maintaining objective and just accountability seriously -- that we are created by a God who has made us moral and valuable creatures with the terrible and awesome power of choice. In that context, governament and quasi-government structures can only be justified as legitimate by their ability to protect justice and associated rights.
The UN is a failure on that, and the many failed states across the world are also plainly illegitimate. (Indeed, I suspect that the UN -triggered dithering and delay on Iraq in 2002, may well have given the Russian Mercs -- i.e. htose generals shipped over to Iraq anfd hteir support Sptreznaz units time to ship the WMFs across the border into the other major Baathist state in the ME (buying a refuge and base for much of what has gone on since behind that bogus neutrality). On that George Sana's testimony is far more credible than the Bush/Blair lied ranting I have seen. And to think I discounted Debka files whent hey said it was happening at the time!)
In short, I strongly suspect that any such initiatives will become an enabler for more problems than solutions. Sad, but I think I have to face facts.
Grace to all
Gordon
posted on 04.29.2006 4:51 AM