THE ART OF LYING (VERY) BADLY

I was hoping to start 2014 with a posting on conflict and the dangers of a blinkered approach to counter-insurgency. Instead, I have to waste my time and focus on another liar posing as a journalist.

My thanks to Jana for pointing me to this new “exposé” on Executive Outcomes by Pauli Poisuo. See http://iissonline.net/10-frightening-facts-about-private-military-companies/

Whereas I have great respect for David Isenberg, I was rather disappointed that he allowed his blog to be used as a disinformation vehicle by an apparent under-control “free-lance writer” to blatantly lie his way onto his blog. But, it is a truism that the more a lie gets spun, the more believable it becomes.

I cannot comment on what was written about the other PMCs but I believe I am somewhat informed to comment on his piece about EO.

Ironically, ever since myself/STTEP were blacklisted by the US DoS, a flurry of “new” stories on EO have surfaced. These “stories” are all rehashed and regurgitated elements of the disinformation campaign that was run against EO by numerous governments. Some of these articles were written by intellectuals and others by liars who obviously find their pockets swelling with someone else’s money.

Is this mere coincidence – or not? Could it be that some folks are very concerned that there may be a positive intervention in some conflicts and that it will ruin their foreign policies and deny them the resources that do not belong to them? Could it also be coincidence that an African government was “warned” we are planning a coup against them? I suspect not. Possibly the revival of the EO disinformation campaign is to lend credence to STTEP being blacklisted. Who knows?

Whereas I will not take Poisuo’s article to pieces, sentence by sentence, I will (again) state the following:

1    1.  EO had – and still has – more friends in Africa than many foreign governments as Africans governments know we never lied to them and we earned their trust. They also know that we had no hidden agendas. (Of note is that Poisuo contradicts himself by stating that EO “has been sighted in most African war zones, where it is said to hold high influence”). Besides, EO has been closed for almost two decades – a fact that appears to have escaped Poisuo in totality

2   2. EO never invaded an African country and injected itself as part of an occupation force. Instead, it was invited into countries by those governments that found themselves abandoned by their so-called friends and under siege. When the insurgents and rebels were destroyed and defeated, EO left as contractually agreed to prior to it entering the country.

   3. Poisuo uses the disingenuous comment of “shady dealings”. Why not list these “shady dealings” or does he too believe in the power of innuendo?

4   4. Any military strategist with two brain cells knows that to end an insurgency, the insurgents must be denied access to funding – funding that is used to purchase weapons and ammunition. This is part of the concept known as the Trinity of Gravity. To deny insurgents internal funding, they need to be removed from those areas where they get their funding – illegally I may add -  ie diamond fields, drug crops, etc. That is not rocket science but common sense.

Even more disingenuous are Poisuo’s comments: “The company is notorious for targeting the client country’s mineral-rich regions, often regaining and securing control of gold, oil and diamond regions before paying attention to other matters. Some whisper they don’t always get around to returning these possessions to the country”.

It would do him well to do some research on Africa. He may possibly then discover that many African countries have immense mineral resources and that these resources are one of the primary reasons for conflict. It would also do his credibility well to list – and not hint at - where EO holds all these mines he writes about. I for one would be happy to know where they are as I would love to know why I am not receiving any profits. Then of course, he could list examples of when the company failed to pay “attention to other matters”.

Also, why does he not tell everyone who reads his piece on just “who” is whispering that “they don’t always get around to returning these possessions to the country”. Surely, if a private company took possession of a country’s natural resources, the government would not merely whisper about it – instead they would shout it out to the world and do something about it.

The reality of it all is (I have mentioned this ad nauseum)  that EO was the only PMC that ended conflicts, never involved itself in the internal politics of its clients, never involved itself in crime of any nature, never raped and murdered civilians, never committed acts against its clients, never attempted to steal the resources of a client, never betrayed its clients despite massive pressure to do so and never backed both sides of the conflicts. Apparently, ending conflicts in Africa was definitely not a positive move as far as some governments were concerned.

