Submission from the Campaign Against Arms
Trade
1. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT)
is working for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international
arms trade, together with progressive demilitarisation within
arms-producing countries. Since it was set up in 1974, CAAT has
monitored the situation regarding mercenaries and, more recently,
the growth of the "Corporate Mercenary" company, which
both the industry and the Government prefer to call the Private
Military and Security Company (PMSC).
2. CAAT intends to respond directly to the Foreign
and Commonwealth's consultation Promoting High Standards of Conduct
by PMSCs, but would also urge your Committee to make its own response.
Your Committee's report on the options set out in the 2002 Green
Paper were a very valuable contribution to the debate on PMSCs
and CAAT believes that a response on this occasion would be similarly
helpful.
ABDICATING RESPONSIBILITY
3. It is most disappointing that, after
a seven-year delay, the Government's proposal is so weak, abdicating
as it does responsibility to the British Association of Private
Security Companies (BAPSC). It is fine for a trade association
to "promote high standards", but this is not a substitute
for Government regulation, such as that outlined in paragraph
11.
4. PMSCs provide a wide range of services and
CAAT agrees with the Government that many of them are not of concern.
However, as the Government admits, others can have direct lethal
consequences. PMSCs have undertaken tasks which, until recently,
were reserved to national armed forces.
5. The proposals will give further legitimacy
to what is a highly contentious private industry which is ultimately
answerable only to its shareholders and owners, without introducing
public controls or accountability. The lack of a legal framework
could mean, as the Government itself pointed out in 2002 Green
Paper, that it "might be compelled to watch while a company
pursued a course that was plainly contrary to the public interest."
6. The activities of PMSCs can kill or violate
human rights. The Government would default in its duty if it passed
the burden for upholding human rights to business. It must itself
undertake the regulation of PMSCs and not exclude options on the
grounds of cost or that they impose a disproportionate burden
on small businesses.
7. If licensing was introduced, the Government
believes some companies would be likely to move their operations
offshore. The same could be said of those trading in military
equipment, but this has not prevented the Government strengthening
controls on trafficking and brokering.
8. It argues that having an approved list
of PMSCs might expose the Government to the risk of judicial review
from a PMSC excluded from it. Presumably, however, it is not beyond
the Government to set down clear conditions that a company must
meet for inclusion. Additionally, at the moment, there is a risk
of legal action against the Government for its failure to act
to prevent human rights violations perpetrated by PMSCs.
9. The Government also believes it can regulate
by means of its position as purchaser of PMSC services. This ignores
the fact that overseas governments, mining companies, media organisations,
aid agencies and others also have contracts with PMSCs. Under
the proposals there is nothing to ensure that these also "contract
only those companies that demonstrate they operate to high standards".
Even within Government, those purchasing services from PMSCs might
have a different perspective from those responsible for making
sure that the PMSCs adhere to the standards in the code of conduct.
10. To complement its work in the UK, the
Government says it will seek to extend international cooperation
on the issue, especially on the standards for companies agreed
in Montreux in September 2008. This is welcome, but, without effective
Government regulation in the UK, not sufficient. It also sets
a poor example when a major host Government for PMSCs has washed
its hands of responsibility.
IMMEDIATE STEPS
11. CAAT thinks the Government should immediately
scrap its proposal of self-regulation by BAPSC and make an alternative
proposal which includes the following features:
(a) PMSCs should be prohibited from combat and
banned from providing training, strategic advice and other support
for combat;
(b) all other PMSC services should be open to individual
licensing requirements and open to prior parliamentary and public
scrutiny. This should be complemented by an open register of PMSCs;
and
(c) the PMSCs should be made responsible under
UK law for any breaches of human rights or the laws of war that
may be committed by their employees.
12. In addition, the quarterly reports on
Strategic Export Controls should make it clear when equipment
is being exported to a PMSC, with the PMSC in question being named.
June 2009
| 
