UK paperback

International Peace Operations

Democracy everywhere

As Chicken Yoghurt points out, ((Thanks to Aenea.)) re the story about Blackwater employees shooting Iraqi civilians:

Let’s get one thing straight. They’re not private security contractors, they’re mercenaries.

It’s interesting how the sense of “private” seems to leak, in this carefully constructed nugget of Unspeak, “private security contractors”. The mercenaries are private contractors, in that they belong to a private company that gets paid; but the phrase also seems to imply a notion of private security, as though they are merely nice men who will install a burglar alarm at your home. One remembers the killing of four mercenaries that led to the first assault on Fallujah. Public outrage was well managed by the consistent reference to those unlucky mercenaries as simply “private contractors”, not even “security” contractors: as though the insurgents had murdered electricians or bricklayers.

Still, we should remember that the mercenaries, who make up somewhere between 11% and 24% of the US military presence in Iraq (no one knows the exact figure), are also “private” in a very special sense, as they are immune from public prosecution in Iraq thanks to an early edict from the “Coalition” Provisional Authority, and also so far exempt from American military law as well.

I wondered if Blackwater was somehow related to black gold, but then thought that might be facetious. After all, its mission statement is so reassuring:

We have become the most responsive, cost-effective means of affecting the strategic balance in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.

As if that weren’t convincing enough, it was excellent to learn further that mercenaries from Blackwater and other firms have their own trade association. Guess what it’s called? The International Peace Operations Association. Chapeau! It has its own website, where it explains its mission:

IPOA is committed to raising the standards of the Peace and Stability Industry to ensure sound and ethical professionalism and transparency in the conduct of peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction activities.

I love “Peace and Stability Industry”, don’t you? It’s so much more comforting than war industry.

16 comments
  1. 1  lamentreat  September 23, 2007, 12:56 pm 

    Small mercies: at least its not the “peace and stability community”.

  2. 2  Alex Higgins  September 23, 2007, 1:19 pm 

    Nice, lamentreat!

    Actually what surprises me is that the phrase “permanent bases”, as they are referred to, usually without much comment, in the press. After all, the term rather candidly declares an intention to permanently control the political and economic life of Iraq from Washington.

    How come the powers that be have been so slow to unspeak these, you know, calling them “Freedom Stations” or something like that?

    “Freedom Stations” is copyright by the way – the Pentagon has to give me a lot of money to use that.

  3. 3  Alex Higgins  September 23, 2007, 1:21 pm 

    Ugh, botched that first sentence. It doesn’t make sense, but hopefully the basic meaning is clear…

  4. 4  Steven  September 23, 2007, 2:42 pm 

    They are usually unspoken as “enduring bases“. But “Freedom Stations” is much, much better!

  5. 5  WIIIAI  September 23, 2007, 9:57 pm 

    Enduring Freedom Stations (EFS’s).

  6. 6  Dave S  September 23, 2007, 10:01 pm 

    I don’t know how reliable the source is, but an Iranian news agency reckons Blackwater have been smuggling guns into Iraq too. Killing civilians is small potatoes, but giving weapons to those who might conceivably use them against American occupiers is, as we all know, a bombing offence.

    Link.

  7. 7  sw  September 24, 2007, 10:10 pm 

    These sovereign butchers are “private” in exactly the way you spot, as not being subject to public laws. Pace Schmitt and Agamben: they are granted the sovereign exception – and, to add yet another insult to the litany of injuries, they just happen to be “unlawful combatants”.

    But I think that “private” is really supposed to resonate with private enterprise. Which is, of course, an unassailable good.

  8. 8  Laurie  September 25, 2007, 2:03 pm 

    Here‘s an interactive map that shows the connections of the International Peace Operations Association.

  9. 9  Steven  September 25, 2007, 3:15 pm 

    Hello again, sw!

    But I think that “private” is really supposed to resonate with private enterprise.

    Indeed, as I wrote: “The mercenaries are private contractors, in that they belong to a private company that gets paid.”

    But of course soldiers were privatised for most of history before they became public servants or however they are considered now.

    It seems to me that what is peculiarly wrong with Blackwater et al is not that they shoot civilians, since it’s hardly unheard-of for soldiers employed directly by the state to do that too, but that they exist in a legal black hole, for all that’s worth to the dead civilians. (Maybe it is worth something to the dead civilians – do families of eg Haditha victims get a bung from the US government? Be interesting to know.)