It is also well known that I turned down a US$ 20 million bribe to close EO and leave Angola in 1993 to enable the rebels to win the war. I refused despite being threatened that it would be to my disadvantage to not accept the bribe and that I would live to regret it.

Unfortunately, people such as Poisuo are too lazy to do any research. Instead they feed off the lies of others and then use someone else’s blog to do their dirty work. This is one reason why so many journalists are not trusted. Research integrity is something they know very little about – or have any interest in.  

African governments have come to realise that there is a reason why a defunct company is still being targeted and STTEP blacklisted: Peace in Africa is bad for business and foreign policies…

In short, Pauli Poisuo is nothing but a liar – and a bad one at that. 

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR CHRIS BLATTMAN EXPLAINS HIS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

I took exception to Prof Blattman’s blog entry on EO where he lied three times in two sentences. I also sent him a copy of my blog posting challenging him to prove his allegations and to give him an opportunity to clarify his lies – despite him not giving me an opportunity to comment on his false and slanderous claims.  This resulted in an email debate between Blattman and I and I simply followed the old adage – if you give a man enough rope, he will hang himself.

Ironically, it was Prof Blattman who wrote about “sloppy journalism” and the lack of research…

Given the recent upsurge in articles aimed at increasing the disinformation already out there on EO, I have decided that enough is enough. Whereas the company was in no way perfect and also made many mistakes (as its founder and chairman I must take the blame), I cannot sit by while armchair journalists and suspected disinformation agents apparently acting on behalf of African terror groups openly lie about good men who did what they did to end conflicts in Africa and elsewhere. I cannot allow people to tarnish the name of good men who sacrificed so much to bring about an end to conflicts by those who never set foot there and are too lazy to conduct decent research.

My thanks to the many that sent me mails attacking and criticising Prof Blattman. However, this is not about attacking the man but rather about showing how he abused his position of trust to lie to achieve someone else’s goals.

I leave it to the readers of this blog to decide on the validity of Prof Blattman’s answers to my three basic questions.

Rgds,

On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:58 AM, Eeben Barlow wrote:

 

Dear Prof Blattman,

I read your blog entry on Executive Outcomes with much interest.

I have decided to respond with a posting questioning your "facts" regarding EO.

Perhaps you would care to enlighten me on your "facts" as obviously you seem to know things we do not know.

I have attached my posting hereto for your attention and response.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Eeben Barlow

 

On 2013/12/02 04:17 PM, Chris Blattman wrote:

 

Thanks. If you have an HTML for the attachment I'd be happy to link to it. Or I can just post the PDF.

Chris

On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Eeben Barlow wrote:

Simply posting it on your blog is really no response to some serious allegations you made.

It appears you choose not to respond to my questions?

 

On 2013/12/02 06:31 PM, Chris Blattman wrote:

 

Hi Eeben

I do think it’s important that anything I blog is held accountable to critics, especially any who are being criticized, and so posting your objection would be the minimum I could do. Moreover, in order to respond, or have my readers respond or comment, I’d prefer to be able to link to your full comment. I could simply upload the PDF to my site but I thought you might have a website of your own you’d prefer me to link to. I don’t have a strong preference.

I’ll do my best to respond to the comments on the blog, and hopefully it could lead to a discussion from me and the readers that provides a more comprehensive response. My first impression is the following: The main point of my blog post was to say that there there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding EO—you describe it quite clearly in your comment--and that it’s reasonable to expect a publication of the caliber of the New Yorker to discuss this and provide the best evidence for or against. If the case against acts being “dodgy” is a strong one, this would serve you well. But casual observers like me are not in a position to do this research themselves, and it’s hard to judge if journalists or state organizations who have critiqued you are discredited as you say. This is what we rely on the specialized journalists and academics to do. The New Yorker author failed here, in my opinion. If quality investigation would vindicate you, then they also failed you and EO as well, since the half-informed like me are unconvinced.

