UN Allows Arming of Private Civilian Ships

International law continues to allow for privately owned civilian ships to travel the seas armed. This is not a new development. Even the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea preserves that right.

Not that private companies must put themselves at the mercy of the United Nations, but still, it's significant that armed self-defense is still OK with the UN.

So private merchant vessels at risk of piracy aren't navigating undefended because of any international ban. Industry practice is to "avoid" traveling armed, according to a Washington Post op-ed, simply because that's been the policy of most companies. Satus quo.

Given the ineffectiveness of the world's navies in stopping piracy, and the over-stretched US Navy that advocates private sector initiatives, it looks like Blackwater is on the cutting edge again.

Darfur Offer Provides More Accountability than UN Peacekeepers

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince's offer to train an African force to save Darfur has a built-in accountability measure that far exceeds United Nations peacekeeping standards.


As he said in the July 29 Wall Street Journal, he envisions a team of US military personnel to monitor a Blackwater training and logistical support operation to help a duly constituted African military force to stop the Darfur atrocities.


This reminds us of an article that Mountainrunner blogger Matt Armstrong wrote recently in Serviam magazine about UN peacekeepers. In that thought-provoking piece, Armstrong reveals that United Nations peacekeeping troops are exempt from international humanitarian law.



"The U.N. cannot impose a common military code of justice or judicial process on its forces without provoking a drop in troop contributions from member states," he says.

"If accountability is the core problem critics have with private military and security contractors, then the demonstrated lack of Blue Helmet accountability, whose troops are sent to some of the most challenging environments on the planet, should raise equally powerful concerns. "

(Addendum: London's Daily Mail runs a new story of how Dutch UN peacekeepers stood aside while Serbian troops rounded up thousands of men, women and children under UN "protection" and slaughtered them.)

UN Peacekeeping Chief Rejects Blackwater Offer on Darfur

He didn't even offer the diplomatic decency of "due consideration." He simply warned against the temptation to use "mercenaries" to solve humanitarian problems.

He is Jean Marie Guehenno, the outgoing head of peacekeeping operations for the United Nations (pictured). The Frenchman held a news conference July 29 and threw cold water on Blackwater CEO Erik Prince's offer to train and support a duly constituted African force that would be used to solve the Islamist horrors against the people of Darfur.

In his eight years in charge of UN peacekeeping, Guehenno has accomplished nothing to stop the Darfur atrocities.

Imagine: The UN's top peacekeeping official takes Blackwater's offer so seriously that he must comment about it in a news conference. Erik Prince is holding a lot of moral power in his hands. He has the UN on the defensive.

Update: Guehenno says UN peacekeepers are 'stretched to limits' and in 'danger' (BBC)

Activists Turn to Blackwater for Darfur Security

Talk of a role for Blackwater in Darfur has gotten considerably more serious, appearing in the sober-minded Financial Times. The British newspaper reports that actress and activist Mia Farrow, "frustrated by the stalled deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force," has approached Blackwater's Erik Prince "to discuss whether a military role was either feasible or desirable."

“Ms Farrow, who represents Dream for Darfur, a human rights group, and other lobbyists this week lambasted the UN Security Council for its 'shameful' failure to halt killings in the Sudanese province.” Many critics of UN deployment to Sudan - not least the Chinese government, which has a guns-for-resources relationship with the regime which has backed the genocide - have expressed concern that the Sudanese government might not like to have peacekeepers in its backyard, be they UN, Blackwater or otherwise. “Did Adolf Hitler get to choose which troops should be deployed to end his genocide?” Ms. Farrow shot back at the Security Council. “How long will you continue to allow the government of Sudan to manipulate this body?”

As this blog has previously noted, Blackwater's greatest contribution would not be in supplying boots on the ground; African nations are willing and able to provide that. Where Blackwater could make a real difference is in organization, logistics, training and communications. Blackwater's extensive experience with both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, in some of the world's most inhospitable environments, would be a major force multiplier for any African-lead peacekeeping effort.

Blackwater: Part of the Darfur Solution?

