Private Peacekeeping

[JoS]

What does everyoen thnk of the idea of private companies supplying the peacekeeping forces to the UN for their missions, ratehr than nations sending troops. As mucha s 75% of the UN budget is spent on peacekeeping, and most troops sent for this task are undertrained and under equiped. They do not have the tools or training to do the job theya re tasked with often, and western countries are eager to say that whats going on is bad, but unwilling to send in their own troops to stop it. If we simply send in Private Military Comapnies to do the task (ruels of engagement and mission still defined by the UNSC) we solve two problems. First you now have a capable, well trained and fully equiped fighting force to meet the needs of the UNSC and two, we dont have to worry about the loss of political will of countries to send in their troops but pull them out when someone dies.

International Peace Operations Association

[AapoJoki]

Huge problem: a private peacekeeping army would have their own commercial interests, and wouldn't do their job properly when it might cut down their profit somehow, no matter how enormous the need to keep peace in that area is. They would only take tasks based on how lucrative they are, not how necessary they are.

Plus, I hate the way companies, governments and other institutions outsource everything, shifting responsibility to someone that can't handle it. Technical support and customer service are one thing, but peacekeeping is way too important to delegate to someone who tries to profit from it.

[stafffighter]

Well philosophical oppisision to hiring people to kill is negated by the fact that joining the army is applying to be paid to kill people. However I am of the thought that the kind if power needed to meaningfully solve military events shouldn't be in private hands. If the government troops are underequipped and poorly trianed then sending someone else who has gear and training is solving the wrong problem

[Memorize]

Well, if I was in charge of the US, I wouldn't trust the UN with anything. Considering what happend after we handed Somalia over to them...

[stafffighter]

At 12/27/06 09:42 PM, Techware wrote: Well, if I was in charge of the US, I wouldn't trust the UN with anything. Considering what happend after we handed Somalia over to them...

Consider the mess we made of Iraq without them. Military solutions have to come through government and world government filters. These are complicated ordeals. And if a situation is worth sending people to die then yes send soldiers. What the life of a hired gun dosen't count against the generals score?

[TheMason]

At 12/27/06 09:45 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 12/27/06 09:42 PM, Techware wrote: Well, if I was in charge of the US, I wouldn't trust the UN with anything. Considering what happend after we handed Somalia over to them...

Consider the mess we made of Iraq without them. Military solutions have to come through government and world government filters. These are complicated ordeals. And if a situation is worth sending people to die then yes send soldiers. What the life of a hired gun dosen't count against the generals score?

Actually, if the US didn't do anything in Iraq then the UN would be meaningless. Since 1991 the UN has been telling Saddam no, and then not doing anything when he disregarded their sanctions and resolutions. (Don't forget how wealthy Koffi Anon's son got administering the UN's oil for food program.) However, when the US exercised its athourity to invade Iraq the UN was so fractured that its involvement in post-War Iraq has done nothing to help.

The truth of the matter is that the US handled nation building much better without the UN. Look at Germany and Japan. Korea has had UN involvement, but there it has been largely US driven. But in Somalia, Rwanda and now the Sudan the UN has proven itself to be largely incompetent.

But private peacekeepers are an interesting idea. At the moment I don't think there would be any shortage of work for these mercs. Furthermore, it would be likely that this force would be made up of US, UK, ROK, German and other special forces operators who are highly trained, more educated and best equipped to deal with peace keeping missions. Furthermore, it would provide a readily deployable force that would not be subject to the national debates and concerns that caused the US to pull out of Somalia and the UN to hesitate to deploy to Rwanda.

However, I think we should also look into delivering arms to the unarmed who are victims of armed thugs. Not fighters, bombers or tanks but weapons that would put them on-par on the ground with those who would committ genocide.

I think its a wonderful idea if done privately we would'nt have to deal with all the debating bullshit and go right into the action. Really it would lift a heavey burden off the west aswell I have personally thought of this idea for a while now.

