Isn’t It Interesting?
There has been an increasing discussion in Denmark about the privatization of some military duties, including participation in military operations. This isn’t that surprising as the new Danish chief of defense has stated that he envisages a role for companies providing, what in reality are mercenaries, for combat duties. Denmark’s foreign policy changed dramatically since 9/11, and as with many other countries from the developed world, 9/11 has provided yet another reason to intervene in the developing world. As if it wasn’t enough with hundreds of years of rape, pillaging, slavery, colonization, imperialism, political and military interventions, etc., the developed world has discovered that a declining population and the unpopularity of a military draft in many countries, doesn’t give them the same military flexibility and capabilities as they have had in the past. However, rather than working within their military means, alternatives are being reviewed. Mercenaries are suddenly rediscovered as the greatest invention since sliced bread.
Isn’t it interesting? I thought the subject was, so I decided to look up the term “military intervention” in Wikipedia. Lo and behold, I was redirected to the term “peacekeeping“. This speaks volumes about relatively recent developments. There have always been attempts to find milder euphemisms for “military intervention”. Police mission is just one of them. However, new concepts were developed for how military forces could be used after the break up of the Soviet Union. One of the most persistent has been the use of military to preserve and protect the human rights of the civilian population in a conflict zone. Strategies and scenarios were developed, particularly in the Balkan conflicts, that were developed for “peacekeeping” and “peace enforcement”. One of these strategies was the use of small armored groups of soldiers, to take advantage of the landscape so that the surrounding area could be dominated by a small, well armed force, without necessarily having to use military might. Political and diplomatic considerations often needed to be addressed before a consensus could be agreed on that would place jets in the air and tanks and soldiers on the ground, often to the detriment of the civilian populations that were supposed to be protected.
Out of peacekeeping developed the strategy of “peace enforcement”. Peace enforcement is basically the same as a military intervention, but you want to call it something that sounds nicer because it is all supposed to be about protecting the civilian population. The difference in practice today is, that “peace enforcement” is still about using your own military, whereas “military intervention” is where the use of mercenaries and private “security” companies is considered as a viable option. It is also about this point where George W called in his allies – the lawyers. After all, that was how he became president in the first place. State sponsored kidnappings became “renditions”, torture became “stress positions” and irregular (guerrilla) forces became “illegal” combatants. It was also at about this point that companies like Blackwater came into the picture. Blackwater was responsible for much of the personnel at Abu Ghraib prison and for many of the random shootings of Iraqi civilians that took place.
Another problem that appears within the context of peace enforcement and military intervention is in connection with stated objectives. Some of these objectives include rebuilding infrastructure and humanitarian aid. Basically, a more advanced form of “winning hearts and minds”. The idea is to justify the legitimacy of the military operation to the civilian population by including a humanitarian element. This strategy blurs the distinction between civilian and military by either embedding humanitarian aid workers in military units, or by military personnel providing medical and other aid that is normally provided by humanitarian organizations. Embedding, whether of humanitarian aid workers or journalists, reduces the amount of independent observers that can comment on human rights violations.
What I have written above has most assuredly only scratched the surface. One issue that I haven’t covered yet is accountability. The behavior of military personnel is governed by military law, the Geneva Conventions and any mandate that comes from a United Nations resolution and the UN Charter chapters 6 & 7, but what rules govern mercenaries? I am participating in a symposium at the end of the month on this very topic, so it will be interesting to report back on this issue after the symposium.