Report claims UN is increasingly relying on mercenaries for its military operations and UN did not deny it

[hellheaven1987]

So irony... But at least even UN bow down to the reality in the end.

The UN is becoming increasingly reliant on private military and security firms, according to a report.

The Global Policy Forum says that the UN's use of these private companies is "dangerous" and suggests a system that is "unaccountable".

It says that according to available - though incomplete - data, there was a 77% increase on amounts spent on such firms in the year to 2010.

A UN spokesman said that the use of such contractors was "appropriate".

Martin Nesirky said that he believed that the UN could continue to employ security firms as long as "due diligence" was carried out.

He said that the UN was working on a policy for security contractors that could be implemented across the organisation, a draft version of which had already been approved by security chiefs.

"UN contracting policies have improved and we need to continue to improve them," he told the Associated Press news agency.

"The distinct differences in the ways that private security contractors go about their work also must be borne in mind."

Source

Put aside the fact that UN was biggest anti-mercenary organization a decade ago, what interesting is that about 2/3 of business were focusing on UN Development Programs, while 1/3 for peacekeeping + refugee protection, with a total estimation of $76 millions in 2010 from $44 millions in 2009. It brings the question that since most of those programs seemed low-risk, why UN could not ask its members to contribute men for those missions instead had to rely on expensive mercenaries? What is wrong with all those big players that have hundreds thousands men but cannot even spare some for meaningful jobs?

Either way, UN just concentrated 19,000 blue helmets on Congo city Goma few days ago for protecting the city from rebels, I wonder how many blue helmets are actually white mercenaries - so funny that UN's anti-mercenaries stance was started in Congo and now itself has to hire mercs to defend a Congo city.

[Imperial]

Mercs fighting mercs.

[AqD]

It's good for economics! Some people get paid by ruining peace, some people get hired by keeping peace, and some others can keep their own jobs making more weapons! More people with jobs => everyone is happy!

[hellheaven1987]

It's good for economics! Some people get paid by ruining peace, some people get hired by keeping peace, and some others can keep their own jobs making more weapons! More people with jobs => everyone is happy!

Hurray!!! We should thank British cut 20,000 men so they can send those money to UN and allow UN to hire mercs to do peacekeeping!!!

Lets be honest, UN would only hire mercenaries because:

1. No one wants to send men to do some charity works, which means most UN members are trolls who only believe:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It also means their "human right" claim is more and less a lie, so watch up citizens of those fellow states... Your "human right champion" government may send you to gas chamber for the sake of human right one day.

2. The regular military of most UN members suck, so suck that they cannot do proper charity works at all and force UN to hire expensive pro to do the job. Well, that probably explains why 51st State UK wants to cut 20,000 men recently.

[selder]

We should thank British cut 20,000 men so they can send those money to UN and allow UN to hire mercs to do peacekeeping

Most of security contractors are ex military so at least those 20,000 will still have a job, even if their are less benefits.

[The excited one]

sounds really stupid i mean is UN running out of money or just too lazy to send peace keeping forces?

[The Alcotroll]

Who actually read the report?

And yet the UN increasingly uses PMSCs for a wide range of
services, including armed and unarmed security, risk assessment,
security training, logistical support and consultancy.

PMCs are used as glorified doormen by the UN, protecting UN administrative staff and infastructure. Their use has increased after a number of high-profile terrorist attacks on UN assets, like this one back in 2003

The OP's suggestion is that 'mercenaries' are wearing blue helmets and patrolling conflict zones. That's simply untrue.

Moreover, GPF is a distinctly left-of-centre quango with it's own agdenda. Simply reading the summary of the so-called 'report' is enough to establish that a bias exists in the writer's perceptions.

The UN has a hard time getting member states to commit troops to peace-keeping operations, and the few that are sent need to be used on the ground, doing the 'blue helmet' thing. Using troops from member nations to guard compounds, check badges at doors, consult on security arrangements etc, would double or even triple the manpower requirements and make UN missions an impossibility.

I have to say, I'm disappointed in the BBC, to have regurgitated this crap report without any attempt to provide analysis or background detail. Lazy journalism.

[The Alcotroll]

^ Lazy trolling attempt. Read the report that I linked in my earlier post, then come back to me with some responses. In particular, I'd like you to suggest how the UN can go about securing trained soldiers from member nations to sit at gates and in reception foyers all day, checking badges.

[Claudius Gothicus]

The problem is: are these Contractor like Mercernaries? you know, like Blackwater, because those were pretty proffessional on their actions and I wouldn't really distrust them as long as their are well led. The second problem is: What would be the combatant status of a captured UN Mercernary?

[Sidmen]

The problem is: are these Contractor like Mercernaries? you know, like Blackwater, because those were pretty proffessional on their actions and I wouldn't really distrust them as long as their are well led. The second problem is: What would be the combatant status of a captured UN Mercernary?

It is very clear: Mercenaries are always considered Unlawful Combatants if they engage in direct hostilities during wartime. They, however, aren't supposed to do that - they're basically just security guards.

One must wonder, however, if there aren't some poor states that would send soldiers to perform these jobs in exchange for the cash being spent on these mercs.

[Adar]

Either way, UN just concentrated 19,000 blue helmets on Congo city Goma few days ago for protecting the city from rebels, I wonder how many blue helmets are actually white mercenaries - so funny that UN's anti-mercenaries stance was started in Congo and now itself has to hire mercs to defend a Congo city.

