|
|
. By Christian Bourge WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- The controversial idea of using for-profit military forces as peacekeepers in war-torn countries is gaining momentum with nations' increasing unwillingness to man such operations and the growing integration of private companies into government military operations around the world. While paid non-governmental troops could provide some advantages over traditional government-sponsored military detachments in such situations, the use of these forces raises questions about the legitimate use of military power as well as major moral and human rights issues. The idea of contracted peacekeepers raises additional questions about the use of soldiers not tied to military codes of conduct in fragile humanitarian situations. There also are significant unknowns about how to avoid the problems that have developed from the use of international military firms in support roles for military operations in recent years. Over the past decade the private military industry has bored its way into almost every aspect of U.S. military operations, as well as those of other nations. At the same time, many governments -- including the United States -- have been slow to react to the increased presence of these companies and their special policy requirements. The United States does provide a higher degree of scrutiny than other nations, but many experts contend oversight of the activities or private military companies, or PMCs, remains lacking in many ways. P.W. Singer, a post-doctorate fellow in foreign policy studies at the liberal-centrist Brookings Institution, says that American military forces have become highly dependent on private concerns for logistical needs over the last decade. "Across the board, in pretty much every single area, there is a divide between how broadly and explosively this industry has become important over the last decade and how slow the government has been to deal with it, not only in terms of regulation but also how it contracts it operations," Singer told United Press International. Although traditional mercenaries function solely as guns-for-hire, international military companies now provide skills and services that in the past were to be found only in state-run militaries. A cadre of private firms now market skills from tactical support to commando training to militaries concerns, both state-sponsored and privately funded, from around the world. Many of these are multipurpose, transnational firms, but small specialty players also exist among the hundreds of companies in the $100 billion a year sector. There are three basic types of companies: ones that provide troops for tactical operations, consultants that specialize in advice and training of local troops or security personnel, and firms whose forte is intelligence, engineering and logistical support of existing operations. They function not only as suppliers but also proxies for military needs, participating in wars in developing and second-tier countries in Africa, Asia, the Balkans and Latin America over the last decade with little notice by the general public. Operating primarily behind the scenes, such companies have helped put down rebellions in African states and have helped the governments of Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Ethiopia retain power. For the United States, private firms now handle the logistics for all major American deployments. PMCs provide a wide array of support from maintaining the planes over Iraq during the invasion to U.S.-funded logistical support for the coalition of West African peacekeeping troops on the ground in Liberia. In the United States alone there are more than 30 PMCs that do a host of activities for the Pentagon at an estimated cost of $25 billion in 2004. One of the largest such contractors is DynCorp International. Among the large but shadowy firm's contracts is providing intelligence and troop training in Colombia as part of the U.S. war on drugs. The company also provides security for Afghan President Hamid Karzai under a contract from the State Department. Halliburton Corp., a former employer of Vice President Dick Cheney, handles logistical support for American forces in the Balkans. A division of the company, Kellog, Brown & Root, is heavily involved in the rebuilding process in Iraq. In Iraq, private companies are handling all the post-war reconstruction contracts. DynCorp has a contract to train the country's new police force. The phenomenon of military support by private companies has produced dazzling results, both positive and negative. Proponents note that it can help harness new capabilities for smaller nations and regional players that were once available only to developed states, and can bring free-market efficiencies to the military landscape that governments have been unable to produce in the past. Maj. Roger D. Carstens, an active-duty commander of a U.S. Special Forces company at Fort Bragg, N.C., and former American military official in Bosnia, said that when it comes to peacekeeping matters, private military companies can do both harm and good. "They can do good if they are part of a broad U.S. policy," said Carstens, speaking to UPI as an individual analyst, not as a Pentagon representative. "On the flip side, I am not so sure that I am comfortable with a private military company conducting operations under U.S. foreign policy without congressional oversight." The lack of congressional oversight of much of the operations of these companies remains a key concern for many. Singer says that the lack of sufficient congressional oversight of companies providing support in places like Colombia shows the dangers inherent to using PMCs in peacekeeping operations. "What should be done is that the administration and Congress