Peace remains an elusive dream for a number of African nations. Unfortunately, the conflict effects within such nations always spill into the neighbouring nation(s), carrying with them the grim effects associated with insecurity.

Rising crime, suppressing investment, farming and other economic activities are some of the resultants that Africa does not need. And as the world continues to evolve, new security aspects continue to crop-up.

Stephen Mbogo held an interview on wide ranging security issues concerning Africa with Doug Brooks. Brooks is the President of the Washington-based International Peace Operators Association and a Fellow of the South Africa Institute of International Affairs. Here are the excerpts.

Q. The United States-led Africa Crisis Response Initiative ACRI, is increasingly coming under scrutiny by the Bush administration. Why is this happening?

A. I would say its part of a larger American trend towards disengagement from security issues in the developing world that do not directly impact American national interests. The U.S. has often been criticized for being "the world's policeman," and whether that is a fair comment or not it stings. And it makes it ever more difficult for American leaders to advocate sending U.S. soldiers to critical peacekeeping operations around the world. Politically, it is safer for U.S. politicians to spurn all but the most essential security engagements. Heck, there is even talk about reducing the U.S. commitment to NATO, which has been the cornerstone of American defense policy for more than 40 years!

Nevertheless, ACRI is not an expensive program at all, and I believe there is increasing recognition of its importance within the U.S. government. The House Africa Sub-committee had hearings recently on ACRI during which the State Department emphasized that they had no plans to terminate ACRI, but were looking at a possible expansion - something the sub-committee clearly supports. So I'm optimistic we'll actually see an improvement of ACRI in some form or another.

I really believe we should enlarge and institutionalizing ACRI, and make it a permanent feature of U.S. policy in Africa. It should also be more of a cooperative program that would allow participating countries to help shape the goals and methods, and I believe it is moving in that direction. One of the best things about ACRI is that it limits membership to states that are generally more democratic, and this gives the program a great deal of legitimacy -this legitimacy can be fostered by giving the participants greater input into this critical security program.

Q. In your opinion, has ACRI achieved any tangible results?

A. Without question. Any program that can professionalize military forces is a good program, especially in Africa where all too often national militaries are the greatest threat to democratic governments. And I think we've seen some recent peacekeeping deployments where ACRI participants were able to put their skills to good use. ACRI does need to be expanded to provide more useful Chapter VII (peace enforcement) training, which is critical for peace operations in Africa.

Q. As the head of IPOA, at what level would you put present relations between the United Nations (UN) and Private Military Companies (PMCs)?

A. In the field there are usually excellent relationships, but at the official level, most of the UN shuns private companies that do anything more than basic logistics and supply. IPOA believes private companies can do a great deal more to make UN peace operations function successfully, especially in terms of providing critical high risk services and armed security. Private companies are willing and capable of providing the indispensable "backbone" to UN peace operations, an element that has been too often lacking due to the unfortunate withdrawal of the West. And it's important to keep in mind these services can be provided "behind the scenes", fully coordinated with UN forces and under UN mandates, thus making the current moribund peacekeeping system actually work.

Q. Has IPOA contributed to improvement of these relations?

A. We hope so. IPOA is quite new, but it is clear that international peace operations have been chancy affairs in the past. Such operations will work through the use of private services. Better communication and a better understanding of the capabilities, role and constraints on private companies is critical to moving this process forward.

We are in regular communication with NGOs and UN personnel in the field and are laying the groundwork for increasing privatization. Obviously, there is a level of suspicion that needs to be mollified before private companies will be fully accepted. Through IPOA's Code of Conduct and other measures we hope to demonstrate that these companies are safe and effective, and willing to be transparent and accountable.

Q. What has IPOA so far achieved?

A. Thus far our impact has primarily been in the "awareness" category. We have made clear there are realistic alternatives to the frequent peacekeeping failure so painfully common in the world.

Partly as a result of IPOA efforts, academic and governmental discussions of peace operations these days almost always include an assessment of private options. IPOA, thorough it's Code of Conduct and outreach efforts, has demonstrated that private companies are capable - and more importantly willing - to make peace operations work. Private companies offer answers to the most vexing problems faced by policymakers striving to end conflicts today, so it is not difficult to sell the concept.

IPOA is helping to legitimize an industry that will revolutionize peace operations worldwide.

Q. Does IPOA have interests within the International Arms Trade?

A. The legitimate companies that IPOA supports have little to do with the arms trade. Many people do not realize it, but private companies engaged in legal security operations obtain their military weapons legally through the states in which they operate. There have not been reliable reports of private military companies engaged in illegal arms trafficking, and IPOA would work to expose any companies that engaged in such activities.

Q. Given the inter-twined relation between rogue soldiers and arms running, what likely changes would you recommend to international arms trade trends so that gun running does not ultimately result in wars?

A. Arms trafficking is more often a symptom of ongoing conflicts, rather than an underlying reason for the origins of conflict. Like "blood diamonds", child soldiers, and the landmine issue, the key to controlling these problems is to stop the wars, which caused all these symptoms in the first place. So stopping wars is IPOA's reason for existence.

In terms of controlling arms, private companies offer a number of services. Certainly they can provide intelligence and monitoring services that would provide invaluable assistance to international watchdog organizations. They can also help with direct interdiction if desired.

In addition, in any agreement ending armed conflict, there is always the issue of disarmament. IPOA companies have recently been examining "micro-disarmament" projects for international organizations such as the UN and ECOWAS. Micro-disarmament is a field in which military service companies can be particularly effective, through a combination of high-tech surveillance, tailored intelligence operations, and innovative voluntary programs.

Q. Legislation to legalise PMCs in UK was defeated. In US the trend is likely to be the same. What does this mean for PMCs?

