|
News | Books | Careers | Mutual Funds | Stocks | ROB Mag | ROBTv | Tech | Wheels |
| Home | Business | National | International | Sports | Features | Review | Forums | Subscribe | |||||||||
|
|
|
 |
Mercenaries would be cheaper, faster than multinational UN force, critics say
MARCUS GEE
Lester Pearson would turn in his grave, but some people are urging the United Nations to consider a novel solution to its peacekeeping problems: Send in the mercenaries. With the UN mission in Sierra Leone falling apart, and Western countries reluctant to help, a growing number of experts say it only makes sense to hand the job to professionals. "If the governments of the most well-equipped militaries in the world are unwilling to provide the troops for peacekeeping in Africa, but insist that it must be carried out, then a logical conclusion would be to turn to private-sector companies," said David Malone, a Canadian diplomat on leave who now heads a New York think tank. Sierra Leone itself turned to mercenaries in 1996, hiring a South African group called Executive Outcomes to protect its new government against attacks by the country's infamous rebels. Within months, the group had put the rebels to flight. Peacekeeping has changed. Where once they patrolled ceasefire lines, now they are thrust into dangerous zones of conflict. Western countries are increasingly reluctant to send their troops in to such peril, especially in Africa. Third World countries are more willing but less competent. The UN force in Sierra Leone is in trouble partly because poorly trained and ill-equipped African troops could not stand up to the rebels. As many as 500 may have been captured. Executives Outcomes went into Sierra Leone because it was promised part of the take from the country's diamond mines. With only 160 men, it pushed the rebels out of Freetown, the capital, then cleared them out of the diamond fields. But a newly elected president terminated the company's contract after he entered peace talks with rebel leader Foday Sankoh, who refused to make peace until the company was gone. Within months, the country had fallen into chaos again. Former members of the company, disbanded in 1999, are now said to be fighting on both sides of the civil war in Angola. Other mercenary groups have sprung up to take the company's place. A British group, Sandline International, helped put down a revolt in Papua New Guinea. French and Israeli mercenaries are reported to be active in Congo. Ukrainians have been sighted in Colombia and Kosovo. Officially, the UN still takes a dim view of such groups. In 1989, the General Assembly adopted an international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries, but only 12 countries have signed it. "A mercenary is a criminal," special rapporteur Enrique Ballesteros of Peru said in a report to the UN human-rights commission last year. "He acts not out of altruistic motives, but to earn money." Some experts say that today's mercenaries are no longer the out-of-control adventurers of old. Instead, they are well-trained professionals working for big international companies with high corporate standards. "Mercenary is a pejorative term used by people who wouldn't know one if he hit them upside the head," said David Isenberg, a security analyst for a U.S. management firm that supplies foreign armies. "These are people who are willing to maintain standards of accountability and behaviour that you would expect from any modern military." Besides, he said, it is hypocritical for Western countries to fret about the possible misbehaviour of hired guns while standing back and allowing the fighting in Sierra Leone to continue. Mr. Isenberg said that mercenaries -- he prefers the term PMCs (private military companies) -- have several advantages over traditional UN peacekeepers. Unlike UN troops, who usually arrive separately from several different countries, private armies have trained and often fought together for years. Unlike the UN, which often takes months to deploy, private armies can be on the ground in weeks or even days. And despite their well-earned reputation for greed, they are often less costly than a UN mission. Mr. Isenberg said Executives Outcomes charged about $1-million a month for its services. The UN mission is costing at least $1-million a day, he said. Even so, defence analyst Joel Sokolsky thinks putting private armies in the service of the UN is a bad idea. "If you're doing it for money, you're not accountable," said Professor Sokolsky, who teaches at the Royal Military College in Kingston. "What if someone comes along and offers you better money for switching sides?" 'It's disgraceful,' soldier's granddaughter says of Vimy Memorial's neglected condition By THERESA EBDEN - Saturday, May 13, 2000 Canada's 'disgrace' on Vimy Ridge Battle for ridge a 'sterling moment' in Canada's history Canada resists Nigerian plea for soldiers Sierra Leone rebels pushed back in assault on country's capital Chinese media largely silent on deportations Israeli spy drive outrages Palestinians Ethiopia, Eritrea restart border war
|
|
| Home | Business | National | International | Sports | Features | Review | Forums | Subscribe |
Washington
China
Europe
Moscow