[jeremiah-bullfrog]

Yeah thats right lets put the power in whoever can afford the largest army why Bill Gates could be the next Patton or Hitler just imagine...

[stafffighter]

At 12/27/06 10:48 PM, zeus-almighty wrote: I think its a wonderful idea if done privately we would'nt have to deal with all the debating bullshit and go right into the action.

The debate is needed in order to decide what consitutes action and what would throw lives away needlessly or make all the wrong enemies.

[TheMason]

At 12/27/06 11:25 PM, jeremiah-bullfrog wrote: Yeah thats right lets put the power in whoever can afford the largest army why Bill Gates could be the next Patton or Hitler just imagine...

Dude, read the post more carefully. What the topic starter is proposing is the outsourcing of UN peacekeeping missions to private companies. This is something that the US is doing in Iraq, so it is not without precedent. Furthermore, they would not be private armies that are accountable only to their company's CEO but would be under the auspices of the UN...

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/27/06 09:28 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Huge problem: a private peacekeeping army would have their own commercial interests, and wouldn't do their job properly when it might cut down their profit somehow..

hmm.. I'm kinda with Aapo on this one.

On the face of it, it's a really neat and simple solution to privatise everything (police, army, prisons, etc) but the commercial imperative is usually to make more money, not get things done. Contracting out for services achieve reasonable results by tendering to the lowest cost for "satifactory" job completion (infrastructure / construction) which can be easily verified (materials, safety standards) by inspection.

With policing there's a trend towards quota systems, where case loads are being measured "per job" where crime (arrests) and infringement (ticketing) are used to validate police numbers (job security). A worsening trend is advance quotas for ticketing (revenue gathering) and email or memos to the effect that "if we don't meet quotas, we face losing funding".

With peacekeeping you would need some way to measure the peace (temporary thou it may be) and know that peacekeepers wern't adding to tensions, fanning the flames, to eek out a longer tour of duty. Most important would be the requirement for absolutely neutrality. If the tendering was to "secure the peace (ASAP) in an effective and lasting way without using excessive violence." then you'd need very detailed "job description" with just about every contingency considered. Finally you'd need independant verification, and perhaps "relapse insurance" (security of order guarantees) before security could be handed off to local forces.

There are so many uncertanties with war, and the profit motive just seems a hard one to factor out (Halliburton's military contracts from the Iraqi invasion come to mind). Now if the peacekeepers were wholely independant not-for-profit "do-gooder" organizations, then that would be a whole different story!

[jeremiah-bullfrog]

At 12/27/06 11:31 PM, TheMason wrote:

Dude, read the post more carefully. What the topic starter is proposing is the outsourcing of UN peacekeeping missions to private companies. This is something that the US is doing in Iraq, so it is not without precedent. Furthermore, they would not be private armies that are accountable only to their company's CEO but would be under the auspices of the UN...

yeah private companies is the key word there your still giving the ceo the power and you are right the US is doing that right now *cough*Dick Cheney*cough*Halliburton*cough*... oh wow excuse me I had a bad cough there

[Memorize]

At 12/27/06 09:45 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Consider the mess we made of Iraq without them. Military solutions have to come through government and world government filters. These are complicated ordeals. And if a situation is worth sending people to die then yes send soldiers. What the life of a hired gun dosen't count against the generals score?

Unless of course, it doesn't work out in your favor, then you complain about "Too much red tape!". So really, it's a lose-lose. Or was I just imagining this when around 80% of the population which had the same info that Bush had said "INVADE!".

[qygibo]

I dunno. Right now we're having a difficult time trusting private companies in order to help build the infrastructure in Iraq right now, what with all the corruption and all--I'd be very wary to trust a private company to be in charge of peacekeeping.

[JoS]

Okay let me address teh several concerns brought up here.

I highly doubt the contractors would be cutting corners. Theya re ebing paid to do the job and in the contract you put what they ahve to do. When governemtns send troops they often do not send them with enough ammo or supplies (mainly developing nations who send most of the troops). These companies already have their own helicopters, APCs, transport planes and hosts of other goodies most countries do not have. They have a vested interest in providing a good service if they ever want another contract again.

