Their Mercenary Calling

Mercenary- Hired; Venal; That may be hired; Greedy of gain; Sordid- One who is hired; A soldier hired for foreign service. (Source: Greenwich English Dictionary).

Venal, greedy for gain, sordid, soldiers hired for foreign service. All seem perfectly reasonable when applied to the growing number of so-called 'Private Military Companies' (PMC's) fighting for a share in the ever more lucrative market in global security contracts.

But what exactly are PMC's? And what is their relevance to those engaged in the peace movement and non-violent direct action?

Answer: Simple. PMC's are essentially a pseudo-respectable form of mercenary soldiers. They provide many of the services traditionally supplied by regular armed forces. Only they do so for private profit and not for any spurious claims about God, Queen and Country, or 'Defending democracy as we know it'. Services such as providing physical (and often armed) protection for aid workers, canine services (that's large, scary and probably very vicious dogs in case you were wondering) and weapons systems operators and instructors, alongside various lesser-known services.

Ex-soldiers often run the typical PMC. Usually they are former officers, preferably with experience in one or other Special Forces units. Veterans from the British Special Air Service (SAS), US Navy SEALS, Green Berets, US Rangers, Delta Force and the French Foreign Legion are particularly highly sought after, especially former officers from these units.

So, is the PMC a new phenomenon? A new idea for the 21st Century? Not really, no. Mercenary soldiers have existed in various forms for thousands of years. In fact, the profession of mercenary has been described as 'The second oldest profession'. Similar to prostitution in many respects, but only slightly younger. Not for nothing have mercenaries been pejoratively referred to as 'The Whores of War'.

In Saxon times, tribal chiefs could hire Houscarls; mercenaries who would fight to the death, even after their employer had been killed. In medieval Europe, the Italian Condottieri and Swiss Landsknechts were available to anyone who could afford their services, regardless of cause. The Ronin and Ninja of feudal Japan and the Shaolin Monks of China achieved equal notoriety, as did the Irish 'Wild Geese' of the 17th Century. In South East Asia during the 1960-70's the Hres and Hmongs in Laos, the Cambodian Nungs and the Vietnamese Montagnards fought on all sides, and often among themselves. And no history of mercenaries would be complete without at least one reference to the Gurkhas of Nepal or the notorious 'Congo mercenaries' of the 1960's. The history of the mercenary soldier is as long as it is bloody.

Today's PMC's, however, have taken a much greater role in global realpolitik than their less-than-illustrious predecessors. During the first Gulf War of 1991, there were approximately 100 service personnel per private contractor present. In Gulf War II, there were about 10 service personnel per private contractor. In fact, private contractors form the second largest contribution to the occupying forces in Iraq at this moment. War has suddenly gone from being a national crusade of nations to an opportunity for private profiteering.

Of course, globalisation has, like some malignant octopus, spread its tentacles far and wide. It may well be the case that proponents of globalisation will say "And why not? They're selling off everything else. Why not see if we can run war at a profit." Either that or they will be smart enough to keep quiet and avoid the debate entirely. Opponents will probably claim that soldiering for profit is nothing more than another case of Big Business (literally) making a killing (as though it hasn't been responsible for enough already).

PMC's are (and have been for some years) active in many of the world's major trouble spots. Sandline International, which ceased trading in April 2004, was heavily involved in the civil war in Sierra Leone, including breaches of the UN arms embargo. This was a major dent in New Labour's much-heralded (and remarkably short-lived) 'ethical foreign policy'.

Another British firm, Global Risk International, is a principal player in Iraq, providing security for Paul Bremer. Dyncorp Inc., an American firm, is currently training the new Iraqi police force. Military Professional Resources Inc., another American firm, has been active in the former Yugoslavia, and is known to have supplied arms to one of the warring factions during the civil war of the early 1990's.

Columbia has been another country to 'benefit' from the presence of PMC's, with American firms providing pilots for the mass defoliation of coca fields, and helicopter gunship escorts to protect them as they work in America's fallacious (and doomed to fail) War On Drugs. Other firms provide security for US diplomats in Israel, presidential bodyguards for Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and heavily armed private security firms provide what is euphemistically termed 'close protection' or 'physical protection' in a number of other countries world-wide. They also have their contacts in the British establishment, with Kellogg, Brown and Root (a subsidiary of US transnational corporation Halliburton) being responsible for the refit of Britain's own weapons of mass destruction at Devonport Dockyard in Plymouth, Devon. This deal in particular is already months behind schedule on refitting the first of several Trident missile submarines, which will leave the last submarine due for refit maybe two years behind schedule at the time of writing. Oh, and it is also massively over budget. The original tender was for £249 million, now costs are at £934 million and still rising. So much for the extra efficiency of the private sector.

