New focus on mercenaries: the ultimate privatisation

WORLDVIEW: Housman's tribute commemorated the British regular soldiers who fought and died bravely in the first battles of 1914…

WORLDVIEW: Housman's tribute commemorated the British regular soldiers who fought and died bravely in the first battles of 1914.

These, in the day when heaven was falling,

The hour when earth's foundations fled,

Followed their mercenary calling

READ MORE

And took their wages and are dead.

Epitaph on an Army of

Mercenaries

Mercenaries are in the news again. The circumstances are now more respectable, the titles more bland. The unshaven, hard-drinking, self-styled affreux, whom UN troops fought and eventually defeated in the Congo, have been replaced by "private military companies".

Some claim they are involved in corporate "military consulting" under titles like Sandline International, Levdan, Military Professional Resources etc. More than 20 American, British, French, Israeli and South African firms have been involved in these activities. Some simply provide security or logistics. There are ex-officers from "good regiments" such as the Guards. The new mercenaries may have Commando, Para, Special Operations or SAS backgrounds.

There are serious issues involved in their use. The British government seems to be trying to give them balanced consideration. Mercenaries have had a long history, even before the Swiss dominated the European market in the 15th century and after. They have their uses to governments and commercial enterprises. A British Green Paper has been published to examine the companies and the options for regulating them.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Jack Straw suggested that a "strong and reputable (private) military sector" might enable the UN to deploy more rapidly and effectively in crises. Costs could be much lower than they are at present. Shortages of troops for peacekeeping and reluctance to accept casualties are further arguments in their favour. Frederick Forsyth noted in the Wall Street Journal that mercenaries don't come home in body-bags.

Lawless parts of the world sometimes have considerable natural resources - oil, diamonds, uranium, precious metals, rare constituents for mobile phones and so forth. Without security, the lives and property of rich and poor are at risk. Diamonds have been sold on to arm insurgents and deepen the misery of civil populations.

All this is big business and costs big money. The old adage, point d'argent, point de Suisse, applies - "no money, no mercenaries" - unless an outside national interest is involved and outside money is available.

International mining companies, for instance, have an interest in order, but their security measures inevitably focus on company needs. It would be preferable to have good governance - normal administrations run by incorrupt politicians, judiciary and police.

Private military companies cannot provide good governance but, it is argued, they can ensure some security on a temporary basis at least. It is counter-argued, with justification, that good governance and its concomitant security are what the "wretched of the earth" really need.

There are many objections to mercenary combat troops. It is claimed they are - and have to be - ruthless. An Australian mercenary has argued to this writer that an established reputation for ruthlessness can be a "force multiplier".

It can compensate for small numbers when fighting against the undisciplined, poorly trained and disorganised armies, guerrillas and, be it said, the child soldiers of parts of Africa and Asia. This is a dangerous argument which may seem to justify torture and murder.

There have been successes and failures. Sandline's contacts with the British government in the restoration of President Kabbah's government in Sierra Leone became embarrassing and led to the demand for regulation. Nevertheless, Kabbah, though no angel, was the legal president.

The Angolan successes against Jonas Savimbi's insurgents by the South African firm, Executive Options (EO), were questioned, but EO's bold tactics did get results in 1993-4.

The Geneva Conventions include a six-section definition of a mercenary. For a conviction, all sections must apply.

In his Humanity in Warfare Prof Geoffrey Best quotes a learned friend: "Any mercenary who cannot exclude himself from this definition deserves to be shot - and his lawyer with him."