Iraq-bound Kiwis could be caught by mercenary bill

[seemslikeadream]

17 April 2004

Green MP Keith Locke is warning New Zealanders thinking of carrying out security work in Iraq that they might come under legislation aimed at deterring mercenaries.


A Hamilton security company has been looking to supply bodyguards in war-torn Iraq, should it win a contract to work there.

A parliamentary select committee has been considering the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill, which aims to bring New Zealand into line with international conventions against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries.

Mercenaries can be jailed for up to 14 years under the legislation, as can agents who recruit, finance and train them.

The Government says the bill is directed at the so-called "true" or "traditional" mercenaries: "Unaffiliated individuals who are prepared to fight wars, overthrow governments, or commit certain terrorist acts for money."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2877422a6160,00.html

[seemslikeadream]

1. NZ set for long-term role in Iraq

.........

We need really now to see the shape of what the international engagement will be.

"We're not rushing to put our hands up for police. But we do know we've got a good, sensible police force."

New Zealand had established a reputation for helping with prisons and policing in both the Solomon Islands and East Timor.

"We haven't specifically considered any of these options for the next financial year. But they're the sorts of things that when the Iraqi Government takes over, they may well be put on the table.

"There may be co-ordination through the UN that says, 'Who can put up their hand for this?"'

Meanwhile, National and New Zealand First intend to oppose a new law that will ban and jail New Zealanders if they are mercenaries.

more
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?reportID=562588&storyID=3561099

[bobbieinok]

2. "international conventions"???? - did US sign ..... ooops

[htuttle]

3. Here's the UN Convention on Mercenaries from 1989

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

Reaffirming the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations and in the Declaration on the Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations,

Being aware of the recruitment, use, financing and training of
mercenaries for activities which violate principles of international law such
as those of sovereign equality, political independence, territorial integrity
of States and self-determination of peoples,

Affirming that the recruitment, use, financing and training of
mercenaries should be considered as offences of grave concern to all States
and that any person committing any of these offences should either be
prosecuted or extradited,

Here's the definition of Mercenary from the document:

For the purposes of the present Convention,

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.

Article 2
Any person who recruits, uses, finances or trains mercenaries, as defined
in article 1 of the present Convention, commits an offence for the purposes of
the Convention.

[seemslikeadream]

4. That just about covers it.

Lays it all out in black and white.

******

Article 2
Any person who recruits, uses, finances or trains mercenaries, as defined
in article 1 of the present Convention, commits an offence for the purposes of
the Convention.

[htuttle]

5. Legalistically speaking, although I am not a lawyer..

...it DOES seem a little tricky.

Looking at the definition of 'mercenary', I'm assuming that all of the items under point 1 need to be true. In other words, there is an 'and' between them:

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

This would probably rule out most mercenaries who come from the US and Britain. Would it exclude citizens of any 'coalition' state? I'd have to look up the exact definition of 'party to the conflict' to be sure. It's used throughout the UN Charter, so there's a definition there.

(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.

This would seem to exclude the tens of thousands of Central Americans they've recruited in exchanage for 'fast track' citizenship, since they are officially part of the US military.

However, it sounds like it would definitely cover citizens of New Zealand. It should also cover many, many contractors who aren't from 'coalition/party to the conflict' countries.

I'd argue that the point a) in the definition of 'mercenary' would cover more than just 'fighting troops':

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

What constitutes 'fighting in an armed conflict'? Sure, the guy firing the howizter is fighting, but what about the guy loading it? Now how about the guy bringing the ammunition to the guy loading it? Where do you draw the line? I'd say most support services for the US military would seem to be necessary for it to 'fight an armed conflict'. That means you, KB&R.

on edit:
Under point 2, the US government would be in violation of the Convention if ANY of the mercenaries in Iraq aren't excluded by the definition in point 1. And I'm sure there are many in Iraq who qualify as mercenaries under this Convention.

[seemslikeadream]

6. Mercenaries 'R' U.S.

.....

In addition to "special ops" conferences and weapons trainings, for the stay-at-home warrior the company offers a full array of gear including tee-shirts, ball caps, gym shorts, mugs, and license plates with the Blackwater logo.

According to the Web blog Spark, "In recent years, the presence of military contractors in U.S. wars and military operations has increased significantly. During the Persian Gulf War of 1991, one in every 50 people on the battlefield was an American mercenary, fighting under a contract. In Bosnia in 1996, that ratio was one in 10."

Currently there are thousands of soldiers under contract with private companies serving in Iraq. "Squads of Bosnians, Filipinos and Americans with special forces experience have been hired for tasks ranging from airport security to protecting Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority," The Guardian's Franklin reported.

Chile isn't the only country from which private companies have recruited mercenaries for Iraq. According to the South Africa newspaper, The Cape Times, "More than 1,500 South Africans are believed to be in Iraq under contract to various private military companies." The United Nations recently reported that South Africa "is already among the top three suppliers of personnel for private military companies, along with the UK and the US."

The Cape Times' Beauregard Tromp writes that "The Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, passed in July 1998, prohibits South African citizens from direct participation as a combatant in armed conflict for private gain. Such engagement includes recruitment, training, or financing and applies to South Africans acting outside the country as well."

more
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/April2004/Berkowitz0405.htm