---------
Compere: Tony Jones

TONY JONES: Now to my guests.

Sir Brian Urquhart is known as one of the fathers of peacekeeping.

He joined the UN in 1946, one of its first employees.

During his 40 years with the organisation, he held key positions, including 15 years running its peacekeeping efforts.

Before leaving in 1986, he was the UN's undersecretary-general.

Sir Brian joins us from New York.

Colonel Tim Spicer is the chief executive of Sandline, a private military company based in London.

Its services have been hired by a number of governments, including Papua New Guinea and more recently, Sierra Leone.

Dr Abdul Musa is from the Centre for Democracy and Development.

A longtime observer of African hot spots, he returned from Sierra Leone just last month.

He also attended the peace settlement last year which appointed rebel leader Foday Sankoh Vice-President.

Both Colonel Spicer and Dr Musa join us from our London studio.

Welcome to all of you.

Gentlemen, I'd like to start if I can with a quick response from each of you to the general proposition that it may be time for the United Nations to effectively privatise some of its peacekeeping operations and first to you Tim Spicer, if I can.

LT. COL. TIM SPICER, SANDLINE CHIEF EXECUTIVE: I think the problem is you can't just give a snap answer to that.

The United Nations military structure is what has got to be addressed, not whether they should dispense with donor nations providing military forces and, therefore, privatising to companies like mine.

There's also the question of whether there is a joint role for donor nations and private companies.

TONY JONES: You think there is I take it, because in the past you've argued that private forces like yours could have done the job in Rwanda and actually stopped the killing, for example.

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: Well, what I've said in the past -- and I maintain the position now -- is that in the absence of a properly constituted intervention force, such as the British force that's gone into Sierra Leone or a properly constituted United Nations force.

If no-one is prepared to go and resolve a situation in which people are being killed, then there is definitely a role for private military companies.

I would go further than that and I would say in the days of the size or the shrinking size of armed forces and perhaps, therefore, overcommitment, there is a role for private military companies alongside national forces or United Nations' forces.

TONY JONES: You've heard today it's been called for by Richard Holbrooke there be a complete review of peacekeeping operations, would it be your understanding of what your suggesting might be on the agenda?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: I would have thought if it was going to be a sweeping review, it would have to consider all the options.

I would imagine that what is primarily on the agenda is how United Nations forces -- whatever their mission, whether it be peace enforcement or peacekeeping or observation -- how they are constituted and structured and supported must be the number one item.

But I would hope that it would be a review with wide scope and it would look at the possibility of the use of private military companies as part of the United Nations effort.

TONY JONES: Abdul Musa, what would your view of that be -- the use of these private companies as part of that effort?

DR ABDUL MUSA, CENTRE FOR DEMOCRACY & DEVELOPMENT: Definitely I'm opposed to it.

I'm opposed to it primarily, you know, because of the very nature of the United Nations, its mandate, what underpins its composition and what it does during conflict situations.

A duty to dispense the whole peacekeeping spectrum and not just something like, you know, enforcement.

So when we are talking about the review of their operations, what I would like to think, you know, is that yes, the UN would have to transform itself from its traditional role of just going in to keep the peace, because in the Sierra Leone situation for instance, it's very clear there that there is no peace to keep.

So to move from there to a step higher, peace enforcement and it is at that level, that complementary forces can be considered and I stand for the introduction of regional bodies made up of sovereignties in the area of conflict, rather than private military companies, because up until now, I'm not convinced about the distinguishing factors between private military companies and the traditional mercenary.

TONY JONES: Sir Brian Urquhart, where do you stand in this argument?

SIR BRIAN URQUHART: Well, I think that Colonel Spicer made a very good point.

The problem at the minute is the UN is using an old technique of peacekeeping used between sovereign governments to try to deal with a civil war in one country and, of course, it doesn't work.

The UN has simply got to change the way in which it approaches civil wars when it's asked to deal with them.

It can't do it at the minute, it's quite right.

I think the UN itself should have a small rapid reaction force, trained along the lines of some of these special forces with a UN slant which could get in at the beginning and really try to nip the crisis in the bud.

Having said that, I don't think it's going to happen very quickly, because there are a lot of political objections in the United Nations, not the least in the United States.

So I think that Richard Holbrooke's sweeping reform is rather limited, because he's actually not considering the idea of a UN rapid reaction force.

He's talking about a rapid reaction headquarters, which is very different.

If the UN could get its act together on the new problems it's facing and get a new technique to deal with them, it does seem to me that some of these private companies could play an extremely useful role.

They have quite a good record, incidentally so does the UN in some places in Africa which hasn't been mentioned -- like Mozambique, for example.

TONY JONES: Sir Brian, what sort of a role could they play?

We've heard vague outlines, how could they be involved and what restrictions should there be upon them?

SIR BRIAN URQUHART: Well, I think these missions in Sierra Leone are political missions, admittedly based on a false premise which was that the peace agreement would actually work, which it doesn't.

But I think you have to have that framework, anyway.

There are security questions, there are special areas, there are all sorts of special tasks which possibly these companies are better-trained to perform than a UN force put together at the last minute for the particular purpose.

