Submission from War on Want
THE NEED
FOR REGULATION
OF PRIVATE
MILITARY SECURITY
COMPANIES
1. War on Want and private military security
companies
1.1 War on Want fights global poverty in
developing countries in partnership and solidarity with people
affected by globalisation. We campaign for human rights, especially
workers' rights, and against the root causes of global poverty,
inequality and injustice.
1.2 In 2006, War on Want published its groundbreaking
report Corporate Mercenaries which detailed the rapid expansion
of private military and security companies (PMSCs).[153]
The report exposed how British firms are significant players in
the industry and called on the UK government to introduce legislation
to regulate PMSCs as a matter of urgency. There are currently
tens of thousands of mercenaries working for PMSCs outside legal
or democratic control. War on Want believes legislation needs
to be introduced to outlaw PMSC involvement in all forms of direct
combat and combat support (understood in the broadest sense) and
that self-regulation by the industry is not a viable option. Our
report won the support of over 100 Members of Parliament.[154]
1.3 Following a series of high-profile human
rights abuses by PMSCs operating in Iraq, in 2008 War on
Want produced the briefing Getting Away With Murder which
further highlighted human rights abuses by British PMSC firms.[155]
War on Want also put pressure on the government by taking steps
to judicially review the government's decision to delay the publication
of a consultation on the regulation of PMSCs.
1.4 War on Want was therefore initially
heartened to hear that after a seven-year delay, the UK government
was finally revealing its plan for dealing with the industry in
a consultation published in late April 2009. However, we were
deeply dismayed when we saw the government's recommendation that
mercenary groups will be left to sign up to a voluntary code of
conduct allowing them to police their own operations. Self-regulation
could leave civilians in war zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq
exposed to further abuse by mercenaries working for British firms.
The UK troops' planned withdrawal from Iraq increases the need
for strict regulation of mercenaries who will still work there
and in other war zones.
2. Self-regulation: the worst possible option
2.1 Launching the consultation in April
2009, the Foreign Secretary praised PMSCs for their "important
role" alongside British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
hailed the industry as "essential" for Britain's future
military operations abroad.[156]
He did not mention the hundreds of allegations of human rights
abuses committed by mercenaries over the past six years in Iraq,
including mercenaries working for UK group Erinys opening fire
on a taxi near Kirkuk and wounding three civilians, employees
of UK company Aegis Defence Services randomly shooting civilian
cars out of the back of their vehicle on the road to Baghdad airport,
the involvement of private military contractors in the Abu Ghraib
torture scandal and the Blackwater killings, which left 17 Iraqis
dead.
2.2 The government's decision to recommend
self-regulation of the industry and only allow this one option
to be subject to the public consultation flies in the face of
the growing consensus on the need for robust regulation of the
industry, This is even more remarkable given the about turn of
the government's position on this issue. In 2002, the government
published a green paper on PMSCs that set out six possible options.
These ranged from a ban on all military activity by such groups
to a licensing or registration system similar to that used for
approving arms sales. A voluntary code of self-regulation was
mentioned as a minimum form of action that could be taken, but
the government noted it "would not meet one of the main
objectives of regulation", namely the need to avoid a
situation in which British mercenaries were hired to support a
cause that was hostile to UK interests. The government also noted
that self regulation by an industry association would be problematic
"because of an inability to be sure exactly what was going
on abroad; or if it was obliged to discipline one or more of its
important members".[157]
2.3 The Foreign Affairs Select Committee
also dismissed the idea of self-regulation as "insufficient
to regulate the private military industry",[158]
a position backed by more than 100 MPs from all parties.[159]
The committee pressed for a complete ban on combat activity by
mercenary soldiers, as well as a register of all PMSCs and a licensing
system for individual contracts.
2.4 Despite its declared reservations on
self-regulation, a voluntary code has now emerged as the government's
preferred option. The government has proposed a code of conduct
to be drawn up jointly with the PMSCs themselves and monitored
through the British Association of Private Security Companies.
This is the industry body that was set up to provide legitimacy
and PR for mercenary groups seeking to rebrand themselves as the
respectable "private security" sector. This is hardly
a choice to inspire confidence among those who have suffered at
the industry's hands.
2.5 The government's 2002 Green Paper
already flagged up how ineffective such self-policing would be—not
just because of the obvious drawbacks of asking an industry association
to discipline its own members, but also because of the nature
of the private military industry itself. The industry is operational
in the most difficult of situations, conflict zones and PMSCs
are often instructed to work in volatile areas where violence
is prevalent. Mercenaries working for PMSCs regularly come under
fire or engage in firefights. This had led to some notable human
rights abuses by contractors working for PMSCs.
3. The need for robust legislation
3.1 War on Want believes the decision to
reject all forms of regulation is a dereliction of duty on the
government's part. It is also out of step with the positive action
being taken by other states to crack down on PMSCs. Both the Iraqi
and Afghan governments have passed laws restricting or banning
private military groups while President Obama himself has been
one of the USA's most outspoken critics of the industry's lack
of accountability. The United Notions working group on mercenaries
has repeatedly called for governments where PMSCs are incorporated
(such as the UK) to introduce legislation to regulate the private
military sector and to guard against the "inherent dangers"
of privatising the use of violence in war zones.[160]
3.2 In the USA strident steps have been
taken to legislate on this issue which puts the British government's
record to shame. In 2007 the United States House of Congress
passed the Expansion and Enforcement Act of 2007 which clarified
USA jurisdiction to prosecute contractors of all USA agencies
operating near a conflict area. The Bill established an FBI unit
to investigate incidents of use of force by contractors and requires
the Department of Justice to publicly report on its handling of
cases of contractor crime which are referred to it. President
Obama then introduced companion legislation in the Senate, the
Security Contractor Accountability Act of 2007 (S. 2147).
In April 2009, the Transparency and Accountability in Security
Contracting Act was introduced which would ban PMSCs from participating
directly in battle or interrogating detainees. It would also require
companies to provide detailed reports on their operations, which
would then be stored on a state database for all security contracts,
including costs and casualties. If contractors violate USA and
international law they would be barred.
3.3 The British government has jettisoned
all the available regulatory options in favour of the worst possible
alternative: a voluntary code which, by definition, companies
are free to ignore if they wish. Legally binding regulation is
the only meaningful way to hold this controversial industry to
account.
3.4 We urge the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
to reject the voluntary self regulation option proposed by the
government and demand proper regulation of the private military
industry.
Yasmin Khan
Senior Campaigns Officer, War on Want
153 Corporate Mercenaries, War on Want, November
2006. Can be downloaded from
www.waronwant.org/campaigns/corporations-and-conflict/corporate-mercenaries
Back
154
EDM 690, Session 2006-07 laid on 22 January 2007 Back
155
Getting Away With Murder, War on Want, February 2008. Can
be downloaded from
www.waronwant.org/campaigns/corporations-and-conflict/corporate-mercenaries/inform/15215-getting-away-with-murder
Back
156
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Consultation on promoting high
standards of conduct by PMSC's internationally, April 2009, p5 Back
157
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Private Military Companies: Options
for Regulation, 2002, para 76 Back
158
Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2001-02,
Private Military Companies, para 137 Back
159
http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=32378&SESSION=885 Back
160
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/mercenaries/index.htm Back
| 
