|
 |
DIPLOMATIC LICENSE
Should War Be Privatized?
Aired July 13, 2002 - 04:00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The political reliability and the military discipline of mercenaries is inherently suspect.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's very impressive to say the least.
RICHARD ROTH, HOST: What about ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very impressive.
ROTH: Can you see it, though?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we see the U.N.?
ROTH: Your glasses are totally fogged in ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, oh yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They've zippered me up. I don't understand why.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD ROTH, HOST: Mercenaries. The very mention sparks memories of gritty, fearless battle-tested men pouring into the jungles into combat for love of money and adventure, no matter whose country.
Well, the world is changing and as September 11 showed, so is the battlefield.
Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.
First off, don't call them mercenaries. They are now private military companies, or at least some of them are. Yes, more vague, but that's not to necessarily cloak some bad things done in the bush. Governments from the United States to Afghanistan employ these companies for military training, supply and logistics so their own forces can man the front. A U.N. special investigator on mercenaries doesn't like them, says they are illegal under U.N. conventions, but the rest of the U.N. world is not ready to say how the 189-member country should fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: I don't know how one makes a distinction between respectable mercenary and non-respectable mercenary. Secondly, I'm not aware that I've made any recent statements implying that I will accept mercenaries in these situations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Secretary-General Annan, a former director of U.N. peacekeeping knows that the private military forces have kept some U.N. member governments afloat. He has indicated they could have prevented some of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, but that -- quote -- "the world may not be ready to privatize peace." His current peacekeeping director is concerned about the use of private operators mixing with U.N. peacekeeping troops.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEAN-MARIE GUEHHENO, UNDER SECY-GENERAL FOR PEACEKEEPING: My concern there would be if private military companies were seen as a way to slip out for some states of their commitment to peace and security. I think that would send the wrong political signal. It would look like an absence of political will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Well, we have been merciless in assembling a global panel on mercenaries and except for our regulars, no guests are being paid for their appearance. Joining us from Washington, Doug Brooks, lobbyist for private military companies; also in Washington is Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution; in London, Tim Spicer, former leader of Sandline International, a company whose involvement in Sierra Leone in Africa caused a huge row when the U.K. over who authorized Sandline's involvement. He's now heading a company called Strategic Consulting International, which provides supplies, logistics training and other military services to governments.
In the studio with me, James Bones of the "Times of London" who covered what became known in the U.K. as the "Sandline Affair"; in Antwerp, Belgium on the phone is one of the U.N.'s top investigators for hire on anything from arms trading to diamond smuggling, Johan Peleman. He's also a government consultant on organized crime and drug trafficking.
Well let's set the scene. What is the trend now, Mr. Singer, regarding the use of private military operations and mercenaries?
PETE SINGER, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I think we're seeing a pretty broad expansion of this industry. Oh about 10 years ago, there was only a couple and now you have contracts pretty much all over the world. But the key is there's a distinction in the types of these contracts. They range from ones like Mr. Spicer's firm who do more active, tactical military operations to the real move in the market has been towards logistics firms like Brown & Root that have billion-dollar contracts supporting U.S. military forces.
ROTH: Well, let's ask Mr. Peleman, who's been on the scene in many countries analyzing things. You've dealt extensively with arms trade and all kinds of murky business. What do you see out there?
JOHAN PELEMAN, INT'L PEACE INFORMATION SERVICE: Well, basically, there is a trend for privatization both even in diplomacy and in peacekeeping. As the PMCs would want, they would want to be subcontractors for the U.N., for instance, saying they are cheaper and more efficient than U.N. peacekeeping forces are. But from my background, as a researcher on illicit arms trafficking, for instance, I run too often into these people that are involved with private military companies in the illegal arms business. So I'm rather wary about this business.
ROTH: What's the fear?
PELEMAN: The fear is the lack of accountability and the fact that even if they're not operating privately, they might be operating on behalf of governments in more (ph) accountable ways.
ROTH: Doug Brooks in Washington, you obviously work for these companies. What's wrong with guns for hire?
