I thought I would post this, as a resource for anyone interested. It is interesting that Feral Jundi has been in existence for over a year now, and I would have thought that maybe someone from this group would have liked to talk with either myself or Jake or whomever. I do not consider myself that unapproachable, but I also don’t consider myself a mercenary. This site is pretty apolitical too, so I just don’t understand why no one has made the effort to make contact?
They say that they are reaching out to folks, but you would think that new media would be one area that they could easily and readily reach out to? Either way, I highly recommend sending these folks your thoughts about the subject they are invested in. It is time to fill the void of information, and a good start is to actually talk. Good luck with Ms. Lucke, and tell her I said hi. Cheers. –Matt
——————————————————————-
Introduction
The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination was established in July 2005 pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/2. It succeeded the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries, which had been in existence since 1987 and was serviced by Mr. Enrique Bernales Ballesteros (Peru) from 1987 to 2004 and Ms. Shaista Shameem (Fiji) from 2004 to 2005. In March 2008, the Human Rights Council extended the mandate of the Working Group for a period of three years.
In paragraph 2 of resolution 7/21, the Human Rights Council requested the Working Group:
(a) To elaborate and present concrete proposals on possible complementary and new standards aimed at filling existing gaps, as well as general guidelines or basic principles encouraging the further protection of human rights, in particular the right of peoples to self-determination, while facing current and emergent threats posed by mercenaries or mercenary-related activities;
(b) To seek opinions and contributions from Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations on questions relating to its mandate;
(c) To monitor mercenaries and mercenary-related activities in all their forms and manifestations in different parts of the world;
(d) To study and identify sources and causes, emerging issues, manifestations and trends regarding mercenaries or mercenary-related activities and their impact on human rights, particularly on the right of peoples to self-determination;
(e) To monitor and study the effects on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly the right of peoples to self-determination, of the activities of private companies offering military assistance, consultancy and security services on the international market, and to prepare a draft of international basic principles that encourage respect for human rights by those companies in their activities.
The Working Group is composed of:
Mr. Alexander Nikitin (Russian Federation), Chairperson-Rapporteur,
Ms. Najat Al-Hajjaji (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),
Ms. Amada Benavides de Pérez (Colombia),
Mr. José Luis Gómez del Prado (Spain)
Ms. Shaista Shameem (Fiji).
To contact the Working Group:
Contact person
E-mail address
Ms. Ms. Karin Lucke
klucke@ohchr.org
Mailing address:
Working Group on the use of mercenaries
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Fax: + 41 22 917 9006
Switzerland
Link to Site Here
Hi Matt,
Reading this posting made me realise just how much of a threat the PMCs are to the UN.
I had to laugh when I read: “The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination was established in July 2005 pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/2. It succeeded the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the use of mercenaries, which had been in existence since 1987 and was serviced by Mr. Enrique Bernales Ballesteros (Peru) from 1987 to 2004…:
Mr Enrique Bernales Ballesteros is nothing but a liar and his “groundbreaking” work will no doubt serve as the foundation of the next lot of clowns. (I challenged Ballesteros to substantiate any of his allegations on either myself and EO – he refused to take up the challenge). Ballesteros’s report he produced on mainly EO was fraught with lies, lies and more lies. Yet this UN official, like those of his ilk, continue to lie in order to protect their own jobs and to prevent their gross incompetence from being exposed.
I can bet you this latest attempt is merely an exercise to prevent any PMC from ever showing up their incompetence again. And to make sure this highly qualified persons of the UN continue to be employed and salaried. In my book, this makes then more mercenary than some members of the media.
Ironically, they claim part of their aim is to investigate “…as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination…: This in itself is a farce as if Government X decides to use a PMC, who do they think they are to decide otherwise on behalf of that government? As for hum rights violations – the UN is the last crowd to criticise – look at their absolutely disgusting record of human rights violations in example the DRC. Oh yes, look at the stirling job they did in Rwanda…
As for “self-determination” – so they now want to decide on a government’s self-determination?
I view this as just another exercise aimed at securing their jobs, making money and in the process trying to slate credible PMCs.
For that reason, they will shy away from anyone who can show differently.
Rgds,
Eeben
Comment by Eeben Barlow — Tuesday, April 14, 2009 @ 7:39 PM
“…as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination…"
Eeben,
Thank you for posting the comment, and clearing the record. I can only hope that someone in the Working Group is reading, and willing to respond. Although I am sure you have been screaming about this elsewhere, Feral Jundi is just one more location where the record can be corrected.
So how about it Mr. Ballesteros? Come on out and defend your position, because obviously your Working Group has some explaining to do?
I mean I am all about regulating the industry so we know what the rules are, but if you guys are using lies or half-truths to support your reports and opinions about the subject, then how is that helpful? You demand integrity of my industry, but what about yourselves?
I would also like to hear a representative from the group, explain the position the UN took during the Rwandan Genocide, and why they did not do everything in their power to stop that genocide. Meaning, why talk with EO, and then turn them down because they were too expensive, and turn around and spend way more money trying to solve the problem yourself with a pathetic response that didn't stop anything? And if there were no armies being offered up by anyone in the world at that time, yet a perfectly capable PMC was available and ready go, then why is it again that we do no use that resource? Thousands died because of this inaction.
Also, the UN uses armed security contractors to protect compounds or employees or uses private industry to fly around food or whatever, yet a PMC is not an answer to stop a genocide? In this case, how is it that this position of the UN does not violate the basic human right of self defense? EO could have saved lives, yet they were not used, and thousands perished….
