English/Nat War in Zaire, Sierra Leone or Angola. Wherever armed conflicts appear on the African continent, you are almost sure to hear that mercenaries are involved in some way. The increasing link of soldiers of fortune, especially those working for private companies, to African battlefields prompted a private military think-tank to hold a workshop on the phenomenon in South Africa this week. Guest of honour at the Institute for Strategic Studies' seminar on "The Privatisation of Peacekeeping in Africa" was Eben Barlow. He's chairman of one of the best known of these private companies, Executive Outcomes. For Barlow the situation is simple. A government or group is faced with a security problem, they call on a private mercenary company to come in and help sort it out. Sorting it out often means providing military training on the ground and becoming directly involved in wars. SOUNDBITE: "If the private sector is not allowed to play a role in bringing about peace or stability within Africa, other companies and I'm speaking about foreign companies will seize that opportunity to the detriment of the South African business community. Government's must be given the opportunity to find their own solutions to their own problems and in this instance they should be encouraged and not condemned to do so." SUPER CAPTION: Eben Barlow, chief executive officer of Executive Outcomes While Barlow was advocating the privatisation of state security, Laurie Nathan, director of the Centre for Conflict Resolution is totally opposed to the use of mercenaries. He says they cannot be trusted on any level and that they are not accountable to any democracy. SOUNDBITE: "The political reliability and the military discipline of mercenaries is inherently suspect, acts of terror, looting, pillage, theft, mutiny desertion by mercenaries in Africa have been well documented." SUPER CAPTION: Laurie Nathan, Director of Centre for Conflict Resolution Mark Malan, a senior researcher for the Institute for Security Studies tried to take the middle ground. Whichever way you look at the situation, he maintains, present mechanisms such as those followed by the United Nations, are not working. SOUNDBITE: "It has not been able to act effectively to enforce international humanitarian law or to provide security for much-needed provision of humanitarian aid for those in the direst of need. It is because United Nations interventions are still based on the peacekeeping principles of consent of warring parties of impartiality and the non-use of force except in self-defence perhaps in defence of a very ambiguous mandate." SUPER CAPTION: Mark Malan, senior researcher Institute for Strategic Studies Executive Outcomes has specifically denied any involvement in the Great Lakes Crisis but they have openly admitted their role in training troops in the south-west African nation of Angola. They have also revealed their role in the recent fighting in Sierra Leone. But Executive Outcomes and other private mercenary companies have not ruled out the possibility of involvement in any particular country. They go where they are asked and work for whomever can pay their price. In the meantime South African officials have thrown a cordon of silence around the talks which are scheduled to take place between warring Zairian rebels and the government of that country. On Thursday and Friday officials met in secret with representatives on both sides. It was not clear when the principles would meet. You can license this story through AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/d2c2d8a40c5b14c53295f264b1ab6839 Find out more about AP Archive: http://www.aparchive.com/HowWeWork

• published: 21 Jul 2015
• views: 0