Actually you are completely wrong about claiming that mercenaries defended a Congolese city. The total amount of international civilian personnel is 973 and they are UN employees and aid workers, based on the article there might be one or two security consultants but that number is miniscule compared to the 18 653 UN soldiers operating in the area.

Strength as of 30 June 2010

• 20,586 total uniformed personnel
  
  • 18,653 troops
  • 704 military observers
  • 1,229 police
  
  
• 973 international civilian personnel
• 2,783 local civilian staff
• 641 United Nations Volunteers

Country contributors

Military personnel

Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Russia/Russian Federation, Senegal, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia
Police personnel

Argentina, Benin, Burkina Faso, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Egypt, France, Guinea, India, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Madagascar, Mali, Morocco, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Romania, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu and Yemen

Fatalities

• 100 troops
• 6 police
• 10 military observer
• 12 international civilian
• 30 local civilian
  _____
• 161 total

I wouldn't be surprised if a handful of the local civilian personnel work with security but that is very different from being mercenaries. Modern terrorists are more than willing to attack civilian targets and local security cooperation is absolutely necessary to prevent such attacks.

All UN-employees are also forced to undergo basic security training and I wouldn't be surprised if the 3 M$ paid to G4S went to that kind of training. All UN funded personnel* have to undergo such training and 3 M USD won't get you more than 15-30 security contractors from a Western firm. So I doubt that you find many G4S mercenaries hunting rebels in Congo.

*This include people who go from Stockholm to Rome for a conference on UN development programs.

[RedGuard]

So irony... But at least even UN bow down to the reality in the end.



Source

Put aside the fact that UN was biggest anti-mercenary organization a decade ago, what interesting is that about 2/3 of business were focusing on UN Development Programs, while 1/3 for peacekeeping + refugee protection, with a total estimation of $76 millions in 2010 from $44 millions in 2009. It brings the question that since most of those programs seemed low-risk, why UN could not ask its members to contribute men for those missions instead had to rely on expensive mercenaries? What is wrong with all those big players that have hundreds thousands men but cannot even spare some for meaningful jobs?

Either way, UN just concentrated 19,000 blue helmets on Congo city Goma few days ago for protecting the city from rebels, I wonder how many blue helmets are actually white mercenaries - so funny that UN's anti-mercenaries stance was started in Congo and now itself has to hire mercs to defend a Congo city.

Ever since the beginning of time Militaries have used mercenaries why would it be any different for the UN? Just because a government like the UN says it is against using mercenaries a year ago or two years ago doesn't mean its view on them won't change this year. obviously you don't understand politics and the way it works in the real world.

On paper the American ARMY is 523,000 strong. but do you know of that number can actually be deployed at one time? less than a quarter of that number. why? because believe it or not a mass movement of forces is very expensive and will bring unrest and job loss to areas in America that rely on military bases for jobs. for every one military personnel there are at least two civilian contractors (according to you mercs) that help him or her do their job.It is the same for any number of nations in the UN. why do you believe the wars in the middle east cost America a billion dollars a month to operate?

Im sure countries that send troops on UN missions do not or cannot do it all the time every time because thier manpower will be exhausted and often troops are needed at home as security or national guard forces.

EDit: Also what does the UN Contracters being white have to do with anything? such a petty way to try and turn this into a race argument. obviously the Pakistanis in your source are white though right?

[the new username]

Mercs? they still exist?

If they are caught in combat no Geneve convetion for them.

[RedGuard]

Mercs? they still exist?

If they are caught in combat no Geneve convetion for them.

not true. the geneva convention applies also to combatants not wearing uniforms otherwise terrorists would be fair game

[Mangalore]

not true. the geneva convention applies also to combatants not wearing uniforms otherwise terrorists would be fair game

They are which is why the US tried to mark every Afghan they caught as an illegal combatant or terrorist to not have to apply it. Just because the Geneva convention doesn't apply doesn't remove all the other rights a human being have though. Combatants are just essentially protected from getting persecuted for their actions and have to be treated well.
This doesn't mean you can shoot terrorist like dogs, just that they can't invoke the convention to be protected from legal persecution for their actions.

It also means their "human right" claim is more and less a lie, so watch up citizens of those fellow states... Your "human right champion" government may send you to gas chamber for the sake of human right one day.

Are you even able to explain that sentence because there is no link between your statements to make this a coherent point.

[RedGuard]

They are which is why the US tried to mark every Afghan they caught as an illegal combatant or terrorist to not have to apply it. Just because the Geneva convention doesn't apply doesn't remove all the other rights a human being have though. Combatants are just essentially protected from getting persecuted for their actions and have to be treated well.
This doesn't mean you can shoot terrorist like dogs, just that they can't invoke the convention to be protected from legal persecution for their actions.

all terrorists caught by soldiers are subject to the same laws of the geneva conventions that any other POW from a uniformed force are subject to but this is off topic from the OP

[Sidmen]

all terrorists caught by soldiers are subject to the same laws of the geneva conventions that any other POW from a uniformed force are subject to but this is off topic from the OP

Actually, this is very much not the case. They are not afforded the protections of being Prisoners of War unless they are wearing identifying marks (uniforms, armbands, etc.) - which they don't. Which means, they're status is reverted to that of criminals under the justice system of the capturing power.

[Kitsunegari]

It is very ironic considering what happened in Sierra Leone when Executive Outcomes kicked the rebels' ass before the UN stepped in and let them regroup.

[fkizz]

I don't know if the UN can be taken seriously as a force to improve the world.

[Heathen Hammer]

I don't know if the UN can be taken seriously as a force to improve the world.

I doubt it will ever be.