A. PMCs are not illegal anywhere, though each country will apply its own regulations and controls to the industry. In South Africa they have the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, in the United States they have the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR). In fact, the use of PMCs has been increasing worldwide, and more and more states are examining the concept with a progressively more nuance understanding than in the past.

Obviously, the privatization of security can be an emotional issue, but the demand for effective peace operations and the demonstrable transparency and accountability of these companies have made them a viable alternative to cumbersome and restrictive national militaries. Future legislation is more likely to take these realities into account today than ever in the past.

Q. Is IPOA ready to lobby country-to-country for enactment of legislations that will allow PMCs to operate?

A. In fact there are few if any places in the world where PMCs are not allowed to operate. IPOA will of course work to ensure that legislation and regulations do not hamper the ability of private companies to provide the critical services essential for effective peace operations. Almost all of the regulations that might be included in national legislation are covered in IPOA's Code of Conduct, so future legislation is unlikely to have much impact on IPOA members or on privatizing peace operations in general.

Q. What is IPOA's capacity to enact and enforce legal limits to operations of PMCs? And what are the kind of legal limits that you anticipate to incorporate within the profession?

A. At the minimum, private military companies doing peace operations under international mandates are subject to the same controls that state forces are when they serve under a UN flag. However, the recent history of UN peacekeeping operations indicates that human rights abuses and transgressions still occur.

So IPOA goes further, with the IPOA Code of Conduct. This means that private companies - and their employees - are going to be substantially more accountable than state militaries involved in international operations.

Companies or individuals that commit transgressions can and should legally be prosecuted - most likely in their home country. However, IPOA recognizes that international law is often inadequate to address issues raised during peacekeeping operations. IPOA's Code does much to fill this international legal vacuum, and we strongly recommend that the items in the code be included in any contract for international security services.

Further, part of the IPOA Code recommends independent military observers be included in all PMC operations - something that national forces serving under the UN flag do not have to submit to. These monitors are for two reasons. First, they ensure that contracts are carried out properly, that human rights are not violated and that the "rules of engagement" (ROE) are observed. Second, they protect the companies from unsubstantiated accusations on these same issues - an important service to the companies!

Ultimately we need to keep the legal issues in perspective. We are talking about making peace operations fundamentally more effective than ever before - capable of ending wars. While legal frameworks must be in place to ensure gross violations of international law are quickly and effectively addressed, they also need be flexible enough to allow rapid military deployment and a certain freedom of action, or we will end up hamstringing the very attributes that make PMCs so capable.

Q. Apart from active combat, training and surveillance services that PMCs offer, what other areas do you think PMCs can effectively participate in?

A. Well, IPOA covers the whole gamut of "military service providers" - and in conflict and post-conflict situations these companies can provide services such as:

Landmine clearance, humanitarian logistics, emergency refugee facility construction, refugee management and security, border security, anti-piracy programs, GPS and mapping operations, military education in civil-military relations, emergency medical operations, humanitarian intelligence operations, arms control, endangered animal protection and monitoring in areas of conflict, anti-poaching programs, coastal patrol, economic security programs, infrastructure construction and repair, emergency armed humanitarian rescue - and many, many other activities that require or might be enhanced by military skills.

Q. Please comment on use of PMCs for confidence building and other community related activities in situations of post conflict.

A. While private military companies have certainly successfully engaged in these programs in the past - it is essential that a company maintains good community relations wherever it operates - the reality is that there are NGOs that can do these activities much, much better than PMCs. PMCs are prepared to work closely with NGOs to support their operations. PMCs can and should provide the critical security that makes confidence-building possible, as well as a host of other post-conflict reconstruction activities. IPOA supports the coordination of NGOs with PMCs during conflicts and in post-conflict reconstruction to ensure a successful, long-term transition to peace.

Q. Please comment on what the Brahimi Report on UN peacekeeping reforms failed to recognise?

A. The Brahimi report is an excellent analysis - but the panel was forced to work within the restrictions of the UN system. The UN is an organization of states and is naturally reluctant to embrace the privatization of one of is most basic functions - peace making. Unfortunately, by staying within the bounds of the UN system, the Brahimi report ends up recommending some programs that cannot work - such as "deployable brigades" when it is obvious that no NATO class military is going to deploy such brigades to a conflict that does not directly affect its own national interests. But it has many important recommendations as well - including early warning, building a more effective peacekeeping headquarters and so on.

I think what is perhaps more interesting about the Brahimi report, is what it does NOT say about PMCs - unlike many previous UN documents it does not condemn the concept, it doesn't even mention PMCs. That leaves the door open for their future utilization.

Q. In reference to the same report, do you think PMCs can find a place within the reform strategies that the UN may implement?

A. Probably not directly at first. PMCs are gaining greater respectability within the international community, but at this time they are more likely to be used in ancillary roles by the UN. In some less-publicized international operations they have had more central roles, but realistically, international recognition and acceptance of such roles will take time.

Q. In Sierra Leone, there is a PMC carrying out coastline surveillance for government, with approval of the UN. Military Professional Resources Incorporated MPRI has been closely associated with US government with full knowledge of the UN. Why the do you think UN and some key global governments are reluctant to widely accept the legitimacy of PMCs?

A. There is an inherent suspicion about privatization worldwide - the privatization of security is just one aspect of this trend. Worse, PMCs are too often lumped in the same category as rogue mercenaries of the past - despite the fact that their motivations and constraints are quite different. This will change with the growing understanding that PMCs can be transparent and accountable. It has to change because with the withdrawal of the West from peacekeeping it is increasingly obvious that private companies are the only ones both capable and willing to provide critical military services to international peace operations. Ultimately, if we truly are interested in ending wars and providing security for peoples who have suffered from decades of conflict, then we will have to find a way to best utilize these private companies. IPOA intends to be a central player in that direction.