Development and security but no free trade

A tragedy in three acts

The third debate between Barack Obama and John McCain converged to free trade. The elephant in the room was NAFTA. In spite of being the largest and most successful such agreement, the presidential contenders failed to acknowledge either Canada or Mexico as important trade partners. In this light, to McCain the strongest ally of the United States in the Americas is Colombia. To Obama, it seems that Peru, with improved trade union and environmental policies, could make an ideal partner. Either way, there are reasons to fear a tragedy in three acts.

Act one: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy

Shortly after 9/11, a Muslim woman was walking down the street in an affluent Mexico City neighborhood. A group of construction workers shouted at her ‘terrorist’ and some other unflattering terms. Noting their ‘unjustifiable ignorance’, quote, a businessman came to the rescue. Similar popular reactions were reported in Buenos Aires, Santiago, Sao Paulo, and other Latin American metropolis. Building on shared expectations that the administration of George W. Bush would work to strengthen the political and economic foundations of the emerging democracies in the region, Latin Americans rallied behind the US. Eight years down the road, the opposite turned out to be the case: Bush discontinued the Latin American project. Feeding on popular disappointment and the debacles of the Iraq war, Marxist agitators have partly filled the gap left by the departure of the US from what used to be considered its natural sphere of influence.

McCain might choose to downplay Canada and Mexico as important free-trade markets in favor of Colombia, but Obama’s policies undermine development and security aspirations south of the border altogether. Moreover, Obama’s protectionist policies are like music to the ears of the rising Marxist-oriented elites. He criticizes the capitalist model in a manner that echoes in and enhances their cause.

Act two: Common sense becomes the antithesis

Certain father, let us call him Joe Sr., worked hard to send Joe Jr. to the best university he could afford. Five years later, Joe Jr. told dad what he learned: there appears to be a correlation between development and security. “But son”, Joe Sr. muted as not to offend young Joe, “we have known that all along. They key is finding a way to get there.” Joe Sr., busy working on his pluming business to pay for the tuition fees, was unaware that development discourse found a new lease of life when theorists and practitioners, finally, started to link economic well being with raising levels of security (or the mirror image linking underdevelopment to insecurity, if the reader prefers). Careers were launched, countless books written, international programs engineered, emerging democracies embraced free trade, and Joe Jr. attained his degree on development studies.

McCain was shy to straight talk the common sense of free trade familiar to Joe Sr., who sees it as an opportunity to tackle the current economic downturn. Joe Jr. was bewildered too. He knows that jobs lost in America have gone to China and other countries in Asia opting for circumventing trade agreements. The two Joes are therefore unable to understand why Obama is making NAFTA a centerpiece of his attacks.

Act three: Free trade as a forgone conclusion

Chronic corruption continues to affect Latin American constabularies, hence undermining the development and security aspirations of countless communities. Nevertheless, due in part to the diminished engagement of the US in the region, the problem has been exacerbated over the last few years. This, at the same time, has lent momentum to a dangerous shift to the left. Marxist-oriented leadership, higher levels of corruption, and the spread of violence associated with the drug trade appear not to make strange bedfellows. In this respect, some of the latest tactics employed by Chavez followers, including the use of grenades against the civilian population, can only be characterized as acts of terrorism.

In addressing all these connection, there is hope McCain would reassert the importance of Latin America for the longer-term strategic interests of the US. He might wake up one day thinking about the implications of free trade (or the absence of it) for the development and security of the region. We stress 'hope' and 'might' because, although security is his strong suit and he has held meetings with the presidents of Colombia and Mexico, his campaign lost direction the moment Sarah Palin walked in. If Obama is elected president, on the other hand, he is only likely to disengage further from Latin America, a place he has never set foot. Besides that for sure China will step in, do not doubt for a second the trinity of Marxist leadership, corruption, and narco violence would only strengthen and inevitably create a feedback effect in the US.

Epilogue: the Africanization and Iraqization of violence

The reader might ask where private security is here. The answer is simple. In the absence of law and order in the manner known to advanced democracies, development and free trade in Latin America have progressed with a private security cover attached to them. We will wait for the outcome of the election before properly exploring the likely implications of ‘free trade as a forgone conclusion’ for the security industry. Alongside the possibility that parts of the continent (and the security industry) would be Africanized, narco forces are already posing a bigger challenge by modeling themselves on al-Qaeda. While Obama has been discussing the option of effectively terminating NAFTA and McCain the success of the surge in Iraq, severed heads have been rolling down Mexico’s badlands.

John McCain and the military-industrial complex

As the global financial crisis has inevitably taken center stage, security contractors are not likely to figure in John McCain’s election agenda. In fact, other than a collection of brief statements, concrete policy proposals pertaining their use and control failed to materialize. Nevertheless, there is an item about the military-industrial complex that throws some light on his views about military outsourcing and contracting-out, broadly.