DOUG BROOKS, INT'L PEACE OPERATIONS ASSN: Well, I think they're an answer to a problem that we have, in a sense we have -- we want to do peacekeeping. We want to end wars around the world, but we don't have competent militaries that are willing to do this sort of thing. The United States is not about to send peacekeepers to Congo, for example, and yet private companies are willing to offer competent troops to do this sort of thing, to back up a U.N. mission, to act as a force multiplier and actually make a difference.
JAMES BONE, TIMES OF LONDON: Richard, I mean, these people are after money. These are, you know, soldiers who can make more money in the private sector. Since the end of the Cold War, there's a lot of unemployed soldiers, a lot of skills going around and quite often it's not as benign as these people are making it out to be. I mean, people go into places where there are good deposits of minerals and they go in and they take control of the mineral fields, and quite often they get paid off in minerals, in diamond and gold.
BROOKS: But we need to focus on the potential. I mean, we have to look at peacekeeping ...
BONE: Well, let's talk about the real world ...
BROOKS: Well, we are talking about the real world. I mean, how do you expect to do peacekeeping in a country like Congo? Even in Sierra Leone, if it had not been for 800 British troops, the 8,000 U.N. troops that were routed in May of 2000 (UNINTELLIGIBLE) completely collapse.
ROTH: Well, that brings us ...
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: ... to Tim Spicer in London. You ran the operations there in Sierra Leone. Who invited you? It was a big controversy and should the government and people of Sierra Leone be extraordinarily grateful for your services?
TIM SPICER, STRATEGIC CONSULTING INT'L: Well, I think it's clear who invited us. We were invited by the legitimate president of the country and his government. We went in and we supported the regional stabilizing force echo mark, and I think that in the first instance, and this alludes to a point that Doug Brooks made. When nobody else is prepared to go, there is a role for private military companies to become involved, either as an expedient reaction force to stabilize the situation and then possibly hand over to either a unilateral or United Nations force, and in my view there is no question of anything other than a private military company having a value in a stabilizing way and as a force for good.
And I didn't quite hear who made the comment about mineral concessions. I mean, that's a very old canard, which I think has been laid to rest.
BONE: Well, then let's talk about ...
(CROSSTALK)
BONE: ... that a little bit because ...
SPICER: I don't think there is a legitimate private military company ...
BONE: You know you say you were invited in by the ...
SPICER: Can I finish what I'm saying first? Can I finish what I'm saying first? I don't know of a single legitimate private military company that has ever been paid in what you've alluded to as mineral concessions. It's complete nonsense.
BONE: OK, well let me just -- let's pick up on this because this is an important point. In, for instance, the case of Sandline, you say you were invited by the legitimate government, of course, legitimate government wasn't in power at the time. It had been ousted and your job as Sandline was to restore legitimate government.
But it seems to me from my reporting it was part of a three-way deal with the Indian businessman called Rakish Sakseena (ph) who was in jail in Canada and wanted in Thailand, and as far as I understand the deal from talking to people who negotiated it, the deal was that he would front some money to bankroll your operations and he would be paid back by the government when they were (UNINTELLIGIBLE) with mineral concessions.
BROOKS: Ultimately, Sandline's operation was supported by the British government ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: Yes, at levels that maybe didn't get (UNINTELLIGIBLE), but it was supported by them and the Americans knew about it, and they supported it and the final result was that a democratically elected government came back into power.
BONE: Not because of Sandline.
SINGER: But it's unquestionable that it involved some shady dealings there. I mean, the fact that it was funded by a guy who was under house arrest for fraud ...
BROOKS: Absolutely ...
SINGER: ... is this the best option.
BROOKS: Who should have paid for it? I think the U.N. should have paid for it or the U.S. should have paid for it. I mean, the fact ...
BONE: But the problem is then that the U.N. is not operating properly. So, you know, why not make the U.N. operate properly rather than trying to outsource the whole thing?
BROOKS: Well, what's your timetable for that? I mean, if you're ...
SPICER: Can I just ...
BROOKS: ... saying in 10 years ...