So I guess this goes back to the statement up top. If the UN is concerned with human rights, then why is the UN not allowing every available tool out there to protect the weak from these crimes against humanity?
Now we have the new/old problem popping up called piracy. I think the world will be warming up to the use of private contractors for this problem, because there are no other real options in the immediate future. With that said, the UN must step up and finally recognize the true value of what PMC's or PSC's can offer, and that if the contracts and regulations in place are properly constructed and monitored, then these companies can certainly step up and defend the weak. Or you can continue to lie about companies like Executive Outcomes, and continue to promote misperceptions about PMCs and their potential.
Like Eeben, we all await a response…..
Comment by headjundi — Wednesday, April 15, 2009 @ 2:08 AM
Does anybody out there have any links or info about what the applicable laws in the United States are concerning mercenaries? I would like to do some research concerning this subject and anyone who has some info about the U.S. laws and international laws concerning mercenaries I would appreciate it.
Comment by sonic — Wednesday, April 15, 2009 @ 5:12 AM
Now get this. I am going to post Jeremy Scahill's stuff, with no link(hee hee), and see if we can flush the little weasel out. This is what the opposition has to say, and for a guy that wrote an entire book about Blackwater without interviewing anyone from Blackwater or even doing an embed with them, I have to say that he really doesn't impress me. The only thing that remotely impresses me, is his ability to construct a book out of just open source crap. I could have contracted a Pakistani to ghost write a book like this one, and for all we know, he did.
But really, why the IPOA Jeremy? What is your beef about a group that actually wants laws and regulations for this industry? I think what is really at stake, is that he is worried that the industry might actually become legitimate in the eyes of the world community, and that he and the other dorks will run out of material to write about and sell. Like I said dude, go write about the really bad folks out there like the Los Zetas, the Taliban, Al Qaeda or these Somali Pirates we keep hearing about.
What would really be cool, is if he could answer for the question I asked the UN folks about with regards to Rwanda? He's a human rights kind of guy, all rolling around in alternet goo. Or maybe he is just out to make a buck, and could care less about human rights? Hmmmmm. I am starting to see a trend here with the opposition. :))
———–
U.S. Mercenaries to UN: Stop Using the Word 'Mercenary' in Your Investigation into Mercenaries
Posted by Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet at 1:35 PM on April 15, 2009.
The U.S. mercenary trade association asks the UN to join its rebranding campaign.
The latest episode of "Total Makeover: Make Me a More Huggable Mercenary" is just too precious to pass up. As observers of the rise of private paramilitary forces, like Blackwater/Xe (Bush's thugs) and Triple Canopy (Obama's hired guns) know, the mercenary industry has its very own trade association, with the warm and fuzzy Orwellian name, the International Peace Operations Association.
With its Disney-esque cartoon sleeping lion logo, this group has long spearheaded the drive to sell greater involvement by the private sector in the U.S. war machine and all other U.S. and UN operations.
Well, the past few months have brought some intense (at times comical) rebranding efforts in the mercenary world. Most prominently, Blackwater changed its name to Xe and its shadowy leader Erik Prince resigned as CEO (while retaining his title of chairman and sole owner of the company).
While Blackwater technically lost its big Iraq security contract last month, its armed operatives are going to be re-employed by the new hired guns of choice, Triple Canopy, which the Obama administration is paying for its paramilitary services in Iraq as well as Israel/Palestine.
Now, the mercenary trade association, IPOA, is telling the UN that it should rebrand its investigation of mercenaries.
First, some background: For years, the UN has been investigating the scourge of mercenaries across the globe. More recently, it has turned its focus on the widespread use of these forces by the U.S. and other governments in the waging of wars, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN group has traveled the globe, tracing the rise of these powerful armed groups and corporations, including looking at the widespread practice of recruiting soldiers from countries with atrocious human rights records and deploying them in war zones to which their home countries are not a party. At present, the UN body is called the "United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries." But, in a letter to the UN, the president of the IPOA, suggests the name be changed:
It is in this spirit of cooperation that IPOA recommends that theWorking Group remove the word ‘mercenary’ from both its name and mandate. A change to “the UN Working Group on Stability Contractors” (or something similar) will mean that the Working Group’s name and mandate will not only accurately reflect the true nature of the industry, but will reiterate the Working Group’s commitment to pursue, in good faith, the advocacy of effective international law and regulation.
Seriously. What are these guys smoking? In the letter, IPOA says the UN's "continued use of ‘mercenary’ is perceived as derogatory."
Oh did the poor little mercenaries have their feelings hurt by that mean old world body? What does the IPOA say about the killing of unarmed civilians by "stability contractors"?
IPOA president Doug Brooks tells the UN, "We look forward to a fruitful collaboration with a renamed Working Group under an updated and improved mandate."
The UN should not engage in this silliness with these PR hacks pushing the services of these hired gun thugs. What's their name again? Oh, right, the International Association of Saintly Kitten Rescuers."
Comment by headjundi — Wednesday, April 15, 2009 @ 1:28 PM
Matt,
You make some good points but with respect to "I would also like to hear a representative from the group, explain the position the UN took during the Rwandan Genocide, and why they did not do everything in their power to stop that genocide." you are being unfair to the UN.
The UN is not an automonous body or sovereign state and it can only do what its constituent members, i.e., others states allow it to do. And in the case of Rwanda the other states, including the United States, quite clearly were not interested in authorizing a UN force to stop the slaughter.
For those who are interested I wrote about this in one of my past Dogs of War columns (Dogs of War: Blue helmets and bottom lines
Feb. 27, 2009)
David
Comment by David — Thursday, April 16, 2009 @ 3:59 AM