In light of this, I should have written “allegations of dodgy acts” rather than “dodgy acts” since I don’t have expertise or knowledge here. I did balk at your point that acting on behalf of a sitting African government by definition makes an act not dodgy. In my opinion, few African governments had a strong claim to legitimacy in the 1980s and 1990s, whatever that might mean. Even if they were legitimate, however, the actions of a legitimate government and their agents can easily be questionable, wrong or illegal (and often are). The job of journalism and academics is a democracy is to ask and debate these hard questions, and ultimately that’s what disappointed me about the New Yorker article. I wasn’t looking for them to string up EO (indeed, as I mentioned, I think that some of the EO record is quite commendable) but rather to discuss rather than obscure important controversies.

Your thoughts welcome.

Best

Chris

 

On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:57 AM, Eeben Barlow wrote:

 

Hi Chris,

Thank you for responding.

Surely you can do better than that!

My rebuttal to your posting is posted on my blog for all to see and comment on. I have no problem with fair criticism but your comments on EO were so off the mark that it was amazing that an intellectual will simply state lies as fact and perpetuate what has been acknowledged to have been a massive disinformation campaign against EO. I suppose to use your model of research, that makes you a disinformation agent.

I would suggest that you go back and investigate where the controversy came from.

I asked you three questions – all three of which you want to avoid. To now claim that you are merely a “casual observer” is basically passing the buck, isn’t it?

The journalists and organisations I wrote about in my book were all entitled to sue me. None did. Those journalists have now been so discredited that they are seldom able to practice their “craft”. The Star newspaper in SA published a full page apology to me and admitted they had been misled re EO. Basic internet research would have indicated that to you.

As you blog about EO and appear to want to come across as a knowledgeable person on the company, how can you now claim to be “half-informed”? Surely, research is exactly that – an investigation for the truth.

It was you that brought up the “dodgy” acts – I merely elaborated on them. If a government anywhere in the world is recognised as “the government”, regardless of where they are or what political system they adhere to, are they then actually not legit? After all, the USA recognised all the governments that contracted us as the legitimate governments of those countries – and note – they contracted us to help them. We didn’t invade them – and we still remain friends years after we left. But are you also telling me that these governments are therefore, in your opinion, not legitimate?

I am still waiting for the “outlawed” and “disbanded” explanation.

I appreciate your comment on EO’s commendable acts but I take umbrage to three lies you stated as “fact”.

To tell me that you “don’t have expertise or knowledge” on the matter is really poor especially coming from someone who is entrusted to teach facts to your students.

Rgds,

Eeben

 

On 2013/12/02 07:04 PM, Chris Blattman wrote:

 

Hi Eeben

I’ll do my best to post something in the next day or so. But I am definitely passing the buck. In part because there just aren’t enough hours in the day, and the blog is most definitely a sloppy personal exercise. As I remind my readers often: I ain’t the New York Times. But passing the buck in academia means deferring to the experts, and expecting them (including New Yorker journalists) to do this job for us. That’s the nature of specialization—not all of us can do the detailed research. I imagine it would take me months to do what you propose. So should I be more cautious in some of my comments? Sure. And I’ll make that point. But was I erroneous to raise concerns about the controversy and the opaque dismantling of EO, and hope for more. Surely the answer is yes, and that is the serious and main point of the post. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

On 2013/12/02 07:17 PM, Eeben Barlow wrote

 

Hi Chris,

I don’t think it is necessary to post anything on your blog as the damage you intended to do has been done, wouldn’t you say? The article you referred to happened to portray the old EO in a positive light and you took exception to that – without much effort at thinking or doing research.  Instead, you chose to mislead your readers whilst attacking a lady who does not just talk the talk but is willing to put her money where her mouth is. There certainly aren’t many like her around and whether you believe it or not, she went out and DID something instead of simply criticising all and sundry. Had she contracted an American or British company, I am sure there would have been no complaints.

Like you, I too have too few hours in the day, but if I write something, I will stand – and die by it. And, by the way, my blog writing is also a sloppy personal exercise. But, I never pass the buck and blame someone else for my mistakes.