On the issue of theya re just doing this for profit. Developing nations dont do this out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it for the money and for the experience for their troops. Isnt money just as good of motive as any other? Why does it really matter anyways what the motives are? They clearly dont have any hidden agendas like countries do.

The UN already outsources the running of refugee camps, why not peacekeeping? We wont have to worry about passing a resolution but no one being willing to send troops to back it up. If countries know that when the UNSC passes a resoltuion that there is someone with a big gun to actually back it up. When you throw in a mix of different nations togetehr you end up with a mish-mash of loyalties, and hostilities between countries that are supposed to be together.

[TheMason]

At 12/27/06 11:39 PM, jeremiah-bullfrog wrote: yeah private companies is the key word there your still giving the ceo the power and you are right the US is doing that right now *cough*Dick Cheney*cough*Halliburton*cough*... oh wow excuse me I had a bad cough there

Interesting point; you have a situation in the US where the President and VP are themselves intimately tied with CEOs. However, this isn't limited to the Republicans because the Democrats are just as tied to corporate interests. In fact the Gore family owes its fortune to the oil industry as the Bush family. But I'm going off on a tagent.

But one would NOT be giving the CEO any real power. The company would have signed a contract with the UN (or US) in which what it can or cannot do. This contract could be pulled for breach of contract or (as has happened with the US in Iraq) fraud is uncovered.

At this point however, the UN response to humanitarian crises is broken. They are not an effective force in responding to genocides, famines and tsunamis. Something else needs to be done.

[Der-Ubermensch]

Private companies usually cater to the highest bidder. What would stop any abuse of power on their part? Regulating such companies would make them yet another branch of the government by default. What would be the point?

[Der-Ubermensch]

Hmm.. I'm too blase and cynical to rely on the so-called "morality" of others.

[MortifiedPenguins]

So basically send in Mercanery forces.

You do realize that they would be a businness and would ultimately look for the easiest method of success, whether that be legal, questionable or highly illegal.

[The-evil-bucket]

And I'm sure a thousand PMC's are just wating to send in troops. Suppose those troops are undertrained and underequipeted?

[JoS]

At 12/28/06 08:02 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: So basically send in Mercanery forces.

You do realize that they would be a businness and would ultimately look for the easiest method of success, whether that be legal, questionable or highly illegal.

There mission is outlined by the UNSC, what kind of force they can use and when. The mission is dictated by the UNSC, the PMC just carries out these orders.

Sure they may be alot of PMC's wanting to send in troops, but you give the contracts to the oens you know can do the job, like HART Security or BlackWater.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/28/06 01:41 PM, JoS wrote:

At 12/28/06 08:02 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Sure they may be alot of PMC's wanting to send in troops, but you give the contracts to the oens you know can do the job, like HART Security or BlackWater.

And what stops them from using rather unsavory but effective tactics such as torture, genocide or using weapons that are banned due to the Geneva Convention.

[LazyDrunk]

At 12/28/06 02:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/28/06 01:41 PM, JoS wrote:

At 12/28/06 08:02 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Sure they may be alot of PMC's wanting to send in troops, but you give the contracts to the oens you know can do the job, like HART Security or BlackWater.

And what stops them from using rather unsavory but effective tactics such as torture, genocide or using weapons that are banned due to the Geneva Convention.

Threats of non-unilateral warnings detailing exactly how much the UN condemns such actions. Duh, works every time.

[Goldensheep]

Isn't there a conflict of interest present? If the UN were paying private firms, they would have to pick a firm(s). Each country's government would want their national firms used for whatever reason (economic, pride e.t.c). Thus whoever the UN picked, they would offend someone.

[JoS]

At 12/28/06 02:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: And what stops them from using rather unsavory but effective tactics such as torture, genocide or using weapons that are banned due to the Geneva Convention.