First, to recap, the notion of the military-industrial complex acquired a distinct meaning in the powerful farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. There, he warned us that: “…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. …We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

In the 2005 documentary by Eugene Jarecki, Why We Fight, the evolving relationship between the defense sector and government were given an up-to-date exploration. This is a well-researched and stimulating film. However, the approach towards Private Military Companies (security contractors on our terminology) is problematic. This is because PMCs are understood as part of the ‘military machinery of defense’. Indeed, training and support services linked to the supply of military hardware are aspects covered by some PMCs. Yet they render many more services in areas such as protection, risk assessment, intelligence, reconstruction assistance, and homeland security that are not strictly linked to defense. That is, the private military industry overlaps the defense sector in certain areas, but the two are not the same.

Senator McCain was twenty-five years old when Eisenhower issued his warning. Assimilating this knowledge during his formation years, he tends to see PMCs as a logical extension of an expanded defense sector and the military-industrial complex. In this light, in Why We Fight he states that over-billing abuses should be addressed. He had in mind certain controversies involving Halliburton-KBR. While we welcome stricter scrutiny and better regulation, McCain’s (and Jarecki’s) approach fails to capture the broader challenges and opportunities inherent in the use of PMCs. For instance, the over-billing in question involved services that fall outside defense.

PMCs are service oriented rather than capital intensive like the defense sector. Their control and regulation require flexible frameworks that do not necessarily apply to defense. It is somehow a different matter regulating services associated with the longer-term production and maintenance of defense capital than, for example, the fulfillment of a task order focusing on the swift deployment of security details or a mine-clearance team to the latest humanitarian crisis. This is not just a matter of semantics. If elected, McCain needs to acknowledge the distinctiveness of PMCs in order to coherently control force while harnessing PMCs’ potential to enhance global security in the twenty-first century.

Montreux Document on Private Military and Security Companies

Full name of the document: Montreux Document on Pertinent International Legal Obligations and Good Practices for States Related to Operations of Private Military and Security Companies During Armed Conflict.

Background: A text containing rules and good practices relating to private military and security companies operating in armed conflict. The initiative for this document, which is the first of its kind, was launched jointly by Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The document was elaborated by the governments of Afghanistan, Angola, Australia, Austria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Iraq, Poland, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the United States of America.

Press release by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs: Today, 17 September 2008, 17 States and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) finalised the Montreux Document, a text containing rules and good practices relating to private military and security companies operating in armed conflict. The initiative for this document, which is the first of its kind, was launched jointly by Switzerland and the ICRC in 2006.
read more | digg story

Press release by the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA): IPOA members have already begun to incorporate many of the 'good practices' into doctrine, and we look forward to working in partnership with governments, NGOs and humanitarian bodies to maximize the value of this historic agreement in follow-up projects. read more

Download the document: click here to go to our legal archive

Palienating straight talk

Imagine you are on a fix. For the current state of world affairs shows already a minefield ahead. Imagine you want to lead the way forward. Here, pretend for a few minutes that you are John McCain. You have the means to put together a good team to help you deal with the manifold issues involved. But given advanced experience paralleling your age, your first task is finding a capable deputy to take over if necessary. As a straight-talk realist, you want to offer reassurance to the people you want to lead. Whom would you choose? Something tells me you would go for no less than commensurable and complementary experience. In no small measure, this is also due to the post involving the highest security clearance anyone could attain. This is where the story derails, because you did not follow the basics of the script.

This week, we intended to write about John McCain’s views on security contractor and what his chosen running mate would further bring to the ticket. The rushed inclusion of a centerfold to the Republican convention’s program is certainly amusing. However, just as almost everyone else, we are busy trying to find a silver lining in a firmament without any clout at all.

Obama, contractors, and private force

On the campaign trail, Senator Barack Obama offered an insight into his conceptual understanding of security contractors and their relationship with the state. Although to people new to private military affairs he scored well, to a more advanced audience he sounded amateurish.

Senator Obama was asked by the editorial board of Military Times about his thoughts on economic efficiency of security contractors compared to the military. [The question was actually formulated with Blackwater Worldwide in mind] Obama’s answer was, “I am not arguing that there are never going to be uses for private contractors in some circumstances. What I am saying is if you start building a military premised on the use of private contractors and you start making decisions on armed engagement based on the availability of private contractors to fill holes and gaps that over time you are, I believe, eroding the core of our military’s relationship to the nation and how accountability is structured. I think you are privatizing something that is what essentially sets a nation-state apart, which is a monopoly on violence. And to set those kinds of precedents, I think, will lead us over the long term into some troubled waters.”

Firstly, “a military premised on the use of private contractors” has been the forward trend since the early 1990s. He is a senator and should know it. If he was keen on history, he would further discuss current policies in the context that civilian support has accompanied the military ever since the United States became an independent country. The practice has enhanced US military standing rather than undermine it. For instance, deployment logistics under the LOGCAP contract is the envy of the military world. Therefore, for Obama to note casually that there might be “uses for private contractors” in the future is just another sign of his unwarranted magnanimity.