SPICER: ... can I just jump in there for a second?
ROTH: Yes, go ahead ...
(CROSSTALK)
SPICER: Let's just deal with this Sierra Leone issue. The situation was quite clear there was a legitimate democratically elected government that had been ousted by a military coo supported by a very vicious rebel movement. The government in exile was supported by the international community. The fact that the international community could not gather together an intervention force to restore that government and the fact that the government of Sierra Leone had to resort to payment from an individual in exchange for mineral concessions is not quite the same as saying that a private military company was paid in mineral concessions.
ROTH: All right, listen, I've got to -- I want to move it along also to ...
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: ... I want to ...
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: ... I want to ...
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: ... go ahead, Mr. Peleman, very briefly.
PELEMAN: Yes, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). Sandline was involved in a clearly illicit arms deal in violation of United Nations sanctions against Sierra Leone. That's the main issue here ...
SPICER: I think if you ask ...
PELEMAN: The lack of accountability ...
SPICER: ... if you ask the United Nations ...
(CROSSTALK)
SPICER: ... legal department.
PELEMAN: ... the covert way of operating.
ROTH: All right, I'm putting a final castle here on the Sandline deal for the moment because we have talked about it, but we have to move past that for the moment into the future of the private operations. Mr. Brooks, Mr. Singer ...
SPICER: Can I just -- can I ...
ROTH: No, hang on Tim a second. I just want to ...
SPICER: Sorry, can I just jump in?
ROTH: No, just hang on a second. The issue of the -- the use of the private military companies, won't they be used now more against terrorism? Countries increasingly show lack of political will to risk a body, a soldier. Will this raise some serious ethical issues in the future?
SINGER: There -- in this war on terrorism, there's actually less incentive to use the more active companies like Mr. Spicer's, the ones that are putting troops into harm way because there is public support for American forces going in there. The reason why it was hard to find people to go into Sierra Leone was because simply no one cared about it in America and in England, to be blunt.
But that's not the case in Afghanistan. But where the role for these companies is more likely going to be is the training of local military forces. But what you have to watch out for is the lack of accountability that they have on how this training is used. Is it going to be used against terrorists or is it going to be used against local opponents and maybe with egregious human rights ...
ROTH: Doug Brooks, how many companies -- how many countries? What are the numbers right now? How big is this?
BROOKS: That's a darn good question. I don't think anybody really has a handle on it, because, you know, what you consider a private military company, a Brown & Root, which does logistics for the United States military, or, you know, all the way up to Sandline International? It's willing to actually put troops on the ground for a government. So an actual handle, I mean, there's been numbers thrown around that some of them are just completely absurd ...
BONE: Well, some of these private armies put troops on the ground not for the government ...
(CROSSTALK)
SPICER: Can I ...
BONE: ... they put them on the ground for ...
SPICER: ... can I just make a point about ...
BONE: ... other people.
ROTH: Go ahead, Tim.
SPICER: Can I just make a point about the role of private military companies in the example you've given, and perhaps against the war against terrorism and the question of accountability? I think there is a particularly valid role in the war against terrorism in a situation like perhaps the opening round of the ground operations in Afghanistan. It may be that there is a willingness to become involved with forces such as the British and Americans and Australians and others that were in early.
But there may not be enough specialists to assist the local forces in carrying out their mission and that the private military company could assist under those circumstances. As to its accountability, I think that what we're envisioning in the future are two levels of accountability.
Certainly in the United Kingdom there is a move afoot to regulate private military companies and make them accountable under British law and secondly, within the context of an international intervention, perhaps under the umbrella of a U.N. resolution, then the mission of the private military company would be quite clear and if it violated that mission, it would be subject to sanction. If it indulges in training of legitimate forces and those subsequently in a different ...
ROTH: So are ...
SPICER: ... phase or part of the conflict or subsequent ...
SINGER: If I could make ...
ROTH: Go ahead.
SPICER: ... if they use that training ...
ROTH: Hang on, Mr. Spicer. Go ahead.
SPICER: That is ...
SINGER: If I could make a response to that ...