The threat of losing a multi-million dollar contract? Why would they use soemthing that banned by the UN when its the UN who is paying them? Do you think they woudl want to risk losing millions if not billions in contracts witht he UN?

[The-evil-bucket]

At 12/28/06 04:33 PM, JoS wrote:

The threat of losing a multi-million dollar contract? Why would they use soemthing that banned by the UN when its the UN who is paying them? Do you think they woudl want to risk losing millions if not billions in contracts witht he UN?

But who would make sure that they followed those contracts? UN peacekeepers?

[TheMason]

At 12/28/06 04:42 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 12/28/06 04:33 PM, JoS wrote:

The threat of losing a multi-million dollar contract?

But who would make sure that they followed those contracts? UN peacekeepers?

The scariest special operators known to the universe: lawyers.

[JoS]

At 12/28/06 04:42 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 12/28/06 04:33 PM, JoS wrote:

The threat of losing a multi-million dollar contract? Why would they use soemthing that banned by the UN when its the UN who is paying them? Do you think they woudl want to risk losing millions if not billions in contracts witht he UN?

But who would make sure that they followed those contracts? UN peacekeepers?

If a UN contractor is tortring people or using banend weapons, it will amke the press, people will know. Here is a fun thing though, when we send in government troops and they torture people or use banend weapons, what happens to them. NOTHING. A corperation has much mor eon the line than a country and as such is more likely to stay in-line.

People seemed to be unnerved by the fact that theyw oudl be doign it for profit not out of the goodneess of their hearts. Its a load of crap if you think any country does peacekeeping out of the goodness of their hearts. Atleast with a corperation doign the peacekeeping we dont have to worry about hidden motives,a nd there are easy ways to deal with them if they are fucking aroudn not doing what they are supposed to be doing. There are a dozen companies willing to take their place and do the same contract, thats incentive to do a good job. There arent lines of countries willing to fulfill a UN mandate, you send hoema coutnry for fucking up and no one takes their place.

[TheMason]

At 12/28/06 07:40 PM, JoS wrote:

If a UN contractor is tortring people or using banend weapons, it will amke the press, people will know. Here is a fun thing though, when we send in government troops and they torture people or use banend weapons, what happens to them. NOTHING. A corperation has much mor eon the line than a country and as such is more likely to stay in-line.

Exactly, contracts can be broken if one side commits a breach. The PMCs simply do not get paid if they violate the terms of the contract. Furthermore, these PMCs would be comprised of prior-service soldiers who:
1) Have the necessary training and skills.
2) Have a code of ethics and sense of professionalism.

People seemed to be unnerved by the fact that theyw oudl be doign it for profit not out of the goodneess of their hearts.

In some ways money may be a superior motivator. A army is trained to gain and hold ground for a country. Therefore their motivation is based upon nationalism, whereas a PMC is about the profit motive. If there is no money the PMC will leave, whereas a government force will most likely stay past their welcome.

Also when I joined the Air Force I got $13,000 in cash as a bonus. Then I got a salary of about $20,000 when I went back to school under an USAF program. I also got $10,000 paid towards my student loans. On top of that I the military paid $7,200 towards my masters. Now that I'm in the Air Natl. Guard I get another $15,500 cash bonus for re-enlisting. I'm getting a $20,000 student loan payoff through the Air Guard as well as the Guard's GI Bill which is $300 a month for up to 36 months.

So grand total I'm getting for my 'volunteer' military service:
$96,500.

This outside of my regular salary, housing allowance and food allowance.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/28/06 04:33 PM, JoS wrote:

At 12/28/06 02:33 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

The threat of losing a multi-million dollar contract? Why would they use soemthing that banned by the UN when its the UN who is paying them? Do you think they woudl want to risk losing millions if not billions in contracts witht he UN?

What happens if they can find something more valuable then UN money that might not get to them untill a couple of years.

You know like natural wealth, or having the power to rule a small nation.