U.S. Hiring of Mercenaries Needs to End: Blackwater Situation is Tip of Iceberg

There has been an ongoing debate as to whether or not security companies like Blackwater USA are, in fact, mercenary outfits.

Under the definitions adopted by UN Resolution 44/34, a mercenary is defined as this:

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

Private Military Companies (PMCs) like Blackwater fit several of these descriptions. Note item #s 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, and 2e. Part of 1c also applies. Item 2a(ii) is occurring unintentionally as Iraq is already unstable and deteriorating.


Some points:

• These security companies that are being used in Iraq ARE mercenaries under international law as outlined above. "Security contractors" is merely window dressing in PC talk.
  
• We don't pay our soldiers enough. They're good enough to be shot at, but not good enough to be paid well for their trouble? That's DISGRACEFUL.
  
• We pay soldiers for hire way too much. Period. The State Department should be using it's own people to protect their diplomats in Iraq, or work with the military to assign active duty troops to do it.
  
• The United States is not a party to the treaty that Resolution 44/34 establishes--the U.N. Mercenary Convention. That needs to change as this conflict begins to wind down and more troops begin to come home in 2008. The U.S. needs to sign this treaty.
• Iraq is trying to establish the rule of law in it's own territory, and having a mercenary army of 48,000 men not under their control or their laws firing indiscriminately at people isn't making matters any easier. It's fueling the insurgency and making matters worse.
  

In short, employing mercenaries isn't something that our government should be engaging in. And making them exempt from Iraqi laws while Iraq was under the direct control of the Coalition Provisional Authority has only added to the problems.

I think there's enough work around the world for these security companies to find and profit off of without getting entangled in parts of the world where the U.S. military is in action.