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).