ROTH: Go ahead.
SINGER: On the first part, on the war in Afghanistan, I think the evidence argues against him. The Special Forces did a great job. They won the war. We didn't need the private military help in that situation. On national accountability, cannot control for a transnational industry. These companies much like many of the companies you're familiar with don't just register in Britain, but actually register in tax savings and other havens such as Bermuda ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: ... accountability, you have the ultimate switch. You can fire a company. If the United Nations has a problem with child prostitution rings like just happened in Mozambique, you can't fire the United Nations.
BONE: But what's to stop these companies ...
BROOKS: The company you can fire immediately.
BONE: ... from registering offshore and just deciding they want to work for the bad guys instead of the good guys?
BROOKS: Well, ultimately the employees have to go home ...
SPICER: Well, I think ...
BROOKS: ... and they don't to be criminal.
ROTH: All right, go ahead ...
BONE: But the bad guys might win.
PELEMAN: I'm worried about a trend of privatization of security. I look a lot to what they call the phenomenon of failed space like Sierra Leone, Liberia, Somalia, Afghanistan where the state structures have collapsed and where the state no longer can provide security for the people living within its territory. And I'm afraid PMCs, private military companies and mercenaries are just a phenomenon of something that's about to happen, which is the total privatization of security, which means ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: Africa you've had over 100 coups since independence like 40 years ago and ...
BONE: Some of them helped ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: The military is not ...
(CROSSTALK)
BONE: You know, I would say probably 12, 15.
BROOKS: I don't think so, but ...
BONE: Well I think in the ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: The reality is ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: The biggest ...
(CROSSTALK)
BROOKS: ... to elect an African government is its own military.
ROTH: All right ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not a foreign private military and certainly not a legitimate company.
ROTH: All right, I've got to be the ultimate commander here and stop all of this discussing and debating, which has been most interesting. Something tells me in the future we might see, James, a new type of war, the rebels and the terrorists versus the mercenaries as governments don't want to do what they claim they want to do. But here we'll see what happens. Let's thank everybody.
First on the phone, Johan Peleman, U.N. investigator, hired gun for that reason, now with the International Peace Information Service; and our other panelists going left to right, top to bottom; Doug Brooks, lobbyist, International Peace Association, operations association; Pete Singer, Brookings Institution, analyst extraordinaire on this topic, among other things; James Bone will stick around with us; and on the lower left, Tim Spicer, former head of Sandline International and an expert in the issue currently with the Strategic Consulting International Group.
Thank you all very much. Despite the availability of private military operations, the United Nations is not closing up its peacekeeping office. In fact, the U.N. wants the world to see how proud it is of its blue berets including military staff supplied by governments to work at U.N. headquarters in New York.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lieutenant Colonel Jose Solarzano Custodio (ph) of Guatemala, the fourth generation service; Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Grant Toral (ph) of the United Kingdom, the fourth generation ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Security Council never closes. Any item, it's always open.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Like an all-night deli in New York except you can't veto that multi potato salad. The Security Council is on 24-hour notice as supported there by Singapore's ambassador to the U.N. who has been president of the 15-nation panel twice. Now you notice he was keeping his arms crossed there.
Afsane Bassir Pour is going to join us because how far is the council and the United Nations ready to go when crises erupt? Afsane, we've been talking here about mercenaries and they're always ready to fly in, but what's the latest on the U.N.'s effort to get involved when there are humanitarian crises?
AFSANE BASSIR POUR, "LE MONDE": Actually, you know, the mercenaries might be the only answer. Well an important report was published in December already and it went totally unnoticed. It was on humanitarian intervention. One of the reasons the press didn't pick it up is because they've changed their name now to "Responsibility to Protect," which is basically the same thing, but it's just less, you know it's less provocative as a term.
When the secretary-general launched the idea of a humanitarian intervention saying states have the right to intervene when there is genocide in a country, he had actually divided the general assembly, but we've come a long way. So far, that the Security Council members sometime late in May got together and actually spent a whole weekend talking about humanitarian intervention.