Secondly, Obama reminded us the monopoly of violence is a distinctive feature of the state (broadly, not just the “nation-state” senator). To certain blogger, Obama came across as very clever because he appeared to corroborate what he/she learned while on “Political Science 101”. Yet dear blogger, when one moves from Political Science 101 to 202, one discovers the 101 notion was simply an introduction to a broader and more complex problem: the monopoly is an evolving principle based upon the control of the means of coercion and not necessarily their ownership. In this light, Obama approaches security contractors, besides ahistorically, through a narrow 101 understanding of the monopoly. We sincerely hope this blogger progresses to the 202 grade. Obama, on the other hand, should be on 505 already and discussing policy.

Thirdly, Obama’s view of the monopoly of violence leads to an equally problematic understanding of privatization. With the aim of building a leaner and more specialised military for the 21st century, non-essential functions (e.g. clerical, logistical, and protection services) have been indeed outsourced to the private sector. However, these “holes and gaps”, using his terminology, have been actually engineered by successive Democrat and Republican administrations and remain under governmental jurisdiction. The challenge is to enact flexible modes of control that evolve alongside military renewal. Obama does not seem to offer a way forward by simply qualifying it as the erosion of “how accountability is structured”.

Obama’s role as presidential contender has long ceased to be about simply pointing out what he sees the wrongs of the military and defense are. On the other hand, it is not possible to discuss his policy proposals with respect to the use of private contractors in areas of defense and homeland security because so far the record is empty. For a start, maybe talking to “small town folk who get bitter and cling to guns” could assist him to understand that force can be controlled without owning the gun or firing the trigger.

Obama picks Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware as running mate

Senator Biden believes in “a larger military, better equipped, and trained for the fight.” To build it, he stresses making “sure that we do not contract out our security.” However, his defense doctrine implicitly embeds the need of contractors, e.g. for the deployment of the larger force, the supply and maintenance of military hardware, and specialized training. Analysts agree these areas require robust private sector input. It is therefore ambiguous to discern how he would get around expanding the military without contracting with the private sector. Nevertheless, his solid understanding of international affairs is likely to add substance to Obama’s rhetoric.

War Plc or let me borrow your scholarship

A review inspired by Stephen Armstrong’s War Plc: The Rise of the New Corporate Mercenary.

Let’s say you are a journalist who suddenly and just in 2005, yes 2005, discovered that Private Military Companies exist and are part of a thriving industry. You are excited about your ‘discovery’ and want to share this never-before-told story with the men in the street. Given the 10 year gap since the subject started to be studied systematically and a tidal wave of titles covering the same, what can you do to write and sell a book?

For a start, perhaps a good idea is to use blog-style borrowings, preferably originating in decent scholarship. Mash up passages and make them your own (no references needed), throw them at scholars who would be happy to confirm them as long as you mention them in the longest acknowledgement section ever written for this type of book.

This technique is particularly important for the first two chapters, i.e. in order to set a pseudo-knowledgeable tone. In other words, set the scene for a fast and furious ‘suspension of disbelief’. Afterwards, the usual Iraq blurb spiced up with unused interviews and quotes.

But Brits do not like blogs or blogging. It is not elegant and beneath them. Well, it does not matter because with your media connections you can always attract decent reviews and, ultimately, you are targeting bought-at-the-airport book readers.

Worried that key people in the industry might trash you? Just interview them and agree to their requests, for example, by stressing ‘private security companies’ instead of other terms. As this is a British book aimed at the British market, be particularly critical of American firms. However, you are free to criticize British enterprises and people as long as they are long gone.

You also need a catchy title: War Inc, taken, ltd used so many times, LLC not understood by a British audience, what about plc? War plc is catchy indeed, if not such an ill-chosen title. For arenas of conflict is where PMCs thrive, not war. At the outset, there are too many legal and theoretical connotations attached to ‘war’ to argue a clear association between it and PMCs. Have you realized that the Iraq conflict, which largely feeds your book, does not fulfil the requirements of a war? Probably not. In the end, just remember you are plainly engineering controversy out of borrowed scholarship and misplaced paper clippings.

The French (PMCs) are coming

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is planning to modernize the French armed forces, finally. His ambitious plans are already angering traditionalists, who want to continue seeing defense through twenty-century lenses. Sarkozy presented the new defense white paper on 17 June 2008. In a very French style, officers writing under the pseudonym “Surcouf” promptly attacked the plan. Sales of Le Figaro were quite as healthy nearby military barracks as l'Elysée. The plan has certain issues. Yet it does not read in the ‘amateurish’ manner the Surcouf group suggests. It is thus convenient to highlight first some of the most heavily debated points:

• Reincorporate France into the military command of NATO. Charles de Gaulle, whose thinking continues to influence the military establishment, started the disengagement in the late 1950s. Prepare yourself for some epic crossed-door battles between the American and French generals, as well as more anonymous articles on Le Figaro.