Benny Avni of the New York Sun has written a fascinating letter to Alain Le Roi, the new head of peacekeeping at the United Nations:

For help, you'd be wise to contact two people who come from two extreme ends of America's finest traditions. You probably remember Mia Farrow from the movies. Erik Prince's excellent corporation, Blackwater USA, is often vilified in your circles, so you've probably heard of him, as well. I spoke to both of them recently. She's very dot-org. He's all dot-com. She's a bleeding heart, an effective and fierce fighter against injustice. He's a successful businessman, whose business is peacemaking. I'm no matchmaker, but if opposites really do attract, this, for the suffering people of Darfur, would be a match made in heaven.

Mr. Avni goes on to explain that Erik Prince has previously mentioned his willingness to lend a hand in Darfur, should he be called upon to do so. Moreover, he notes that Blackwater need not be employed as trigger-pullers to change the situation on the ground. Simply by doing logistics and communications, "Blackwater can organize [the 9,000 African troops already deployed there] into a force to be reckoned with." Why? Because peacekeeping is about more than just toting guns. It requires high levels of technical competency.

You'll also need highly trained people on the ground. Mr. Prince's men are some of the best in the business. Your predecessor has traveled the world nonstop, begging donors for a few helicopters, which are necessary in the vast deserts of Darfur; Blackwater has helicopters. Blackwater, in short, can cut your costs and the loss of life.

Mr. Avni is quite aware that Blackwater has been in the news, and not always favorably. But he has few qualms about recommending them to the UN, noting that Blackwater "contracts are heavily regulated by the American government." His conclusion: "Go to [Mr. Prince and Ms. Farrow], secretly or in public, just for advice or to sign contracts, together or separately. Nongovernment types like Ms. Farrow, and organizations like Mr. Prince's have an interest in Darfur. They are your best bet there, and thus everywhere."

New Republic Editor Sees Role for Blackwater

Michael Walzer of the New Republic, in an article titled "Mercenary Impulse," dispels some of the nonsense surrounding Blackwater and discusses possibilities for the private security contractor.

Though Walzer is critical of Blackwater in many ways, he makes several common sense observations. To those who argue that the North Carolina-based company is waging a private war, Mr. Walzer answers that "Blackwater's employees, of course, are not fighting a private war--Iraq is an American war." Against the charges that private security contractors are accountable to no one, the New Republic contributing editor points out that "a voluntary code of conduct has been accepted by many of the security companies operating in Iraq." Finally, Mr. Walzer is aware of the unrecognized cost being borne by Blackwater and other contractors: "The US government keeps no record of the security guards who have died or been wounded."

With regards to the literature surrounding Blackwater, Mr. Walzer has this to say:

Jeremy Scahill's Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army is informative but written as if readers already know the argument and so it is necessary only to present Blackwater's history in appropriately indignant tones. Then there is Gerald Schumacher's A Bloody Business: America's War Zone Contractors and the Occupation of Iraq, which defends the contractors but also considers in detail the criticism directed against them. (This happens shamefully often these days: political correctness on the left, intellectual engagement on the right.)

Mr. Walzer understands that private security contractors are sometimes able to perform jobs that others are not. He explains,

Speaking at a conference of arms merchants and war contractors in Amman, Jordan, in March 2006, Blackwater vice chairman J. Cofer Black offered to stop the killing in Darfur. "We've war-gamed this with professionals," he said. "We can do this." Back in the United States, another Blackwater official, Chris Taylor, reiterated the offer.

Since neither the United Nations nor NATO has any intention of deploying a military force that would actually be capable of stopping the Darfur genocide, should we send in mercenaries? Scahill quotes Max Boot, the leading neoconservative writer on military affairs, arguing forcefully that there is nothing else to do. Allowing private contractors to secure Darfur "is deemed unacceptable by the moral giants who run the United Nations," Boot writes. "They claim that it is objectionable to employ--sniff--mercenaries. More objectionable, it seems, than passing empty resolutions, sending ineffectual peace-keeping forces and letting genocide continue."

Some of us might prefer something like the International Brigade that fought in Spain over a force of Blackwater mercenaries. But the International Brigade was also a private militia... never under the control of the Spanish republic.... Whatever Blackwater's motives, I won't join the "moral giants" who would rather do nothing at all than send mercenaries to Darfur.