ROTH: It was called a retreat. Maybe ...
BASSIR POUR: It was ...
ROTH: .. their -- that's their tactics. James, what do you think?
BONE: Well, I was actually there when it was launched. So it wasn't then going entirely unnoticed and one of the things that came up -- I mean basically the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) report want to lay down in advance the criteria for intervening in states and they want to outline the responsibilities that states have to protect their population and say in the case of loss scale, loss of life or systematic ethnic cleansing outside countries have the right to go in, and they want all this agreed beforehand.
But it's very hard for them to bind the Security Council's hands to commit the members of the Security Council to authorize peacekeeping or peace enforcement operations in advance. It ain't going to happen. We've already ...
BASSIR POUR: No, no, no, actually, you know what is going to happen is that they can authorize a force. The problem is where are you going to get the troops. We always come back to the same problem. I said to Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador, if Burundi were to become a new Rwanda because of the ethnic conflict there, if genocide were to break out, can the Council stop it? And he said we can vote a resolution in half an hour. That's no problem, but then who is going to do it? There are only a few countries capable of doing such a military operation and they're not ready to do it for now.
ROTH: OK. Afsane, seems like we just welcomed you. Now it's time to say good-bye.
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: Thank you. James, stick around for some interesting news on the future world of the U.N.
Well, you know how to tell when trouble breaks out somewhere in the world? Fifteen cell phones go off inside a closed-door Security Council meeting. Diplomats are encouraged to silence their phones when the Security Council troops into the formal august chamber, but here you see the ambassador of Spain delivering a speech while a French deputy whispers into his cell phone. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) it was diplomatic interruptis also for the U.N. spokesman and two other ambassadors, Pakistan and the United Kingdom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm trying to set a good example now by turning off my cell phone.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a social and political problem, which we are trying to reach. We have been trying to object (ph) and ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The U.K. will play its part, so will the EU collectively. A high level delegation of the EU as Ambassador Ryan (ph) has just mentioned ...
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROTH: You're not supposed to eat or drink outside the Security Council, but apparently they're serving it up inside. Yes, food for thought is needed at the U.N. No menu is posted. Some just grab and run. You could have put something in their mouth rather than share information. At least if they have food in their mouths they can't make long speeches. The catering trays look formal, but there are more dignified restaurants inside the complex. While the ambassadors dine, U.N. ambassador wannabes are not so lucky.
You have heard of model UNs, young people emulating diplomats and practicing how to make peace at universities. Well one day a few months ago several busloads of mild U.N. students from around the U.S. pulled up and then had to wait in pouring rain to go through newly increased security.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Tell us what it's like waiting out here. What's going on?
UNIDENTIFIED GROUP: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) cold.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) college.
ROTH: Why do you say that?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) stand in the rain for an hour and a half.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's very impressive to say the least.
ROTH: What about ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Very impressive.
ROTH: Can you see it though?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can we see the U.N.?
ROTH: Your glasses are totally ...
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: ... fogged in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh yes. It's -- yes, we can see it fine. Thank you.
ROTH: What are you going to learn at the model U.N.? What ...
(CROSSTALK)
ROTH: Why are you here?
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're probably going to learn how the ...
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... pulls strings to conquer the world (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
ROTH: Do these model U.N.s accomplish anything? What do you think? What do they do?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At the very end of the day, we actually have some resolutions that we write and on Saturday we then vote on those resolutions and I've heard rumors, I'm not quite sure if they're true, but sometimes they maybe even sent somewhere, you know, to get them looked at.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We come from Sicily. We are very proud to represent our country in this wonderful atmosphere.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are in the future of the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) you know.
ROTH: What do you think about the model U.N. so far?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's cold here.
ROTH: You don't mind the rain (ph)?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It sucks, but I don't know what else you can really do about it.
ROTH: Could pass a resolution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: It's always fun to observe the spirit and optimism of the model United Nations students and then go back inside and assess the perspective of the diplomats who are paid to do the work of the U.N.
That's DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth. Thanks for watching.
END
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
|
|
|
|