• Sarkozy’s plans call for job cuts in the region of 54,000 heads (and the closure of many military bases). We all know the bitter meaning job cuts has in France, add to that the military establishment and words such as modernization and you have the ingredients for what in the periphery of the world would be enough to unleash a bloody coup d’état.

• The budget will be ‘optimized’ and intelligence, space technology, and hi-tech equipment prioritized. Linked to this reconfiguration of defense tasks, various infrastructure projects are effectively put on hold, such as an anticipated new aircraft carrier.

The French president is found of the British business model. This is the first major French restructuring of its forces in 14 years –and it sets a vision for the next 15. Yet, if you read carefully, it envisages doing in a single revision what for the British (and American) took a few. What analysts are not reading, however, is that the whole process sets the scene for a robust and due expansion of the French private military sector. At the outset, the downsizing would result in many new French Private Military Companies (PMCs). Not only the downsized personnel will join, but also dissatisfied top brass and elite soldier not happy with the revised roles. At the same time, PMCs would have to satisfy some of the areas the budget will gradually cease to cover. Moreover, the new technologies necessarily would need to be partly supplied and maintained by the defense industry and its highly trained and mobile specialists, read private military personnel here too. Feel free to fill the gaps of a story we are familiar with about supply and demand factors linked to the rise of the Anglo-Saxon private military industry. Robert Surcouf was a famous French corsair who had a symbolic victory against the British during the Napoleonic wars. The anonymous Le Figaro writers have already spotted the connection between Sarkozy’s vision and British defense reform over the last 15 years. In fact, they feel bitter about apparently being relegated to second division of European defense after the British if Sarkozy gets his way. Perhaps the Surcouf group should be happy that the basis is being set for them to have finally a private military industry to rival the British (and American) one(s).

Talking to the Taliban: a research project and media feature

A portrait of average Taliban fighters emerges from a research project by Canada's The Globe and Mail: a dangerous assignment with 42 video recordings of fighters answering a standarized list of questions.

read more | digg story

Iraq's new business class fears US exit

As the role of the US shrinks and the Baghdad government takes on more responsibility for reconstruction, Iraq's new business class fears the disappearance of the opportunities and the business environment that have allowed it to flourish. "If the Americans leave Iraq, I will leave Iraq," says Mohammed al-Shamari, a 35- year-old businessman from the Shia al-Khadimiya district of Baghdad. "The Americans didn't care that I was poor, or the tribe I came from. They just cared that I could get things done," he says.

read more | digg story

Traffic wardens get paid more than soldiers on the frontline

In the UK, more than 20,000 personnel left the Forces last year, many citing the poor salary as their reason. The lowest paid soldiers are on just £12,572 a year while traffic wardens receive a basic salary of £17,000. Servicemen and women were given a pay rise of just 2.6 this year. Still questioning why the join the private military industry?

read more | digg story

Do not forget the Missing Five

29 May 2008 marks one year since five British hostages have been held in captivity in Iraq, possibly Iran.

At noon on 29 May 2007, five British security guards employed by GardaWorld, a Canadian-owned security company, and a computer specialist working for BearingPoint, the US-based management consultancy firm, were kidnapped at gunpoint in Iraq. The kidnap occurred in broad daylight in central Baghdad. Dozens of men in police uniform seized them from a Finance Ministry building off Palestine Street. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair then said, “We will do everything we possibly can to help.” A month later, there were still signs of activity aimed at recovering the hostages. Subsequently news went cold. Early in September the story resurfaced, when on the eve of their 100th day in captivity Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of Multi-National Corps - Iraq, was quoted saying, “We track every day where we think they might be. We have reason to think they are still alive.” This was more of a reply to a join-plea by the families of the victims than a periodic update on their faith. ‘They are sons, fathers and brothers who were working to support us’, the families’ plea stated. The Foreign Office went on to remind the media ‘not to publish the names or personal details of those who have been kidnapped. The situation remains that all information can potentially be of use to their abductors and endanger the captives.’ The opposite, i.e. the lack of information, has also worked to the kidnapers’ advantage. Upon the release of a video of the men late in November, the Foreign Office was reported noting that “although there is much going on behind the scenes, it is extremely sensitive and we can’t go into details about it.” A year on, Canon Andrew White, the Anglican vicar of Baghdad, Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, and the hostages’ families continue to work frantically to secure the Missing Five’s freedom.

Where there is a political will, often there is a way

Their safe release will not turn around the approval ratings of Prime Minister Gordon Brown or President George W. Bush. It would neither be a story sexy enough to spin as yet another set of freshly released humanitarian tourists. However, it would give their life back to families paralyzed by the crisis. Please do not forget the Missing Five.