  10. 10  lamentreat  September 26, 2007, 1:17 am 

    “Freedom stations” is awesome, not least because of the connotation of “filling station/gas station” – an outpost with huge liquid stocks of liberty, where travelers journeying through the dry realms of tyranny can stop in and tank up.

  11. 11  abb1  September 26, 2007, 1:07 pm 

    Liberty oasis.

  12. 12  richard  September 26, 2007, 1:58 pm 

    liberty oasis is too terrain-specific: when the US invades Indonesia it’ll just feel all wrong.

    On the other hand, liberty chimes nicely with lily… maybe we have something here.

  13. 13  Doug Brooks  September 30, 2007, 10:00 am 

    Not to de-spin your spin, but keep in mind the vast majority of contractors in Iraq – including security contractors – are Iraqis. Hopefully, we can all agree that Iraqis are the ones we want doing the reconstruction and security for their country.

    And *duh*, we are in the peace and stability operations industry. IPOA was created to give international peace operations the resources to succeed, for a change. Now maybe you might think doctors are in the ‘disease industry.’

    But providing capabilities to the international community to support peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian rescue, stability operations and disaster relief really ain’t a bad job!

    Do let me know if I can help with any other misconceptions you might have regarding our Association.

    Best regards,

    Doug Brooks
    President, IPOA

  14. 14  Steven  September 30, 2007, 10:57 am 

    Hello Doug, thanks for your comments.

    the vast majority of contractors in Iraq – including security contractors – are Iraqis

    Interesting claim. According to PBS, as of June 2005 there were more US and other non-Iraqi “security contractors” in Iraq than there were Iraqi “security contractors” (most of the latter were employed to guard oilfields). Meanwhile, the LA Times this summer counted 118,000 Iraqi and 64,000 non-Iraqi contractors in total, but did not give a comparative breakdown of “security contractors” in particular. Perhaps you can point us to other sources?

    Hopefully, we can all agree that Iraqis are the ones we want doing the reconstruction and security for their country.

    Really? Like, “We bombed it, now you rebuild it!”?

    Now maybe you might think doctors are in the ‘disease industry.’

    That’s a very interesting analogy. Perhaps one of my doctor readers will comment. Actually, I think it’s a good point that “health industry” is Unspeak since health is not really what calls it into action. Of course, another part of the problem is thinking of it as an “industry” in the first place, as though health could be manufactured, or bought and sold. In countries not at the mercy of powerful insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, we often prefer to speak of a health “service” or “system”.

    But providing capabilities to the international community to support peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian rescue, stability operations and disaster relief really ain’t a bad job!

    I’m sure you do not wish your organisation only to be associated with certain notorious activities of Blackwater, but their and their employers’ idea of what constituted “disaster relief” after Katrina, for example, seemed rather eccentric. Do you have happier stories of your members’ participation in humanitarian rescue, disaster relief, etc?

    As I said in comment #9, I have nothing in principle against private companies operating in these spheres, but you no doubt understand why the public might be sceptical that certain well-publicised activities by your members could fall under the rubric of “peace operations”. And I remain confident that you, quite understandably, chose the name “International Peace Operations” for your association, rather than say “International Private Armies”, for the purposes of good PR. Which is par for the course, even if your members appear often to operate in situations where there is no peace to be seen.

    Perhaps you can assure us that you think it would be a good idea if all IPOA members were subject to the laws of the country employing them?

  15. 15  Merkur  October 2, 2007, 7:52 am 

    Hopefully, we can all agree that Iraqis are the ones we want doing the reconstruction and security for their country.

    Although the Iraqis would of course prefer it if the contracts for reconstruction were given to Iraqi companies, since that would support the national economy, be more cost-effective, improve local capacity and increase the ownership of reconstruction. Unfortunately beggars can’t be choosers.

  16. 16  Doug Brooks  August 3, 2008, 2:06 pm 

    Steven,

    Thanks for your response. I hope I can address your key points adequately.

    PBS got it wrong. They actually interviewed me for 40 minutes for that piece, but I was left on the cutting room floor (story of my life!). However the interview is on their web site in transcript form. Also, I appeared on a forum in New York with the producers, and you may find that interesting (or tedious) http://fora.tv/2006/03/23/Priv.....ign_Policy.