I am not too sure I understand your last sentence so I shan’t comment on it.

The bottom line, regardless, is I do not agree with you.

Thanks for your time.

Rgds,

Eeben

HYPOCRISY AND THE POWER OF PERCEPTIONS

I wrote this piece in response to “Mark from Utah” who sent me a private mail lambasting both myself and STTEP. Unfortunately, he has yet to discover the spell checker on his computer or learn to write without having to resort to blasphemy and swearing. As for South Africans having no right to work in Africa, you are obviously wired to the moon. I thank you for your negligible contribution, Mark.

 

For helping legitimate African governments with political and military advice and training, my men and I are frequently branded as “mercenaries” by some in the media and some foreign non-African governments. There is an old adage “Sticks and stones may break my bones…”

When foreign companies do the same – they are “Private Military Contractors” (PMCs).

Ironically, we are not – and have never been - part of an invasion force intent on occupying an African country. We are invited to African countries by the legitimate governments who believe and know that we will not deceive them or come with a hidden agenda. It is, after all, the right of any government to decide who they wish to use to assist them – and not the right of the media or a foreign government to dictate who they may or may not use.

We have never killed innocent civilians, raped women, destroyed property or involved ourselves in any criminal acts such as antiquity and resource/mineral smuggling, weapon smuggling, human trafficking and such. We have not entered those countries that asked for help with an agenda other than ending the conflicts and saving innocents – but that apparently makes us the “bad guys”.

We have never wasted a client government’s money, abandoned them, played both sides of the fence, broken their trust or run away from their problems. Nor have we ever tried to sell them over-priced obsolete equipment that has no role to play in their conflicts.

As Africans, we have both a duty and a right to assist governments that wish to bring about stability – especially if they have asked for our help. That stability is to the advantage of our entire continent. I believe our working in Africa carries more validity than that of the many “one-week wonders” we have encountered in our travels across the continent. I suppose the next move will be an attempt to prohibit all South African companies from operating in Africa.

Yes, we served in our country’s armed forces and as such some of us operated in foreign countries – much as US and European forces do today. The armed forces do not chose where they will be deployed. However, the SADF’s pre-emptive strikes were condemned by the very governments that today follow similar policies. As an instrument of policy, the armed forces go where they are sent as part of the larger grand strategy of the State.

As we work at actually assisting African governments end their conflicts as rapidly and economically as possible, we are condemned. For assisting African governments achieve stability and end conflicts or terrorism, we attract the wrath of those who wish these actions, along with the slaughter of innocents, to continue despite preaching the opposite. Our record of success speaks volumes as far as I am concerned. Indeed, it has never been equalled. But, to prevent a client government or corporation from having to contend with the hostility that usually follows if we are used, we are now forced to do what we do in secret.

Despite the media lies that followed EO around, pushing destabilisation agendas and attempting to ensure the longevity of African rebel and terrorist groups, we have never been paid in oil, diamonds or any other mineral. I have yet to see the numerous mining concessions that the media, the UN and some foreign governments have claimed I/we were and are being paid with. Ironically, these perceptions still follow us around – despite being nothing other than cheap lies to advance criminal and rebel groups along with terrorism.

Fortunately, many of those “journalists” who so willingly sold their lies and souls to the media are now either without work or have been disgraced – one even very recently - for being caught out peddling other people’s agendas. The specialists who provided expert knowledge on EO have all been proven wrong – as will those who provide “expert” insights into STTEP.

We are not hired and paid for by our government to promote or push South Africa’s foreign policy – unlike many foreign PMCs. This however places us on a very un-level playing field as we are forced to compete with “free” offers. Sometimes we win, many times we don’t. Ironically, governments that accept these free offers usually end up losing their countries anyway.

We do not interfere with the agendas and foreign interests of outside governments – unless those interests coincide with fermenting unrest and promoting armed violence. More than anything, that puts us on the wrong side. Even the FBI have involved themselves in investigating us.