Permalink at PrivateMilitary.org: click here

If you live in the UK, contact your MP and express your concern about the faith of the Missing Five British contractors: click here

If you live in Canada, contact your MP and express your concern about missing British workers employed by a Canadian-owned firm: click here

If you live in the US, contact your Congressperson and express your concern about five missing British contractors who were working on the reconstruction of Iraq: click here

Write to Senator John McCain: click here

Write to Senator Barack Obama: click here

Write to Senator Hillary Cinton: click here

Britain’s phoney debate about security contractors and terrorism

Early in the decade Great Britain was at the forefront of the debate about the role and regulation of security contractors. The green paper exploring avenues for their regulation was entitled Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation, because Private Military Companies (PMCs) is an adequate term differentiating this type of firms from those offering soft services such as the guarding of banks, shopping malls, and private estates. A constructive debate about alternative futures for an industry needed yet in need of clearer parameters of operation followed the release of the green paper. For a country in which the writing of memoirs by former servicemen and intelligence officers is nearly customary, less was not expected. Towards the close of the decade, however, the serious debate about the role and regulation of PMCs now takes place in Washington DC. Moreover, the UK government appears uncomfortably ambivalent towards the need of an open and continuous debate about fundamentalist terrorism, either penetrating or originating within the UK. This week the attempt of a young man to carry out a terrorist suicide bombing at an Exeter restaurant was not deemed worthy of extensive media coverage and in fact was not known to many people. Evidently, PMCs and terrorism are two different topics, although sometimes they converge. Yet the current ambivalence towards both is symptomatic of the worrisome and surreal attitude that has come to characterize the premiership of Gordon Brown. It is indeed perplexing because the UK is a leading supplier of PMCs and like the US faces an ongoing terror threat.

Perhaps the unnatural preoccupation of the UK government and its client state with social engineering has got in the way of the serious debate about PMCs and contemporary terror. Nowadays one needs to be worried about openly debating the active role of marginal segments of the British population in domestic and international terrorist activities. Other than in the comfort of your own home, preferably thinking about it while taking a shower, do not dare linking terrorism with M or I if you do not want to get arrested. Simultaneously, it is offensive to the ever growing ranks of the client state to hear anything about private military personnel other than a blanket call for their termination. Do you remember the stereotypical and sexist old view of the beauty pageant contestant expressing her desire for world peace? Do you remember wanting to tell her that the world is a little more complex than how she saw it? Ironically, the beauty-pageant view is now shared by the noveau bureaucrats populating the British client state. It is therefore no surprising that in the UK the real debate about PMCs and terrorism now takes place behind closed doors. The general public can only entertain the idea of appropriating the US debate. It is risk free. One does not need to worry about spending at day at the local police station, increasingly under the wrap of the client state, for debating genuine public concerns.

Deeply concerned about growing extremism, HMG sought through the “Prevent” portion of its Counterterrorism Strategy to prevent the radicalization of vulnerable populations by exerting influence on both extremists and their audiences, addressing structural problems that cause radicalization, and disrupting extremists’ ability to gain access that means of communications such as websites, blogsites, and other forms of new media. HMG also made efforts to stimulate self-regulation from the mosques and imams. Taken from the DOS Country Reports on Terrorism.

Exclusive: Investment Giant in Talks to Buy Blackwater

Cerberus Capital Management could have invested $200 million for a stake in Blackwater, said a source close to the negotiations. Other sources said auditors from Cerberus had been examining Blackwater's books since the beginning of the year. Cerberus, which owns a controlling stake in Chrysler had been in negotiations to buy the controversial security firm Blackwater USA, which has millions of dollars in U.S. government contracts in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the talks. Other sources said auditors from Cerberus had been examining Blackwater's books since the beginning of the year.

read more | digg story

UK Defence squeezed as MoD is struggling to match its many missions

British defence policy is coming apart at the seams. Having tried to bring order to a chaotic system of arms procurement, the government is to revert to bad habits. The Ministry of Defence plans to scrap its biennial budget cycle and go back to planning on a yearly basis. Successive Labour governments have fallen victim to unrealistic ambitions that the British armed forces can continue to project power on a tight budget.

read more | digg story

Contrasting reactions to the piracy problem off Somalia’s coast

On 11 April, French commandos captured several Somali pirates who took hostages the 30 crew members of the luxury yacht le Ponant. Apparently a ransom was privately paid for their release. The French government admitted that they responded militarily to the incident. The pirates captured will be tried in French courts. The French president called for the establishment of an UN-sponsored anti-piracy force. Many other governments are involved in anti-piracy tasks in what has become one of the most dangerous piracy spots on the planet.

