First, I always appreciate attacks on character and motivations – beats a real discussion!

For the U.S. government, using the U.S. military for training has always been the first option, but since 9-11 the troops who do that kind of training have been otherwise engaged. The contractors doing the training are for the most part former U.S. military folks (often required in the contract) – though NGO folks are used as well for some aspects. So instead of a 20 year old in uniform, you have a 50 year old civilian who spent 20+ years in the military. And using civilians is cheaper than using military – the U.S. military is a remarkably capable organization, it is by no means a cost effective one.

There is a speech by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Africa Teresa Whelan on the IPOA web site at http://www.defenselink.mil/policy/sections/policy_offices/isa/africa/IPOA.htm

Finally, free trade within Africa would be a great start, but ultimately free trade benefits the consumers and economies that embrace it, even when their trade partners don’t. Comparing Africa’s status with Asia has been done many times, since in many cases the countries started at near the same level of development 45 years ago. The Asian ‘dragons’ were not 100% free traders by any means, but they were way ahead of African countries, and their rapid development is instructive.

-doug

Hi Doug, I’m sure you are an Africa optimist. That is where your members are looking for their next meals. And your meals are dependent on their meals.

“UN is not a “poor man’s NATO”, huh? Who thinks it is? As you know, many of your members recruit from the same nations that supply UN peacekeepers. So disparaging remarks about poverty and training hardly seem appropriate.

Your description of oil markets looks like it comes from a middle school textbook. I would assume you are actually more sophisticated.

As for “free” trade, it has certainly benefited the US and EU enormously. Africa has benefited more from decline in conflicts in this century, and from the African business intitiative and opportunities that have opened as a consequence.

The point of the article on China was that they are NOT bringing their Army into Africa.

… the majority of Chinese forces deployed are involved with engineering, transportation, medical and other civilian projects

. They are bringing contracts and business deals. Not all of these are beneficial. And many of the contracts require a large majority of Chinese workers, rather than hiring local workers. And when they hire locally their labor practices are atrocious. Though I doubt they would bother you or your IPOA members.

As far as military training done by contractors, I think the report from Refugees International pinpoints most of the issues. If the US wants to invest in Africa it should stick to the civil realm. There is a place for military cooperation with the actual US military. It should not involve private US contractors.

Here are just two points from the report from Refugees International, U.S. Civil-Military Imbalance for Global Engagement: Lessons from the Operational Level in Africa, or in full PDF version here, regarding training and contracts in Liberia, that should cause African governments and citizens to be extremely wary of contracts with your members, or with other PMCs, or with your presence on African soil.

While contractors may be good at providing basic and even advanced infantry training, they are certainly not the ideal role models to instill … the notion of duty to country and military service ethics – including the democratic principle of civil supremacy over the military. Indeed, in a country and region where recent history has been shaped by warlords and mercenaries, the U.S. Department of State has shown remarkable insensitivity by sending in contractors to shape the new army.

I find it shocking that a sovereign government should be ignorant, or would agree to be ignorant, or forced to accept ignorance, of the details of the contract for training its own army.

The details of the contracts with DynCorp and PAE may not be revealed, not even to the Government of Liberia, as it is against U.S. Federal Acquisition Regulations.

Heh!

Actually, I’m an Africa optimist! But it does seem unethical for the West to leave peace operations to the poorest countries in the world. And the UN is not a “poor man’s NATO” – anyone who has visited these operations understands the enormous interoperability and quality issues that Blue Helmets must contend with even before they can address mandate enforcement. These problems have been extensively documented as I’m sure you’re aware.

Dunno about the oil conspiracy theory its a global market after all, it doesn’t really matter who sells oil to who, prices and supply fluctuates equally for everyone.

But I would say that freeing up trade has benefited Africa enormously. And if we can get the U.S. and EU to open their agricultural markets more to African produce it’d be infinitely better for everyone.

I do think overall China has been a positive factor in China, and in peacekeeping overall. Indeed, the future of effective international peace operations may rest on the shoulders of their Army, which is both huge and relatively well trained and equipped.

Best regards,

Doug Brooks
IPOA

And your condescending remarks about “peacekeepers from the poorest countries in the world” ignores the fact that the major improvements in human security in Africa that have happened in this century have come with the help of these “poor” peacekeepers.

The Human Security Brief 2007 reports:

… the extraordinary, but largely unnoticed, positive change in sub-Saharan Africa’s security landscape. After a surge of conflicts in the 1990s, the number of conflicts being waged in the region more than halved between 1999 and 2006; the combat toll dropped by 98 percent.

… Between 2002 and 2006 the number of campaigns of organized violence against civilians fell by two-thirds.

This happened after the US and Europe turned away from Africa following the cold war. Some say that is the reason for the current peace and stability. Military “peace and stability” operations could end all that.

In addition, Africa is experiencing record economic growth, better than the US at present. In Africa economic growth has exceeded 5% for four years running.

As far as peacekeeping experience in Africa, see the words of Nigeria’s General Malu:

Americans cannot claim that they want to train us for peace-keeping. We’ve succeeded in peace-keeping where Americans have not succeeded. What they wanted was to update their intelligence … these people are not coming to train us for peace-keeping. In fact, they are not capable of training us on peace-keeping. Peace-keeping is not a nuclear, it is not a biological, it is not a chemical warfare. That is what an infantry man does, that is what we do in Liberia better than anybody else. … we have supervised one of the most successful elections in Africa …
…
Most of the foreign officers who come here on the pretence to train us or do something or the other are people we have trained together. We attended courses together in their country and beat them. We attended courses with them in the UK and do better than them in those courses. So, how do they come back to start teaching us?

If you are coming to obtain intelligence at least find a good excuse that will make it like you are doing something for us. In the case of America in particular, America has never done anything for any country because they like the country. They look at what they will benefit out of it. The issue of African Command is nothing but because of the oil interest on the Gulf of Guinea.

Contrast this with China, whose interest in Africa is just as greedy and self serving as the US. But the Chinese are working closely with the UN, and for now are employing far more practical and positive techniques to get what they want.

Most of China’s peacekeepers are non-military personnel. Some serve as military observers, advisors and liaisons, but the majority of Chinese forces deployed are involved with engineering, transportation, medical and other civilian projects.
…
China sets rigorous standards for selecting and training its peacekeepers. In order to be selected for the government’s intensive training program, officers must be at least 25 years old, have an associate degree from an institution of higher education and at least five years of professional work experience in public security fields. In addition, they must have proof of proficiency in English, two years of driving experience and be in top physical and mental condition.
…
They’re very concerned with projecting a good image.

In order to lock up oil resources, instead of using the military and miltary contractors to “train” and threaten everyone, the Chinese are writing contracts. They guarantee to pay whatever the spot price is at the time of purchase to lock up future supplies. They introduce local companies to their bankers who loan money for drilling and operations against those future profits. They are doing better for their citizens at home, and treating their host countries with more respect.

Unfortunately there are more peace operations underway in Africa than any other part of the world. Worse, the West has largely abrogated its responsibilities and abandoned such operations to peacekeepers from the poorest countries in the world, without the training and resources to make the missions succeed. Which why the private sector is holding these missions together, with helicopters, logistics, demining services and security.

Thanks for the interest (?) but readers should check out the IPOA web site for more information about ethical private sector services to conflict and post conflict environments. And decide for themselves.

Doug Brooks
President, IPOA
www DOT IPOAonline DOT org