open their blinders and start seeing the dilemmas that we have created," said Singer. "My fear is that we will wait for a massive problem before real action happens." Carstens noted that his experience in Bosnia with the specialized services firm MPRI was a positive one, saying the firm did a "fantastic job" training individual soldiers and providing logistical support up through the battalion and brigade level. "They added great value to U.S. foreign policy in action," he said. At the same time MPRI's effort to train ragtag Kosovar forces during civil wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s provided less than stellar results. The company's training failed to turn the Kosovo Liberation Army into an effective fighting force against their Serbian opponents, although other issues also contributed to that failure. Despite his praise, Carstens added that Colombia is a prime example of a situation in which greater congressional oversight is needed. Private firms, primarily DynCorp and Northrop Grumman, largely carry out the U.S. anti-narcotics campaign in the country. Operations personnel working for private contract firms has been abducted and killed by the main rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces, and the effectiveness of the operations has been limited at best. In a situation like Colombia, congressional oversight remains minimal and mostly relate to funding levels, because the private companies are running the show. Military policy experts view the use of PMCs as a good way for the U.S. government to avoid the controversy often inherent to politically difficult missions because operational specifics on the ground are in the hands of contractors, not U.S. officials. Carstens also noted that these firms do not necessarily live up to the code of conduct governing the U.S. military and others top forces around the world. This is important because the peacekeeping operations take place in countries where the rule of laws has collapsed, making local law enforcement difficult. In addition, established international laws for dealing with crimes committed by traditional soldiers do not clearly apply to those without a state, a fact that has resulted in problems in the past. Several employees of DynCorp working in the Balkans are alleged to have been involved in running a child prostitution ring. The company fired the whistleblower that brought attention to the problem and took the men back to the United States and out of the hands of local law enforcement authorities. They were never prosecuted. In the case of peacekeeping, private military companies contend they can provide services and do things that Western governments have become unwilling to pursue when strategic concerns are not at risk. However, those that follow the issue see the profit motive as both a motivator and a risk when it comes to humanitarian missions. Not that there have not been successes related to PMCs and peacekeeping. Private firms posit themselves as the answer to stabilizing states on the brink of chaos when other nations have been unwilling to send in troops. African nations in particular like Burundi, Congo, and Zimbabwe are often mentioned as places where developed nations have proven unwilling to intervene but where private peacekeepers could make a difference. Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, a group representing the interests of military service companies, said that the important role that private military concerns should play in peacekeeping is evident by state of outside efforts to stop military conflicts in Africa. The military personnel of African nations have proven largely ineffective as peacekeepers on the war-torn continent with missions plagued by corruption problems and U.N. mandates that do not allow intervention if fighting breaks out between the warring sides. At the same time, Western governments have largely withdrawn from peacekeeping in non-strategic locales. What you then end up with, Brooks says, is peacekeeping that is just not working. He portrays PMCs as filling in voids where Western troops are not available or likely to enter. "The only things that seem to work in peacekeeping are things done by Western military or things done by private companies," said Brooks. His group advocates the use of private military concerns in support roles in peacekeeping operations, including not only the sort of logistical support being given to West African troops currently in Liberia, but the use of private soldiers as well. PMCs have a history of offering their services to end conflicts in war-torn Africa. This is where the issue gets sticky, but in many ways PMCs are already involved in peacekeeping operations to the point that the use of private peacekeeping troops on a large scale remains the last frontier for these companies. Singer, whose new book, "Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry," examines the growth of the private military industry, said that because of the rise of the private military market, debate over the use of PMC-controlled soldiers for peacekeeping has become a important part of the policy discussion. He noted that the issue inevitably comes up whenever the need arises for an outside response to a humanitarian crisis in a war-torn country or region. "There are both positive and negative exigencies (of PMCs getting involved in peacekeeping)," said Singer. "It totally depends on the scenario." -- (Part II of this series will examine the impact private military companies have already had on conflicts around the world, the policy implications of the private military industry operating peacekeeping missions, and the potential for mercenaries to become the peacekeepers of the 21st century). Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest
|
||||||||