Au contraire, in the UK the Royal Navy has been instructed by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because of the risk of breaching their human rights. The Sunday Times further reports that the Foreign Office is also concerned that captured pirates could claim asylum in Great Britain. Feel free to reach your own conclusions. The Foreign Office is headed by David Miliband, from planet Zorg. The latest entry on his ill advised official blog, Tale of Two Penalties, deals with soccer results. Naturally, there is not a single entry for two of our own planet’s problems: Somalia and piracy.


The Royal Navy was once the envy of the maritime world. Sea thugs knew their game was over once Royal marines had them on their sight. Fortunately, that mix of respect and fear still lives in the private sector. Many Private Military Companies (PMCs) with maritime capabilities employ former Royal Navy personnel, who increasingly find it that their vocation can only be fully realized on a private capacity. Mr Miliband please continue focusing on the human rights of pirates and let maritime PMCs do their job.

Security contractors seized in Iraq may now be held in Iran

Five British hostages who were kidnapped in Iraq last year may be being held in Tehran, the Iranian capital, according to intelligence reports received by the UK Foreign Office. The disclosure, supported by two security sources in London and officials in Iraq, means that any rescue attempt by British special forces would be almost impossible. The contractors, GardaWorld and BearingPoint employees, have been in captivity since 29 May 2007.

read more | digg story

As we quietly noted on our 25 November post, the possibility for them to be held in Iran already lingered heavily in the air. This could explain the apparent reluctance of the UK government to give the issue the public prominence it deserves. Coincidentally, the story was relegated to page 8 of the Sunday Times. No official comment was released by either the employers or the Foreign Office.

If you are American, British, or Canadian, please read our Do not forget the Missing Five post and contribute to keep the issue alive.

Foreign Policy in Narrow Bandwidths and Sound Bites

During presidential campaigns, foreign policy pledges (P) can be on many occasions a little detached from the real world. Because the real world as presented by a candidate would often be a summary of what enhances his/her P, let’s call it background (B). How to get to P given B is the plan (X), which can be understood as a collection of bullet points and sound bites likely evolve during the elections year. A flexible X is perfectly valid and probably desirable in light of the volatile international environment we live in and the moulding nature of a candidate’s character (Y) while attempting to reach one and all. Therefore, the question arises of where Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, and Senator McCain stand now on the debate about Iraq and security contractors?

Barack Obama

P: Senator Obama promises that he will immediately begin to remove US troops from Iraq. However, his stance towards security contractors deployed in the country remains ambiguous. He has failed to answer whether his proposed troop withdrawal will be accompanied by either a reduction or an increase of security contracting. Now that campaign focus is shifting to economic issues, he has also failed to elaborate on the costs retreat would signify in terms of demobilization expenditure, unfulfilled contractual obligations, and the vacation of US influence in the region.

X: Senator Obama plans to remove one to two combat brigades each month and accomplish withdrawal within 16 months. Evidently this plan involves that all other variables would remain equal (Mr. Obama’s B), which accounts for one of the most common oversights on foreign policy making. Gordon Brown made a similar pledge before becoming Prime Minister. His government has nonetheless announced that gradual withdrawal has been effectively put on hold due to the deteriorating security situation in Basra. In addition, Mr. Obama argues that he would engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society in order to accomplish his plan. Does Mr. Obama believe this is not part of the current strategy and that Iraqis would suddenly start listening to him?

Y: The angry outbursts of some of Senator Obama’s associates are worrying. Let’s hope that if elected he will be more selective of his confidants and advisers.

Hillary Clinton

P: In a more detailed manner, Senator Clinton promises the same as Obama, that is, phased redeployment at the same time as stability in Iraq is somehow gradually secured during her premiership. In contrast to Obama, her stance towards security contractors has been more hostile than ambiguous, as noted on a previous post. Moreover, same as Obama, she has not addressed the economic implications of swift retreat. Indeed, it is necessary to stress that swift retreat can be more expensive that swift deployment, because in addition to what was noted above large segments of reconstruction infrastructure and investment would need to be written off.

X: Although Senator Clinton’s plan seems to suffer from the same B oversights as Obama’s, she does acknowledge that an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region needs to be part of the plan, which scores on her favour and should be noted. She is also more articulated on her proposal for a wider UN involvement in the reconstruction effort. However, scepticism lingers on the air about the willingness of the UN to play such a large role. Think about the faith of Sudan’s Darfur, a substantially smaller tragedy, if you want to entertain scenarios about broad UN deployment in Iraq.

Y: It is hard to tell what Senator Clinton was thinking when implying that she was deeply involved in the Northern Ireland peace process and that bullets flew over her head when landing in the Balkans in the 1990s.

John McCain

P: Senator McCain’s pledge is a textbook case of realist strategy: more troops bringing more security and more security facilitating political and economic reconstruction. His public stance towards security contractors and their role on his proposal remain underdeveloped. Yet, if elected, there are reasons to suspect they will continue to play an important role on the reconstruction strategy. Nevertheless, we believe he has failed to coherently set ceilings to his pledge in terms of budget, timeframe, and troop numbers and rotation.