It is encouraging to note that some African governments are beginning to question the hypocrisy and attempts at creating false perceptions practised by some.

If nothing else, that is a good place to start.

ANOTHER SPECIAL FORCES/EO WANNABE SHOWS HIMSELF – WITH THE HELP OF A “JOURNALIST”

I have never been able to understand why some people feel the need to claim an association with a company or with people they have never met. I suppose it is either because they have a very low self-esteem or they believe they will never be caught out as no one will ever come to the fore and expose them for what they are – sad, pathetic people. The vast majority of these “self-confessed heroes” would not last a single day with the real men they boast they were part of.

If I were to spend my time exposing all of these conmen and wannabees (it seems there are thousands who claim to have been in EO), I would have to remain glued to my computer – something I have no intention of doing.

However, some of these pathetic wannabees simply need more exposing than others. Equally pathetic are the journalists who lap up the lies these fools tell them and then publish them as “the truth”.  

In this day and age, one would think that someone who has qualified at the London School of Journalism with Distinction in 2001 – who has access to the internet – and is an author, would at least have the drive and integrity to do some fact-checking before publishing an article, not so, Simon Tomlin? It seems to get worse when the said journalist is an ex-army man who suffers from what appears to be a very severe persecution complex.

Tomlin wrote a piece he posted on his News Alliance UK blog (http://newsallianceuk.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/murder-and-mayhem-tolerated-by-the-security-services-to-protect-a-mercenary/) in which he published several blatant lies disguised as “facts”. He did not even bother to check the outrageous and libellous claims he wrote – instead, he blamed it on the piece of garbage he was writing about. In a sense, that is simply proof that Tomlin does not waste time with fact checking. As he boasts of the 4 books he has written, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are likewise books with very little factual foundation.  

Enter Shaun Patrick Breach, a British subject who claims (falsely) that he served in the SA Special Forces (no one I spoke to in Special Forces had ever heard of him) as well as that he served in EO – he does not appear on any EO personnel lists nor is there a book number for anyone by the surname of Breach.

Breach happens to be Tomlin’s “source” – and he and Tomlin had a fall-out about a book Breach wanted Tomlin to write. He also happens to be the source that provided the drivel to Tomlin for his grossly inaccurate comments about EO.  Everything that Breach claimed was immediately assumed by Tomlin to be fact. In a sense, I can therefore say anything about Tomlin that I want to say and use the same lame excuse he has used – “so-and-so told me so”.

Tomlin it seems believes that EO still exists, is cooperating with the British security services and along with Breach are in some way out to “get him”. This fantasy no doubt has its origins with Breach who can at best be termed a piece of dirt. Breach made numerous claims/statements to Tomlin and despite the claims being able to be verified if the journalist really wanted to, they were simply assumed to be absolute fact. This also shows the incredible gullibility of Tomlin who swallowed this drivel hook, line and sinker.

Looking at some of the emails Tomlin sent to a genuine ex-EO man – I really have to shake my head. Poor man! Tomlin certainly doesn’t like anyone questioning him and his emails are indicative of someone with uncontained hysteria.

Breach on the other hand seems to be a real piece of work and most probably a danger to society. His claims that he was involved in murders and acted as some sort of hitman ought to be investigated.  

However, apart from Breach’s lies, I would like Tomlin to immediately provide the ICC with proof of EO’s “war crimes” so that the matter can be swiftly dealt with.

I suspect that both Breach and Tomlin live in a world of fantasy and deserve one another. 

THE NEW YORK TIMES “CORRECTION” AND OTHER THINGS

Having been away for a couple of days, Matt (www.feraljundi.com) alerted me to the fact that the New York Times had finally responded to my letter accusing them of lying about Executive Outcomes in an article they had published.