It hasn't always been plain sailing for our be-suited mercenary chums, though. A British firm, Northbridge International, has been particularly unfortunate. It offered to send a 'special constabulary' of 60 men to arrest Liberia's former President, Charles Taylor, at a price of $4 million. It was turned down, and Northbridge also faces investigations into alleged offering of mercenaries to work in the Ivory Coast. More recently, the implication of Mark Thatcher in a plot to overthrow the government of Equatorial Guinea has thrown the spotlight firmly on those who wish their trade to be kept in the shadows.

So why have PMC's become so popular, especially with the British and American governments? There are a number of reasons for this. Mercenary forces can be easier to engage, and quicker than UN peacekeepers, whose focus is always open to change in the political climate. Mercenary units are always available if the money is right. There is also the issue of the quality differential between units of hardened professional soldiers and UN troops, many of whom come from the armies of poorer nations. Faced with a choice between hardened, experienced veterans on the one hand, and UN troops, who may well be of a lower standard and are subject to being withdrawn by their governments, it isn't hard to see which the powers-that-be will choose.

There is also a political angle to the use of PMC's. Much has been written on the so-called 'Vietnam Syndrome'. The sight of American boys being brought home in bodybags has undoubtedly been a severe restriction on the activities of the US military in particular, at least until 9/11. If, on the other hand, the bodybags brought home are those of mercenaries, then the attitude of many people is likely to be "So what? They lived by the sword, they died by the sword. What do I care?"

PMC's are also an easy way to evade the political and legal oversight over conventional military operations. British soldiers are subject to Queen's Regulations and the Manual of Military Law. American soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And most armies are subject to highly complex and explicit rules of engagement.

PMC's, on the other hand, are not subject to much regulation, if any. No tiresome complexities such as military law or rules of engagement exist to tie their hands. Being private companies, the worst that can happen is that their operatives may be indicted under the national laws of the countries in which they operate. As yet, few indictments have been forthcoming, although a few conventional soldiers have been indicted to appease public opinion. And as many of these companies operate in what are known as 'failed States', in which national law is at best somewhat notional and corruption omni-present, this is unlikely to change in the near future. It used to be the case that Americans serving with foreign armies could have their citizenship revoked under the 1870 Foreign Enlistment Act, but in today's political climate this too is highly unlikely to happen.

This next part is a piece of pure speculation on my part, but please bear with me.. If you have been on the direct action scene for any length of time it will have become obvious to you that trans-national corporations owe no great loyalty to anything (or anyone) but themselves, and particularly to the profit motive. A sort of economic fundamentalism, as it were. Quasi-religious in nature, like religious fundamentalism, but devoted entirely to free trade and the pursuit of profit above all else.

Those in the anti-globalisation movement have been heard to say that politicians are in the pocket of Big Business, and that they are merely vassals of their corporate paymasters. They are quite right in this analysis, but one feels it does not go quite far enough. If the politicians are merely the servants of Big Business, and succeed in farming out militarism to the point where they hold more sway than their political servants, then those at the top may one day decide that they don't need politicians anymore. And with vast private armies at their beck and call, what are the politicians going to do to stop the trans-nationals from creating a dictatorship based on economic fundamentalism? Answer: Nothing. Or at best very little. There would be very little they could do, if their military might was now controlled entirely by and for some group of anonymous billionaires somewhere. If trans-nationals are allowed to control the apparatus that enforces State control, then they will eventually end up controlling the State itself. A state of corporate anarchy, and not the self-governing kind many activists currently strive for, may well follow. Vast private armies, in the hands of those for whom money and power are more important than anything else, are a recipe for disaster, and a recipe for corporate dictatorship on a level unseen since the feudal days of the Middle Ages. The feudal Kings Queens, Shoguns and whatever else passed for absolute power will be replaced by the CEO, the Vice-President of Corporate Affairs, and the Chairman (or woman) of the Board. We simply cannot allow this trend to progress any further than it has done already.

So what can activists do to combat this covert, but increasingly blatant rise in militarism? There are a number of potential options available to us. Direct action, conventional lobbying and public protest can all have a part to play in any campaign. Bad publicity would be a key weapon. These companies thrive on secrecy, and are very sensitive to being labelled as mercenaries, although mercenaries are what they really are.

This not to say, however, that such action should be entered into rashly or without proper planning. PMC's by their very nature are staffed by inherently dangerous people to whom violence is second nature. Security among activists must be paramount to ensure, in so far as it is possible, their safety against reprisals. There is also the issue of accountability versus covert actions to be considered, long before actions themselves are undertaken. But there is plenty we can do, if only we are willing to do it. We would have the advantage of public opinion being very firmly on our side on this issue, an advantage that by no means all of our campaigns possess. We need to act against this menace. We need to act now.