It does seem to me that it will be very foolish to close the door to that.

There is a problem about mercenaries in Africa.

Speaking with some experience of them, this is a dirty word in Africa and we've got to get around that.

There is even, in fact, a UN convention against the use of mercenaries.

So I would be very careful about using that word.

I don't think it's a good idea, but it does seem to me that in some of these situations the UN can use all the help it can get and I think it should be looked at.

TONY JONES: Tim Spicer, you must be encouraged, perhaps surprised to hear Sir Brian Urquhart say that after all his years in the United Nations, but what sort of regulations would you be prepared to put your private military companies under in order that they could operate with the UN, or with other governments?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: We've, in fact, studied this quite a lot.

I think we're the only private military company that has put forward a paper on regulation, of which the United Nations has a copy.

In practical terms, without going through the whole rigmarole -- because it is quite difficult to regular a private body working for an organisation such as the United Nations -- except there are some very clear regulations that exist already, like international law and the criteria that the UN would set for any contractor working for it.

But in practical terms on the ground, if it were my company -- and obviously I can't speak for others -- I would welcome UN observers, either civilian personnel but preferably military, because it's a security matter, and I would try and ensure that there was a clear mandate, clear rules of engagement.

And when I say 'mandate', I mean a mandate that can be translated into a military or security directive -- that is one of the problems that the United Nations has at the moment.

And I would welcome people to come and observe and see exactly how the job was being implemented.

TONY JONES: Abdul Musa, what about those sort of regulations?

Would that make a difference to the way you think about the use of these private military companies or mercenaries in Africa, if they're operating under those sort of guidelines and regulations?

DR ABDUL MUSA: Yeah, those regulations could go a certain way to actually satisfy the concerns of people opposed to the use of private military companies in these conflicts.

But there is one key issue here which I think -- and I've read through Sandline's proposals for regulation and other things -- where, you know, Tim Spicer himself says that firms like theirs are already self-regulatory and they don't need any extra, but that there should be regulations so that private military companies can be brought to the book.

But the key issue here, and what concerns a lot of people in Africa, is not just merely whether the observance of the rules of engagement on the field or anything, but what are some of the root causes of some of these conflicts in Africa?

It is the illegitimate appropriation of resources.

In all the proposals that the private military companies are putting forward, no-one is actually talking about the transparency in financial and other resource, what is it?

Transactions between these private military companies and some of these conflicts in Africa.

That is one key element that, if there's going to be any regulation, should come in.

And the other is that the afflicted country should in no way be something like, you know, the entity paying for the use of these forces and so far, as far as Sandline is concerned and as far as Executive Outcomes are concerned, that's what happened in Angola and that's what happened in Sierra Leone.

What we have seen --

TONY JONES: Dr Musa I'd just like to cut across you if I can just for a moment.

Dr Musa, can you hear me?

Dr Musa, can you hear me?

DR ABDUL MUSA: It can be suppressed for some time and it erupts again.

TONY JONES: Dr Musa, I'm going to have to interrupt you for a moment.

Can you hear me?

DR ABDUL MUSA: ..in Liberia, where private military companies were not in any extent involved and ECOMOG was the main force that was actually involved.

Today we have got better peace in Liberia than what we have in Sierra Leone.

TONY JONES: I'm sorry, we're obviously having problems with our sound there.

Dr Musa, I'm going to throw to Tim Spicer if I can.

Tim Spicer, can you hear me clearly?

Tim Spicer, can you hear me?

I think we've got a terrible sound problem.

Brian Urquhart, can you hear me?

SIR BRIAN URQUHART: Yes, indeed.

TONY JONES: I'm sorry about that, we're obviously having a technical problem at the moment with our connection between myself and London.

I wonder if I could just ask you to comment on what Dr Musa was saying there.

He clearly has worries about the way in which these private military companies would be operating in Africa and the whole guidelines under which you'd do that.

SIR BRIAN URQUHART: Well, I think that's perfectly reasonable and I think probably these companies have the same worries.

I mean, they're not in the business of making a bad situation worse -- they're supposedly in the business of making it better.

And I think that this will take a great deal of discussion and working out.

I think the pre-eminent mandate has to be given by the UN Security Council, and then it has to be translated -- which it isn't always, unfortunately -- into serious rules of engagement and a serious plan.

And that doesn't seem to me should be beyond the ingenuity of either the UN or the private companies.

I would, of course, much prefer to see the UN to be able to do all this itself, but I don't think it's going to be able to do that in the near future.

TONY JONES: Brian Urquhart, we don't have London on-line at the moment -- we've still got sound problems.

But does it seem obvious to you that when countries simply don't have the political will to send their troops into places like this, that in the end, these sort of alternatives are going to become more and more attractive?

SIR BRIAN URQUHART: Well, I think that's perfectly true.

The way the old peacekeeping forces were recruited assumed that they were never going to have to face violent situations.

That's not true when you go into a country like Sierra Leone.

I think the change has to start in the UN.

They really have to seriously look at how they are going to deal with problems like this in the future, if they're in the task of doing that.

TONY JONES: Thank you, Brian Urquhart, for keeping us going there.

