« United 93 | Main | This Is Our War »
May 2, 2006
Let Blackwater Loose in Darfur
The executives of one of the most well-known private security firms, Blackwater, have offered to provide a brigade of peacekeepers in Darfur, if only someone will pay for it. [hat-tip: Arts and Letters Daily]
A few weeks ago, at an international special forces conference in Jordan, Black announced that his company could deploy a small rapid-response force to conflicts like the one in Sudan. ''We're low cost and fast," Black said, ''the question is, who's going to let us play on their team?"In other words, the private security firms need something other than cash to pay for their peacekeeping; they need some sort of legitimacy. But legitimacy for what? Invasions? The establishment of private empires of sorts?
What companies like Blackwater are proposing to do in Darfur today is very different from the combat missions of a decade ago. ''We have no interest in offensive operations," says Taylor flatly. Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, the industry's trade association, agrees: ''[Executive Outcomes] and Sandline were supporting offensive combat operations. I don't think that'll happen again, and certainly not that way."No one questions that firms like Blackwater would excel at providing this service cheaply and professionally.Today, private military companies are offering defensive services-they propose to secure refugee camps and vulnerable villages, guard humanitarian aid agencies and NGOs, or, depending on the requirements of the contract, assist peacekeepers like the African Union troops in Darfur.
There's little question that companies like Blackwater could be more effective operationally than the African Union, which has been hampered by its peacekeepers' lack of command and control experience. Private military companies boast a roster of former special forces officers and law enforcement officers who are accustomed to volatile conflict and post-conflict areas like Sudan.The essential problem is unique to the international system: horrific events, like genocide, which occur within the boundaries of a given state, are seen as being within the sovereign bounds of that state, and the territorial sovereignty of any given state, in our current system, is sacrosanct. Only the society of states, embodied in a number of international institutions, can choose to violate that precious sovereignty. Cries of "Never again" then seem to pale so long as that which prompts them is confined to one state. Intrastate genocide becomes, ironically, a sort of externality of the international system.Blackwater also subjects all of its personnel to an impressive array of extra training-whether they're training to work in Baghdad or the firm's North Carolina headquarters. They take classes in international humanitarian law, leadership, ethics, regional awareness, and ''customs and traditions." They've recently approached Amnesty International about teaching human rights education classes. And the International Peace Operations Association boasts that its code of conduct was written by human rights lawyers.
The industry also claims that it's far cheaper than its multilateral or military counterparts. ''We offer the ability to create a right-sized solution-which creates a cost savings right off the bat," says Taylor. By contrast, Brooks notes, ''NATO is insanely expensive; it's not a cost-effective organization. Neither is the [African Union]. Private companies would be much, much cheaper. When we compared their costs to most UN operations, we came up with 10 to 20 percent of what the UN would normally charge."
And so the handwringers worry over how to stop such ghastly events while still maintaining the territorial sovereignty of states.
There is no easy solution.
Blackwater though, seeks to insert itself due to one particular detail of the particular externality of Darfur. Namely, no powerful state in the world has any inherent national interest in preventing the killing there, except solely out of a sense of altruism. Blackwater offers to solve the problem for them, if only someone will pay for it all.
Here's several ways that Blackwater can raise the capital necessary to fund the Darfur peacekeeping mission, and really score a PR coup at the same time:
Option 1: Pro Bono
First announce that the mission in Darfur will be a non-profit venture. The troops and overhead will be paid for, but the firm itself will make no profit from the enterprise. Call it private security pro bono if you will. Then ask states to fund the cost.
Option 2: The Wealthy Donor Option
Go the non-profit route again. This time though, approach several wealthy individuals for support. How many Hollywood millioinaires turned out for Live8 last year? Ask them to put their money where their mouth is. Most will decline you. When they do, shame them publicly. The publicity alone will attract other wealthy donors. You know, the steel magnate from Pittsburgh, who's retired now, and already given plenty of dough to his alma mater. Or the guy in the heartland somewhere who made his fortune in mousetraps. Ask for $100 million and tell the donors that they might get a building named for them if they give that much to an insitution, but here, they'll be a footnote in history and maybe a city in Africa will carry their legacy. Be creative.
