Society
Soldiers of misfortune
Published 14 February 2008
Observations on Mercenaries
Amid the daily drip-feed of news of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, a landmark was quietly reached recently. Across the two conflicts, the amount of taxpayers' money spent on private military security companies (PMSCs) exceeded £200m and is on course to reach £250m this year.
Since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, a handful of PMSCs have shared the funds. Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act show that more than £50m was allotted to the sector last year by the Foreign Office alone.
Among the work contracted out in Iraq has been £24m to a company called Control Risks to provide "mobile security" - protecting convoys and escorting diplomats on the move.
Another firm, ArmorGroup, was given a £19m contract for "static and mobile" security - the protection of buildings as well as convoys. The company's non-executive chairman since 2004 has been the Tory MP and former foreign and defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind.
According to the Foreign Office, these PMSCs provide security to government employees working in difficult locations. "We consider that we do receive value for money from these contracts," said a Foreign Office spokesman.
"The costs and benefits are assessed during the tendering process, and during the contract's lifetime, and on completion."
Another argument is advanced by Andrew Bearpark, director general of the British Association of Private Security Companies, who says that it is more "cost-effective" to hand PMSCs the "essential but mundane" task of protecting diplomats, freeing up troops to undertake offensive operations.
Not everyone is reassured by this explanation. The Liberal Democrats, for example, accuse the government of "skewed spending priorities", particularly when spending on PMSCs is compared with spending on humanitarian aid. The UK's contribution to UNHCR's work in Iraq with the homeless and displaced has been just £125m.
"While the government has a duty to ensure the safety of its staff, it is shocking that it has spent more money on PMSCs than on humanitarian aid for ordinary Iraqis," said Ed Davey, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesperson, who is also concerned that the government is becoming "dependent" on the firms. He believes it is time the government drew up serious proposals for a regulatory framework for PMSCs.
A green paper was issued in 2002 mooting the idea of industry regulation, but a white paper has failed to materialise.
So the largely unregulated sphere in which PMSCs operate continues to concern NGOs such as War on Want and the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).
"Mercenaries are not subject to the same laws as British soldiers - indeed, it is not clear they are subject to any law at all," said a CAAT spokesman. "I am sure the British public will be sickened to hear that we have given more than £200m to these gun-for-hire profiteers."
The future prospects for security companies in Iraq have been in doubt since September last year, when 17 civilians were killed in Baghdad's Nisoor Square during an incident involving guards from the US private firm Blackwater.
ArmorGroup has already issued a profits warning after contracts in Iraq dried up in the wake of the Blackwater incident.
Nevertheless, opportunity knocks elsewhere - primarily in Afghanistan. Foreign Office spending on PMSCs there has been rising steadily since 2004, when £4.8m was paid out. Spending last year alone was £19.7m.
The private military and security firms look certain to survive as long as the "war on terror" continues.
Charles Tripp on Jonathan Steele's "Why They Lost", Books
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