The New York Times printed a correction on 18 May and although not apologising for the deception, wrote the following:

An article on Sunday about the creation of a mercenary battalion in the United Arab Emirates misstated the past work of Executive Outcomes, a former South African mercenary firm whose veterans have been recruited for the new battalion. Executive Outcomes was hired by several African governments during the 1990s to put down rebellions and protect oil and diamond reserves; it did not stage coup attempts. (Some former Executive Outcomes employees participated in a 2004 coup attempt against the government of Equatorial Guinea, several years after the company itself shut down.)

Ironically, it seems that the New York Times considers the murder, rape and mutilation of innocent civilians by foreign-backed insurgents as mere “rebellions”. Of course, they also felt it very necessary to, in their correction, mention that some ex-EO men were involved in Simon Mann’s poorly planned coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea whilst not mentioning any other company’s ex-employees. But it appears as though every time a South African is involved, it should be blamed on EO.

Whereas I am not entirely satisfied with the correction without an apology, I shall be discussing the matter with my legal council before deciding what action to take next.

I note that there are several comments pending approval on my blog. I apologise for not yet publishing and responding to them – I shall do so as soon as I have caught up on my backlog of administration.

On request of several readers of the blog, I have finally opened a Twitter account. I am still trying to master this new element of social media but until such time as I can, I shall remain a twit.

MORE FRAUDS NAMED AND SHAMED...

Subsequent to my previous posting on the blog exposing people and companies posing as EO or claiming to represent me, I have received numerous mails from companies and governments questioning the service records of some of these imposters or asking me to comment on certain media reports.

Of all of these, two characters automatically qualify to receive special mention:

1. A journalist by name of Torgeir P Hook Fjord
2. A liar by name of Abdul Rehmaan Vorgers.

Thanks to a Norwegian visitor to the blog, I was sent a copy of an article that appeared in the Norwegian daily “Dagbladet” of 27 May 2010.

Written by the above-mentioned Torgeir P Hook Fjord, the article is allegedly based on an “exclusive interview” he had with me. This person then sprinkles his article with lies, conjecture, disinformation and some facts. Perhaps he is unaware of the reality that Google is not an all authoritative source of information.

I wrote to this Torgeir P Hook Fjord asking him exactly where and when he had this interview with me as I believed, unlike him, that I had to afford him an opportunity to respond to my questions before I exposed his lies. In fact, I sent him three emails.

I put some very simple questions to him that included:

1. Where and when did he interview me?
2. Where and when did EO commit “extensive human rights violations”?
3. Where, when and by whom was EO granted mineral concessions as payment for its work done?
4. When did Pres Thabo Mbeki “ban” EO?
5. Which Selous Scouts served in EO?
6. When was 32 Bn incorporated into the SADF’s Special Forces?

There has, as yet, been no response from him and my emails have all gone unanswered. This is hardly surprising as I never gave a recent “exclusive interview” to him or any other journalist.

I would have hoped that had a journalist been falsely accused of fabricating information, he would have the courage to immediately respond to clear his good name.

If Torgeir P Hook Fjord ever responds to my mails with very valid explanations for his deceit, I shall apologise to him and even post his response on this blog.

I believe that Torgeir P Hook Fjord has proven without a shadow of doubt that he happy to accept payment for lies – indeed a poor reflection of his journalistic integrity.

Another liar that recently bobbed to the surface is Abdul Rehmaan Vorgers.

Unfortunately for him, the company he applied to for a job sent his “CV” to me to confirm his role in EO. Looking at his very impressive yet completely fake military record, he even managed to join EO after the company closed its doors. Even more impressive is that he was deployed into some countries EO never worked in.

His record in EO reads like pure fantasy – here is an extract of his “service record” with EO:

The company provides a number of specialized security and training to the local and international markets. Some of those training services are firearms, personal security, executive protection, counter terrorism and combat training.
I have regularly been sub-contracting in Algeria (Convoy Protection), Angola (Convoy Protection), Sierra Leone (Convoy Protection), Nigeria, Somalia and Uganda.
I transferred from the company group to central Algeria and did all cover operation and high risk convoy protection units.
As for now, I still operate and do contracts.

