Re: Mercs as Peacekeepers

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomb" <tomb@dreammechanics.com>
> I have a buddy that works at the Canadian Peace Support Training
Center.
> This kind of discussion of Mercenaries as perhaps better peacekeepers
> (professionalism, lack of some of the uglier national agendas, etc)
has
> been around for a few years now. The UN also sees this in some way as
a
> chance to put forces into a situation where no main force powers wish
to
> volunteer (but they might be willing to send a check). Plus there are
> cost-efficiency arguments.

Another argument that has been put forward in recent years is to have a
small permanent UN military force that could be used for rapid
deployment.

> The keys here are supervision, clear rules of operation, clear chains
of
> command, clear terms of payment, clear standards and legal
> understandings governing PMCs.

Question is, who would be the PMC's customers ? The UN only ? How would
they
then differ from a UN force ? If there are other employers, how would
the
employers be kept in check ?

Still another point. Some of the debacles of UN mission have been blamed
on
the fact that the security council sent in forces recklessly, reacting
to
public pressure to do something about a situation, but not providing
enough
forces and giving them silly rules of engagement. This could get worse
if
the UN security council has a force it can use freely.

Lord Owen, former UN emissary, in his book "Balkan Odyssey" put forward
an
iinteresting idea. Create a UN force with contingents from the forces of
the
security council's member states. Any state that is permanently or
temporarily a member of the security council has to provide a
contingent.
Command is centralized under a UN staff. This would put a brake on
reckless
use of that force, because the politicians are sending some of their own
nation's people into harms way.

Greetings
Karl Heinz