X: Senator McCain points out the need to bolster troops on the ground, implement new counterinsurgency strategy, strengthen the Iraqi armed forces and police, keep senior US officers in place, and call for international pressure on Syria and Iran. The multilateralism he increasingly talks about, however, has so far not been fully integrated into his P as well as the necessary diplomatic rounds associated with it.

Y: We modestly suggest that Senator McCain develops ‘straight talk’ for a younger audience and straight talk his campaign team into getting to grips with internet optimization and social networking.

Iraq-wide poll taken on the ground: Iraqis optimistic about improved security

The poll shows that a majority of Iraqis believe the security situation is improving. They're optimistic and living in peace but a quarter of Iraqis say they've seen a relative killed since the US invasion five years ago. These are the findings of a Channel 4 poll of 4,000 people throughout Iraq on the fifth anniversary of the start of the war.

read more | digg story

Simon Mann first interview about his involvement in the failed Equatorial Guinea coup

Tonight Channel 4 News broadcast the first interview with the former British army officer Simon Mann. Mann led an attempted coup against the West African state of Equatorial Guinea in 2004. The programme has overturned an injunction obtained by lawyers acting for Mr Mann. They claimed he had been forced to take part in the interview by the prison authorities in Equatorial Guinea two weeks ago. Find links in the page for video, transcript in Word format, and a timeline.

read more | digg story

Clinton does Obama and Obama does Clinton

Presidential campaigns inevitably produce rushed pronouncements and media analysis. Inasmuch as policy promises sometimes filter down with unintended consequences, they can also communicate the wrong message, be misinterpreted, or both. And so this week security contractors hit the Democratic campaign trail. Considering that the use of contractors in contingency operations has a long trajectory in the US and the administration of Bill Clinton re-engineered the process to new standards, it somehow came as a surprise that Hillary Clinton decided to target unfavourably security contractors. The policy basis on the use of contractors is sound and efficient. It is only the travesty of it that the George W. Bush administration, assisted by a SecDef from another era, made of it that caused the multitude of problems we are now debating. One would expect that good old Bill reminded Hillary about it. That is hard to tell, as she went on to issue a press release announcing that she is co-sponsoring “legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq”. Leaving the unnecessary terminology not conducive for constructive dialogue aside, her advisors should know by now that the debacles of a handful of firms in Iraq have only proved to be an exception to an overall trajectory of good service to the US by PMCs. She went on to state that “the legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel.” One wonders where the supplementary forces and money to fund them are going to be found. One last thing, far from compromising the mission in Iraq as stated in the press release, there would not be any mission in Iraq without the private security personnel. All together, the statement reads along Barack Obama’s lines, i.e. it sounds good however implausible the strategy is. Obama, on the other hand, took a more pragmatic approach, with his campaign team informing that he will not be pursuing a banning of security contractors in Iraq. Off course he promises swift withdrawal from Iraq if elected, but this week this set the pulse. Even better for Obama, Jeremy Scahill miscalculated the mood and published a piece that made Obama look more centre ground than he ever intended and Clinton more to the left than her team ever planned. Where was Bill when Hillary decided to do an Obama number?

Hillary Clinton Cosponsors Legislation to Ban Use of Private Security Contractors

"From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable. These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq."

read more | digg story

Families of GardaWorld and BearingPoint hostages appeal to Iraqi captors

The families of five British men kidnapped in Iraq nine months ago today issued an emotional plea to their captors in the Islamic Shia Resistance, urging them to recognise that the hostages were "not responsible for the actions of the British and American governments." They were contractors working for GardaWorld and BearingPoint.

read more | digg story

Arab Channel Shows Kidnapped BearingPoint contractor

The hostage, who has been identified as Peter Moore, was kidnapped by heavily armed men in police uniforms in May 2007 from the Iraqi Finance Ministry, together with four of his British security guards. They were driven away in a convoy of 19 four-wheel-drive vehicles toward the Shiite enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad.

read more | digg story

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Tussle Over Blackwater

Senator Hillary Clinton broke her longstanding silence on private security contractors in Iraq. Her senate office announced late Thursday that she is co-sponsoring a bill to ban "Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq." The timing of the announcement is particularly curious.

read more | digg story

Obama's Blackwater Problem

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told me that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January.

read more | digg story

Lords hear damages claim over failed Equatorial Guinea coup

If the appeal succeeds, it could open the door for Equatorial Guinea to gain access to bank accounts in the Channel Islands that would prove who financed the attempted coup. It would also overturn a longstanding precedent of British judges refusing to interfere in the political affairs of another state.

read more | digg story

Ten to watch in 2008

actors, events, issues, and trends in the private military world.

