Transcription

1 The Role of Mercenaries in Conflict Topic Background Mercenaries - individuals paid to involve themselves in violent conflicts - have always been part of the landscape of war. After the Peace of Westphalia, which marked the beginning of the rise of modern nation-states, mercenaries were seen less as more emphasis was placed on controlled 1 state militaries. In the last 25 years, this has changed. A resurgence in the popularity of mercenaries, private armies, and hired military expertise has led to a new reality for the world order of violence. Mercenaries can act in many different ways, not only as reinforcements for a battlefield. Experienced soldiers can be hired to provide training, protection for key facilities, or logistical 2 support for armies and other groups without adequate practical knowledge of warfare. Some mercenaries, for example, have made names for themselves protecting cargo at sea from pirates, using specialized naval strategies as well as technology such as camera drones to monitor, track, and avoid pirates. Mercenary groups can specialize in different services, sharpening both their 3 expertise and their technological offerings Ibid. 3

2 For states, mercenaries can be useful, or incredibly threatening. Sending your own nationals to war can be difficult to justify in the best of circumstances. In theory, mercenaries could allow states to intervene in more crises around the world using money, rather the lives of their citizens. No one wants to fight another s dirty war. In addition, mercenaries could take up fights that are especially difficult or risky. In Nigeria, for example, mercenaries have been hired to fight off the 4 terrorist group Boko Haram. But states are not the only customers for mercenaries. Non-governmental powers can write a check to private militaries just the same. Mercenaries 5 could allow for non-governmental powers to wage war where states cannot or will not. This could mean that private fundraising could send mercenaries to aid in humanitarian crises where gridlocked politics prevent governments from acting quickly; it could also mean that powerful individuals can shape the political landscape at their whim with private armies. Another factor to consider is that in many countries, standard militaries are often political forces, with their own agendas. National leaders often hire mercenary groups for personal protection against their own 6 militaries, to protect against the possibility of a coup or revolution. While some private contractors may indeed be put in place to protect vulnerable populations and provide support where governments are unable to, the issues that can arise from mercenaries are widespread and deep-reaching. When they are not being hired, paid enough, or properly supervised, armed mercenaries can turn into bandits, rogue actors, and thugs extorting their clients. Many mercenary groups are linked to the trafficking of humans, arms, and drugs. Even when mercenaries act as they are hired to, the effect can be disastrous. During decolonization, for example, many private military groups were used to suppress nationalist movements and revolutions. Mercenaries can allow governments and other actors the opportunity to involve themselves in conflicts they could never legitimately act in, without the international community necessarily knowing or being able to prosecute them for it. And even when intentions are good, when governments are able to make decisions on warfare without the blood of their own citizens on the gambling table, the costs can seem lesser. The barrier of entry into conflict is lowered when mercenaries and hired guns are the lives being risked. Some examples of modern mercenaries are relatively well known, such as the use of DynCorp 7 and Blackwater by the United States in its campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others, such as allegations that Russian officials used Chechen mercenaries in Ukraine, are difficult to verify. The situation in Sierra Leone is a prime example of the risks that can be incurred when using mercenaries. The International Monetary Fund drafted money to Sierra Leone to help with its civil war. Sierra Leone hired South African private military group Executive Outcomes to fight 8 on their behalf against the Revolutionary United Front ( RUF ). Executive Outcomes beat back the RUF, which complicated the peace deal that the UN was brokering. Many military officials 4 m

3 accused the mercenaries of gross human rights violations, as well as of making deals with the rebels underneath the table. Their presence was so disruptive that getting rid of the mercenaries was one of the first preconditions of a peace accord. When Executive Outcomes did leave, the 9 county fell back into fighting. There is no denying that mercenaries are available to those looking to hire them. But without a framework to effectively manage private militant groups in the international sphere, violence in this world will become harder to manage, more money-driven, and impossible to contain. Past International Actions The UN General Assembly and Security Council have adopted numerous resolutions to address the use of mercenaries. In 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 239 condemned any state that permitted the recruitment of mercenaries that had the objective of overthrowing another UN 10 member state. In 1999, General Assembly Resolution 54/151 stated that mercenaries are a threat to peace, security, and self-determination, and in 2001 the International Convention 11, 12 against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries came into force. This convention, more commonly known as the UN Mercenary Convention, prohibits any state support or allowance of mercenary development. This convention has been ratified by 35 states, with many large military powers - including the United States, China, Russia, France, the United 13 Kingdom, India, and Japan- not signing on. In 1972, the Organization of African Unity created the Convention for the Elimination of Mercenaries in Africa, promoting symbolic regional action 14 in an area still deeply affected by mercenary-supported violence. Under international law, there is little dispute that mercenaries are illegal. But enforcing laws against these groups has been very difficult. In some cases, prosecution is purely a logistical problem: gaining access to the group and its leaders and finding an appropriate punishment and jurisdiction has proven very difficult. In other situations, the difference between advisor and mercenary can be difficult to delineate. While some of the actions mercenaries are hired for are not inherently illegal - such as providing advice or logistical support - their real actions may extend past these covers. This issue falls within the framework of the 16th Sustainable Development Goal(SDG) of the UN, Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Though there is no specific reference to Mercenaries, the 16th SDG s first target is to Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death ng=en 14

4 15 rates everywhere. The ease of deploying mercenaries to fuel conflicts where there is a lack of resources and manpower can cause an increase of violence and death rates. The UN Commission on Human Rights has consistently condemned the use of mercenaries as a means of destabilizing governments and appointed a special rapporteur to look into this issue in In 2003, the rapporteur called for a broader legal definition of the term mercenary that better encompassed the use of mercenaries in illicit trafficking activities and other organized 17 crimes. The problem of mercenaries is, at its core, an unstable one. A popular definition of a state is an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, as theorized by Max Weber, Thomas Paine, Jean Bodin, and others. This has often been referred to as a monopoly on violence, and when looking at the threat of mercenaries, this monopoly is being threatened. Not only are national powers of protection and enforcement undermined, but it can become harder and harder to find someone able to step in and make a difference. Possible Solutions An expansion of the UN Mercenary Convention could stretch the authority and obligation of the international community to combat mercenary groups, but the underlying issues that led to many states not signing on in the first place must be addressed. Better defining mercenary groups so as to not conflict with potential interpretations of bodies such as UN Peacekeeping Forces, for example, could provide clarity in international law. Additionally, decisions need to be made as to if there is a legitimate space for private military guards and consultants at all. Many NGOs have been known to hire private military groups to protect them in their endeavors in dangerous areas, and argue that there needs to be a legitimate venue for such protections. Deciding where the lines need to be drawn, who should be allowed to patronize private security forces, if there should be limits on the size of private forces, and if governments can hire such businesses, are all important questions that demand an answer. Better monitoring of mercenary groups worldwide is one potential route forward. A centralized and respected system to publicize the actions of different groups to the international community could not only keep private military groups accountable for their actions but could put a reasonable burden on state and individual patrons of such private armies or mercenaries to select reputable institutions. Additionally, expanding explicit language to the ICC to determine the space for its authority over individual mercenaries could allow for an enforcement mechanism within modern international law. Further Research Reports of the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner on the use of Mercenaries x 17

5 International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Guided Questions 1. Is there a legitimate space for private security forces in the international system? 2. How and where should mercenaries be prosecuted? 3. How do mercenaries play into larger issues of organized crime? 4. Do mercenaries allow for more action to be taken, or for violence to be routinized?