Option 3: The Paypal Option
Go to the world. Again, make it pro bono/non-profit. Ask for private donations to fund peacekeeping in Darfur. If the US public can give a billion or so in a few weeks for tsunami relief, it can certainly cough up several million to stop a genocide. Plus, none of it has to be sifted through the sticky fingers of [insert international body here]. And it'll be tax-deductible!
Finally, PR is key. Hire a bunch of bloggers to embed (ahem: my email address is in the sidebar). The journos should be all over you already. If firms like Blackwater are half as good as they claim, the immediate effects of their intervention, properly publicized, should spur further contributions in a sort of virtuous cycle.
Now take any of the above three choices and mix and match until you have enough dough to support your operations for an extended period. After you get going, your success might be shameful enough to the society of states that they start to cough up institutional money to continue your mission. All told, the private firm comes out ahead and does a good bit to shake the image of "mercenary" that seems to dog the industry.
In case you haven't noticed, each of these involves the non-profit angle. It seems that any for-profit option would have a very hard time gaining legitimacy, unless it was funded by Sudan's neighbors, or perhaps on an installment plan, by the people in Darfur themselves -- though that might be an exceptionally long installment.
Notably, it is the very same people who most loudly proclaim, "never again", who will also most loudly protest private efforts to stop the death. Perhaps actions will be perceived to speak louder than words if things are orchestrated with a bit of savvy and elan . . .
In diplomacy, business, and life, much is made of "the art of the deal." This is a situation that is crying out for a deal to be brokered between a variety of players. Something much greater than wealth will accrue to the person who can put all the pieces together in this situation: a guaranteed place in history.
Posted by Chester at May 2, 2006 9:44 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theadventuresofchester.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/864
Comments
Where's the Hollywood crowd and their big fat wallets when you need them...
Posted by: Dinah Lord at May 3, 2006 1:23 PM
In answer to the previous commenter...the Hollywood crowd just wants to bloviate and feel good. God forbid they actually extend themselves in a way that would matter.
Darfur is a horrible situation...but I am reluctant to see even indirect American involvement if there is any possibility of a deal with China on handling the Iran situation. I tend to think that there is not, but the attempt must be made. We cannot be everywhere, or help everyone.
That said, on to Chester's main point. Blackwater in Sudan...Nothing is new under the sun. It sounds like what we're talking about here is some sort of modern equivalent of the East India Company crossed with the old private mercenary armies of 1950's Africa. Sounds like a good idea even. If our enemies, and all the other assorted pirates and no-goods that inhabit the modern world want to use non-state forms, then it follows that the forces of order and good must figure out practical ways to employ them also.
The US government, among others, already dabbles in this area -- contracted security and training in Iraq. Given the constraints on use of American military forces, the use of such instruments is only going to increase. (Aside: I have always wondered why the US doesn't raise a Foreign Legion. We have many of the same issues today that prompted Louis-Phillipe to raise the French Foreign Legion. I keep meaning to blog on this).
We will want to think on unintended consequences of private peacekeeping forces, however. I can easily envision ways in which entities similar to Blackwater can be, and no doubt will be, used for unpleasant and undesired purposes.
Posted by: El Jefe Maximo at May 3, 2006 7:08 PM
Seems to be one other reason Blackwater would want to do Darfur, and it is to rectify its PR situation. Most people associate Blackwater with the image of American corpses swinging from a crossbeam somewhere in Fallujah....
Posted by: k. pablo at May 3, 2006 9:27 PM
Blackwater is not offering to "stop the killing." It is basically offering to run security at some refugee camps and guard aid workers. If that was all that was necessary to stop the genocide, genocides and mass killings would be a lot rarer in the world today.