The Browning, or not, of the private military debate

Regulation of Private Military Companies (PMCs) is overdue in the UK. It is important to remember that the ‘Options for Regulation’ Green Paper was released in 2002, during the premiership of Tony Blair and a year before the onset of the Iraq occupation. It is difficult to discern where PM Gordon Brown stands on the issue. The downgrading of the Defence Minister post to a part-time office, the over-tightening of the defense budget, and the continued emphasis on the social engineering program of New Labour suggest that the issue, for the time being, is likely not to figure in Brown’s agenda. However, if an unfortunate event brings British PMCs into the spotlight, Brown might rush to pass regulation more responsive to populist requirements than established patterns of cooperation with the private sector for the achievement of foreign policy goals.

Take me to your leader

Pyrotechnic announcements about what each one of the presidential candidates will do to ‘change’ current policies towards the use of US contractors in conflicts have been flying around since the events of last October, i.e. the Blackwater affair. However, it has been largely pyrotechnics rather than concrete and realistic policy aspirations. Let us wait and see what the eventual nominees actually propose when the issue takes centre stage once more. This time it should be for real. Hardly revealing news, we know, but it needs to be noted in any list about private military issues to watch in 2008.

George Bush Jr’s swan song

We have heard rumours about an olive branch concerning security contractors in Iraq to be handed by Bush to critics of his administration in the second half of the year – or to soft the ground for the Republican nominee. Scapegoats might be part of the lyrics. If you have been following the debate closely, use your imagination about the possible scapegoat(s). As for the rest, all things remain equal, tune yourself in for an unforgettable song.

The new kids on the block

The growing importance of the private military debate has engendered many experts: some of them are experts in their own right and some other bright individuals who were simply at the right place at the right time. We salute both of them. Nevertheless, it needs to be acknowledged that the need for expertise has moved many influential institutions to seek desperately for experts or to create them on the spot to fill the gap. In this respect, 2008 promises to be an interesting year. With a presidential election looming, the most unlikely choice can suddenly become a leading voice. We would only spoil the surprise if we tell you about a handful of leading contenders being currently groomed for top slots.

The coming of age of the wireless brigade

It was in 2007 that we witnessed the private military topic to metastasize in the popular psyche. It is not necessary to elaborate on the zillions of blogs that offered commentary about ‘contractors’ in Iraq alongside the latest gossip about favourite pop stars. The bloggers are coming of age. We can tell you that a largely quiet segment of this generation, far from externalising outcry at the use of PMCs, has demonstrated genuine interest in joining the private military industry one day or are supportive of the private military alternative. This unsuspected crowd is likely to start making its presence felt in 2008, incidentally catching presidential contenders and regular commentators out of guard.

PMCs China-style

The growing community of universal experts on PMCs has been disproportionate focusing on the role of this type of firms in Iraq. Africa, where the sector has experienced an equally impressive yet longer trajectory, hardly figures in the numerous reports and articles produced by them. Let us share a secret. The rent or loan a force approach of the Chinese, linked to their unmatched investment in African infrastructure projects, has turned these forces into quasi-PMCs. In other words, forces that one occasions belong to the private military domain but defy typological analyses produced so far. We sincerely hope that at least a wiz kid from the wireless brigade will get some funding to undertake this belated research project, as China’s role in Africa will continue to grow.

South Africa and Jacob Zuma

The election of Jacob Zuma as new leader of the African National Congress has necessarily worried many analysts. It has already turned domestic politics into a polarising battlefield. His populist vessel is likely to sail across private military waters in 2008. Has Mr. Zuma reached a conclusion about that little piece entitled the Prohibition of Mercenary Activity and Prohibition and Regulation of Certain Activities in an Area of Armed Conflict Bill? We know he has read it.

Somalia and fundamentalism

The African chosen destination for radical fundamentalists might prove more worrisome that conventionally thought. The piracy problem appears to be just one click away from engendering a maritime catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, namely when fundamentalist terrorism meets piracy. We invite you to consult a map and appreciate the strategic position of this lawless ‘territory’. In particular, see its potential for breeding and exporting mayhem.

PMCs go to Hollywood

Syriana brought to the big screen the polymorphic nature of international politics and business. Blood Diamond made the idea of old-fashioned mercenaries in Africa somehow actual and sexy. The Bourne Ultimatum made black ops and rendition one of the summer blockbusters’ themes. Moreover, Matt Damon, who currently enjoys the Midas touch, is toying with Imperial Life in the Emerald City. PMCs are inevitably heading to Hollywood big time in 2008. Feel uncomfortable about the uninspiring (we are being polite) view about PMCs already on script.

The green contractor

The environment and greening policies are mainstream issues now, which undoubtedly is a positive development. At corporate level, CEOs and firms are working hard to show and publicise their green credentials. In this light, it is only a matter of time before segments of the private military industry join them. We know already of a relative minority of firms that are working in linking de-mining and UXO disposal services to the green agenda. 2008 is likely to be the year a more coherent industry-wide strategy starts to gestate.