    The Department of Defense has been coming out with detailed information on their own contractors as a result of Congressional legislation:

    U.S. Department of Defense contractor numbers from the Pentagon Office for
    Program Support as of January 2008 (note this does not include Department of
    State, USAID, UK Ministry of Defence, Washington Post, etc.):

    Total CENTCOM contractors 260,000 (all contractors including PSCs)
    All Contractors:

    Iraq – 155,000
    Afghanistan – 30,000

    Iraq – PSCs (Private Security Companies):
    Total number: 6068
    7.5% US citizen
    65.5% TCN (Third Country National)
    27% HCN (Host Country National)

    Afghanistan – PSCs:
    Total number: 3,152
    0.2% US citizen
    0.1% TCN
    99.7% HCN

    Those numbers don’t break down the larger contractor numbers, but those numbers are mostly the people doing reconstruction which are overwhelmingly locals (you don’t import Americans to pour concrete in Iraq!).

    As a rule of thumb, companies will use as many locals as they are allowed to within their contracts (if the required skills sets are available). The oversight and contract compliance aspects are generally ex-pats, but in really dangerous places like Iraq they try to use locals for that work as well. Using locals brings all sorts of advantages in costs, language skills, local knowledge, catering issues etc.

    Even beyond the fact that hiring locals supports economic development and helps rebuild communities, it just makes competitive sense. Any company trying to use TCNs or Westerners for the bulk of their contracts *will* be underbid by companies that do use locals.

    Finally, we talk to our IPOA member companies all the time about their operations and they do work with large numbers of Iraqis. I also spent time in Iraq seeing for myself.

    “Do you have happier stories of your members’ participation in humanitarian rescue, disaster relief, etc?”

    Lots! Glad you asked. Every base in Darfur used by the AU peacekeepers was built, run, supplied and maintained by private contractors, as were most of their helicopters (the UN has a whole new set of problems that we don’t have to go into). In my own academic field research in Sierra Leone in late 2000 I found that despite 17,000 UN peacekeepers, the bulk of things getting done (moved, rebuilt, supplied, fixed etc.) were by a small number of contractors. As far as security contractors, the UN happily uses them to guard their HQs, warehouses and other facilities. And in East Africa even refugee and IDP camps utilize private security (mostly unarmed). I can go on, but you might find IPOA’s Journal of International Peace Operations useful to understanding this concept – http://www.PeaceOps.com (free download, all past issues available too).

    Deep apologies for the term “Peace Operations” – that is an academic term covering a range of activities in international peacekeeping, peace enforcement etc. Found on the Free Dictionary:

    “A broad term that encompasses peacekeeping operations and peace enforcement operations conducted in support of diplomatic efforts to establish and maintain peace. Also called PO. See also peace building; peace enforcement; peacekeeping; and peacemaking.
    -Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defence 2005.”

    At the time we founded IPOA, I was an academic. Hence the name. A newer (and less provocative?) term is what the Pentagon uses for these companies, “Contingency Contractors”. We’re fine with that one too if you prefer.

    “Perhaps you can assure us that you think it would be a good idea if all IPOA members were subject to the laws of the country employing them?”

    Hell yes! All the local employees already are under local laws and always have been (i.e. 2/3s of contractors in Iraq; 90%+ in Afghanistan). All companies that operate abroad expect to operate under the laws of the state they are in – if the legal systems exist.

    However, there are realities in contingency operations that have to be taken into account. Firms are not keen to put their non-local staff under legal systems that are not generally recognized as fair and just by the larger international community (the big humanitarian NGOs agree on this point). The Iraqi legal system has come a long way in the past 5 years, but I’m not sure we’d feel comfortable if our friends and relatives from the West working on the reconstruction were submitted to it at this time (you may have a rosier view of the speed of the reconstruction than I on this).

    Having said that, some Western companies are working for the Iraqi government and for Iraqi companies and thus are under the Iraqi legal system already with no significant problems yet. Ultimately, all the companies will be under Iraqi law, as they should. Nevertheless, in *any* international operation in a weak or failed state there has to be safeguards for the international staff doing the work until the legal system is sorted out. Darfur comes to mind . . .

    Hope that’s useful.

    -doug



stevenpoole.net

hit parade

    guardian articles


    older posts

    archives



    blogroll