If you think a brigade of former special ops guys could effectively secure a war-torn region the size of Texas peopled by literally dozens of groups, some fighting each other, some not, all of whom look alike and all of whom are armed --- you seriously need to have your head examined.
Posted by: tequila at May 4, 2006 1:07 PM
About 200 special ops guys overthrew the government of Sierra Leone in the early 90s, also an example of a private military at work in Africa. Blackwater has offered to provide security. Classic peacekeeping. I think they know that it would work, otherwise they wouldn't offer to do it.
Posted by: Chester at May 4, 2006 5:50 PM
Chester - I posted several things along these same lines at QandO when they commented on the same story. Paypal and tsunami relief comparisons and everything.
Great minds think alike, I guess. Maybe it has something to do with us both being influenced by Philip Bobbitt's "Shield of Achilles" and all the privatization of state responsibilities that came along with it.
Posted by: OrneryWP at May 6, 2006 3:29 PM
Chester - I posted several things along these same lines at QandO when they commented on the same story. Paypal and tsunami relief comparisons and everything.
Great minds think alike, I guess. Maybe it has something to do with us both being influenced by Philip Bobbitt's "Shield of Achilles" and all the privatization of state responsibilities that came along with it.
There was also a TCS Daily article about the same basic idea after those comments; seems like several people are getting the same ideas.
Can't wait for proxy activism to open up this option for us. If I can't drop everything to go fight in some far-off war-torn land, why not pay those who can, and some bloggers (e.g., Bill Roggio or Chester) to go embed and tell me how my money's being spent?
It just makes sense.
Posted by: OrneryWP at May 6, 2006 3:34 PM
I've been all over Sudan. You will find that relief workers don't want mercs anywhere near them. They are despised by relief people.
What mercs have done in Angola, Namibia, Congo, and elsewhere would disgust you. Unfortunatly these stories NEVER get out. Have a chat with some ex SAS or Legionair people who worked for Executive Outcomes and you will understand. These bastard criminals should be hunted down in their homes and killed!
Either fight for what you believe in or don't bother. We have been risking our lives and dieing for decades helping the innocent without any help at all. It would be nice to have honorable help but not mercs....I would be tempted to kill them myself.
Posted by: Salmineo at May 7, 2006 12:32 AM
I've been all over Sudan. You will find that relief workers don't want mercs anywhere near them. They are despised by relief people.
What mercs have done in Angola, Namibia, Congo, and elsewhere would disgust you. Unfortunatly these stories NEVER get out. Have a chat with some ex SAS or Legionair people who worked for Executive Outcomes and you will understand. These bastard criminals should be hunted down in their homes and killed!
Either fight for what you believe in or don't bother. We have been risking our lives and dieing for decades helping the innocent without any help at all. It would be nice to have honorable help but not mercs....I would be tempted to kill them myself.
Posted by: Salmineo at May 7, 2006 12:32 AM
Salmineo -
Wait, you're saying it's worse to have mercs there than to leave those people wide open to genocide?
Now, I don't have the slightest clue how to get in contact with an ex-SAS operative who worked for EO, and I'm not particularly inclined to take someone's word for it -- especially when he won't provide any details. I'm particularly suspicious when someone says, "Unfortunatly these stories NEVER get out." Are you joking? International relief workers are having trouble getting their story about atrocities out?
Your suggestion to "[e]ither fight for what you believe in or don't bother" isn't good enough. In many situations we can't put Green Berets on the ground for all kinds of reasons, and even if we could put the UN peacekeepers on the ground, I fear they could complicate the situation even more (as they did in Bosnia), especially because of their limited ROE.
How about this: we pay for mercenaries, and we -- as paying customers, of course -- place them under scrutiny by paying bloggers and other imbedded people to follow them, take video and pictures, and report on their behavior.
If they were irresponsible before, they won't be when their paying clients are watching. That's the power of accountability for you.
Posted by: OrneryWP at May 8, 2006 9:40 AM