The unstable situation in Sierra Leone and the extent of the UK's role in resolving the current conflict was debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 23 May. During the course of the debate the issue of how private military companies could have made a difference was raised by Crispin Blunt (Conservative). He expressed the view that their deployment may have prevented the current crisis ever arising. Quoting from Mr Blunt's statements:
"The Sierra Leone Government's .... instinct was to crush and eliminate the RUF .... That could have been achieved if President Kabbah had been given realistic support in the first place from companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes."
".... it would have been better if the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone had sorted out their own internal problem in the first place, with the assistance of companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes ...."
Unfortunately, Mr Blunt's suggestions were dismissed by Peter Hain, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, with the observation: "As [Mr Blunt] described his plans for the use of private armies to solve every conflict in the world, I had an image of Commander Blunt, the hero of "Wild Geese", the sequel, intervening in conflicts."
Despite the evident reluctance on behalf of the UK government to seriously consider the PMC option, Sandline remains keen to enter into an open and frank exchange of views on the viability of contracting with the private sector in circumstances where peace needs to be established.
For the record, the following is the extract from the debate which incorporates Mr Blunt's comments on PMCs.
Mr. Blunt: Our responsibility in the Sierra Leonean saga goes back to the arms to Africa affair. The Government display what appears to be an ethical reluctance to have anything to do with companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes, which worked for the Sierra Leonean Government and the diamond producers. The Government's reactions in public and private make a rather interesting contrast. In public, they display enormous concern about appearances and presentation. That is why they were so anxious to secure an agreement at Lome. The Sierra Leonean Government and the Nigerians-the other major power that was involved-were, in effect, forced to come to an agreement, although their instinct was to crush and eliminate the RUF, which they would have done if they had had the appropriate support and opportunities. That could have been achieved if President Kabbah had been given realistic support in the first place from companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes.
The Government have made clear their great distaste for private-sector military companies, but if such companies had been used in Sierra Leone, they would have realised the objective, which we share, of ensuring victory for the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone and they would have secured the country's wealth-creation area-the diamond mines-which could have been handed over to a major mining corporation. That company could have helped to secure the area in exactly the same way that that has been done in other difficult parts of the world, such as Colombia. Royalties would have flowed to the Sierra Leonean Government-they would have had a source of income that would have enabled them to rebuild civil society in that country.
Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman's comments make a good advertisement for arms brokers and for illegal arms sales. Does he agree that arms brokers should be registered and that their exports should be licensed on an organised basis?
Mr. Blunt: I agree with that absolutely. Transparency in this difficult area is extremely important. However, when one is trying to secure effective military intervention but, for understandable reasons, one does not want one's armed forces to be sucked into someone else's war, a strong case can be made for paying companies to take the necessary action. If one says that the public image of private arms companies is so unattractive that one wants to have absolutely nothing to do with them, one ties one's hands and takes away a tool that can be used to achieve one's foreign policy goals.
Mr. Keetch: I want to be clear about what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He knows, for various reasons, that there are many security companies in my constituency. Would he have preferred it if British mercenaries rather than a United Nations, or a British, force had gone into Sierra Leone?
Mr. Blunt: Each situation is unique, but it would have been better if the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone had sorted out their own internal problem in the first place, with the assistance of companies such as Sandline International and Executive Outcomes and on the promise of future revenue from royalties from the diamond mines, than if, after two or three years of butchery by Corporal Sankoh's forces and the RUF, the whole international community had been drawn in.
Given the United Kingdom's responsibility for Sierra Leone, the Government should see the action through to its proper conclusion. They were faced with a choice when they decided to deploy military forces. At first, the operation was intended simply to evacuate British nationals. Then another aim was added--to secure Lungi airport in order to get a United Nations force into the country. The main objective should be to return Sierra Leone to the control of its democratically elected president and restore civil society and security for its people.
The RUF is a bunch of terrorist gangsters, which supports itself in power through the supply of money that it gets from Sierra Leone's diamond mines and its relationship with Liberia, where the diamonds are marketed. The key military objective is to destroy the RUF by taking control of the ground that is vital to them--that is, the diamond-producing area. I believe that that is achievable, given that the RUF has no cultural basis of support and commands no tribal loyalty. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. The operation should be properly followed up with the kinds of commitment that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie described--retraining the Sierra Leone army, training the police force and the civil service and putting in place civil institutions. Following the achievement of that military objective, the mining areas could be held by UN forces, and, in due course, handed over to a civil mining company that would look after their security. Meanwhile, the local police force and army could be built up with the help of companies such as Executive Outcomes and Sandline International, which provide such services in similar difficult circumstances.