José Luis Gómez del Prado, Chairman of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries, has provided a damning indictment of private military and security companies (PMSCs), the use of which has expanded hugely over the past two decades. In the early 1990s, the DynCorp company was contracted by the United States to air-spray Colombian cocaine plantations, train the national army, and dismantle drug rings. By the middle of 2010, however, the U.S. Department of Defense had nearly 210,000 mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, or about 20 per cent more personnel than the regular military. The worldwide U.S. total is about 240,000, with two-thirds of them coming from host countries and third countries. The main companies are American and British; many of their board members have come through the revolving door between high military ranks and the private war business. The industry, minuscule before 2001, now has a value of about $200 billion a year.
Some PMSCs are so notorious that they have changed their names (Blackwater, for instance, now calls itself Xe). In Iraq, they have intensified political instability and public hatred of the occupying forces. Blackwater/Xe may also have been involved in using white phosphorus as a chemical weapon in Fallujah. In Colombia, Washington gave DynCorp immunity from prosecution over long-term diseases, including cancers, caused by its spraying. In Croatia, MPRI company staff cannot be tried for ethnic cleansing (with which many Croatian officers have been charged). In Iraq, the mercenaries have immunity from criminal prosecution. Victims have to make civil claims at their own expense in U.S. or British courts — as do PMSCs' own staff, many of whom are victims of poor training and equipment, and brutal employment practices. As for the work, PMSCs have carried out rendition flights, tortured captives, and engaged in open combat, frequently causing terrible civilian casualties. Washington has circumvented a U.N. arms embargo by contracting MPRI to equip and train the Croatian army. In effect, many PMSCs are agents of foreign policy. The 1989 U.N. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, which covers individuals and not companies, is not adequate to deal with the current situation. It is extremely disturbing that PMSCs are taking over the military functions of the state, in apparent freedom from domestic or international accountability. The sooner they are brought within the ambit of international criminal law, the better.
Keywords: United Nations
The British successfully ruled India with a small British officer core with a predominantly mercenary Indian sepoys. This practice is now being expanded in modern times to control strategic 'unruly' nations like Iraq, Afghanistan etc in a neo-colonial mode by using locals and third-world mercenaries predominantly (for lower pay) and a smaller more expensive core from US, UK, South Arica, Australia etc outside the ambit of the regular military to circumvent a number of objections from domestic and international voices. The war business is the most profitable in the US at the moment!
@Doug, I am interested in knowing what aspects you find deceptive/derogatory. You seem to agree with Del Prado that a vast majority are locals (he says 2/3rd) However, based on the number of security contractors on flights to the Middle East, it does seem like there are a lot of Americans there as well. During my last flight through Dubai, my wife and I sat next to a young security contractor for a US firm, heading into Iraq. It was his first time outside Alabama! During the flight he mentioned how his town was the boondocks with nothing for young people to do. As we deplaned, he took out his US passport and put in a transparent pouch that was around his neck. Over the next few minutes, several other individuals from the same organization, older and presumably more experienced, told him to hide his US passport and pretend to be Canadian.
A rather shortsighted article - this century -points to increasing efficiency of the private sector in every domain - so why not defense? Every officer/soldier who draws a good pay is a mercenary - if you stretch it enough. Any army can turn rogue, whether state run or private - it can torture POWs/topple govts - if you do not control it well enough etc etc. If security services can be privatized - why not defence - perhaps they can do a better job of guarding the borders than the present setup.
Mercenaries are are mercenaries, more so in the literal sense of the term. They are akin to hired goons or the 'qutation gangs', virulently acting against community and humanity. They revel in activities, purported to obliterate what mankind raises and conserves as the signature of its civilised existence. The UN is becoming a pawn in the hands of big powers, like the UK and the US. To state it plainly, the UN is awfully short of the necessary 'amperage' to act as a truly international body. It is time the world body augmented its powers to ruthlessly put an end to the outsourcing of war.
Unfortunately Mr. Del Prado's insights are deceptive at best. The vast majority of the stability operations industry is local hires doing logistics and construction - essential tasks in any peacekeeping and stability operations. Derogatory terms that he throws around have no place in a rational discussion of the issue. I would be happy to talk to anyone at the Hindu who might be interested in doing a more comprehensive story on the role of the private sector in peacekeeping and stability operations.
Please Email the Editor