We appear to have re-established sound contact with London and Tim Spicer, hopefully you can hear me now. Can you?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: I can hear you, yes.

TONY JONES: Alright, I want to look very specifically at the case of Sierra Leone, because you claim that this crisis that we're presently seeing would not have happened if Sandline and your mercenary troops had been able to stay in place?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: What I said --

First of all, I take issue with calling Sandline "mercenary troops" because I think there's a clear distinction that most people accept between private military companies and old-style mercenaries.

TONY JONES: What is the distinction?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: The distinction as far as I'm concerned is -- I mean, it's quite a lengthy distinction, so if we've got time, I'm happy to go through it --

TONY JONES: Perhaps you could abbreviate it for us.

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: Private military companies are formed bodies that have a sort of corporate entity and they have, in the absence of other regulations, self-regulating rules.

They will only work for the good guys, if you like, and they are very selective about who they work for.

Whereas the old mercenaries have no common doctrine, they have no common training standards, they'll work for the highest bidder.

But setting that aside, to answer your question, the point that I have made is that during the reinstatement of the democratically elected government of President Kaba, Sandline was working alongside ECOMOG -- the regional force empowered to put him back -- and, unfortunately, the funding of our contract dried up and, therefore, we had to withdraw our support from the project.

There was a coordinated plan with ECOMOG.

It would have enabled them to speedily recapture the rest of the country and give President Kaba's Government a position of strength from which to settle the issue in Sierra Leone.

And the problem with the Lo Mei Peace Accord was that they were not negotiating from a position of military strength.

Indeed, there was no strength to support them.

They invited the rebel movement, or elements of the rebel movement, into the government, and that in itself, is not unusual.

I mean, it's happened in the past throughout history, both in Africa and elsewhere.

But if you were going to conduct some sort of peace agreement like that, or draw up some sort of peace agreement, there has to be a mechanism by which it can be enforced and there was a gap of several months before the United Nations forces began to deploy, and, therefore, what I'm saying is that had we been allowed to stay there -- either on our own or in conjunction with ECOMOG -- and that is not a particular concern, and been allowed to prosecute the war against the rebels, the government might have been in a better position.

TONY JONES: Abdul Musa, you've made a study of the mercenary operations or private military company operations in Sierra Leone.

What's your assessment of how they operated?

DR ABDUL MUSA: Yes.

Of course, when 'Executive Outcomes' was in Sierra Leone in 1995, there is no denying the fact that they were effective in checking the advance of the RUF rebels.

They were able to pacify mining areas and I'm stressing that -- mining areas and Freetown and its environs.

Yes, they were able to do that, but was the army destroyed?

No.

Because what we forget about the conflict in Sierra Leone is that it actually involves not only the territory of Sierra Leone, but also the territory of Guinea and the territory of Liberia.

So, this is a long-drawn guerrilla warfare.

So just having one, you know, victory during the conflict does not guarantee the success of what is it?

Peace-building in that country per se.

I agree with Tim Spicer that if some force was there in the interim to try and then serve as a buffer while the UN whatever operation try to come together, that would do a job.

But that is precisely the rule of regional bodies like ECOMOG.

We know the circumstances under which Nigerian forces actually sort of cooperated with Sandline in Sierra Leone, for example.

TONY JONES: OK, Dr Musa, et me throw that back to Tim Spicer.

I mean, that's a criticism as to whether or not I suppose you operated in the right way and whether you would have been prepared to remain for the long haul to make sure that the job was done in the end?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: I think I've already answered that.

I mean, as long as somebody is prepared to fund our presence, because after all, we are not a government, we don't have funds, we are a commercial organisation and our presence has to be funded.

Then, we are prepared to stay for as long as the host government or the empowering body -- whether it's the United Nations or anybody else -- wishes us to stay, and we would stay until the job is done.

We would not wish to stay a moment longer if our presence was not required.

And Dr Musa made a point was made about the war spilling over into other countries in the case of Sierra Leone.

Of course, we would not wish to expand the conflict, but he has got a point that if you have save havens for guerrillas to withdraw into where they are unmolested and allowed to reform, rearm and reorganise, then you do have a continuing problem.

But the key to that in Sierra Leone is to ensure that, in the future, the RUF elements still in the field are defeated, the peace agreement is enforce and the borders of the country are secured so this thing cannot continue to drag on.

TONY JONES: Alright, we're about to run out of time in this discussion, but very briefly, your web site suggests that you're already an accredited organisation with the United Nations, and I'm wondering, are you now in negotiations with the UN as to what further role you might play?

LT. COL. TIM SPICER: Um, we are an accredited organisation, we are registered as a potential contractor for the United Nations.

We have let it be known that we are available to assist the United Nations in whatever capacity they wish, and it would not just be peace enforcement or peacekeeping.

We have a perfectly effective humanitarian capability, humanitarian support capability, as well.

I think it's a matter for the United Nations to consider it and come back to us.

TONY JONES: Alright gentlemen, I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there for now.

I'm sorry about that.

Sir Brian Urquhart, Colonel Tim Spicer and Dr Abdul Musa, thanks to all of you for joining us.

We're very sorry about the technical problems that we had there, hope they don't happen again.