The fake “SADF certificates” he added to his CV are riddled with spelling mistakes and are indeed laughable. Obviously, Mr Vorgers does not know that the computer he used has a spell-check on it.

Another company listed on his impressive action-packed CV is a CD/DVD replication and packaging company based in France. They seem to have deployed Vorgers on some very high risk missions. No doubt using his “extensive experience” he gained doing “convoy protection” at or for EO, he states that:

I was planning all high risk convoying in Afganistan and Irak and trained US DOD Contracts for Iraq. I did many training for (I.E.D.) Identification as well as combat training but the last year in Iraq I was doing high risk convoying.

Unfortunately, the world seems to be riddled with people such as the “esteemed gentlemen” I have listed.

As more information surfaces on people of this ilk, I shall be sure to write about them.

CAN PMCS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

It seems that the private military industry has become a prime target of negative media reporting and that many so-called “specialist journalists” have taken to writing (mainly negatively) about the PMCs that litter the industry.

Whereas one can certainly question the motives and agendas of these “specialists”, it is equally true that a lot of the negative reporting can be placed before the doors of the PMCs themselves. One reads of drunken parties, drug taking, wild shootings, ill discipline and more – can one then really blame the media for reporting on this type of hooliganism masquerading as professionals? I don’t think so.

Added to this is a complete inability of some of these PMCs to deliver the service they were contracted to deliver. However, when I refer to PMCs, I refer to professional, competent and experienced private military companies and not the host of “wannabes”, con-artists and clowns trying to masquerade as PMCs. But fortunately many of these “wannabes” are exposing themselves as nothing other than incompetent buffoons – and this includes some of the “big name” companies. Indeed, it seems as though many in the PowerPoint Brigade believe in the adage “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull...”.

PMCs that act professionally and are more than just “briefcase” or “PowerPoint” companies can play a very important role in assisting governments engaged in conflicts. Furthermore, these PMCs can provide much needed protection and support to real humanitarian groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders). In both Angola and Sierra Leone, EO helped the WFP get much needed supplies through to the locals although they were not willing to admit to that. When such organisations the lack moral fibre to admit that they received assistance from a private company that is something they have to live with.

The local population are the true victims of all of the conflicts we are witnessing today. Whether they are victims of excessive criminal activity, rebel actions or government retaliation against the rebels, or even the impotence of so-called peacekeepers, the fact is that much desperately needed aid is denied to them.

The role of the private sector in armed conflict is nothing new. Private contractors have been engaged in numerous wars in a variety of roles. Indeed, if one looks at the human agent, he/she is nothing other than a private contractor working for a government intelligence agency.

It is a fact of life that PMCs are here to stay. Instead of the constant barrage of articles aimed at vilifying PMCs, thought should rather be given to how PMCs can and ought to be used and what positive role they can play in resolving conflicts and in support of humanitarian operations.

The following are just some examples of the roles PMCs can play:

• In some instances, they can end conflicts faster and cheaper than some standing armies
• Establish a foundation for peacekeeping operations
• Project influence of the host government
• Act as an advance party to other forces
• Assist with insider knowledge of a country
• Project and ensure stability
• Safeguard foreign investments/assets in a conflict zone
• Provide protection to humanitarian groups
• Provide protection to the locals caught up in the conflict
• Provide support to the armed forces on and off the battlefield
• Assist governments with strategy and doctrine development
• Provide training in specialist fields
• Advice on tactics and deployments
• Intelligence gathering operations in high-risk areas
• Deniable operations
• Counter Terrorist operations
• Counter Piracy operations
• Countering crime and narco-terrorism
• Reconnaissance of targets
• Communications
• Logistical support
• Medical support
• Protection of national key points and so forth.

I am not in any way advocating that PMCs even try to take over the role of the Armed Forces. But, given the loss of experienced manpower that leave the military, the armed forces can find a ready pool of trained soldiers to assist and support them without maintaining a large standing force at massive cost to the taxpayers. But then, the taxpayers will expect the PMCs to act in a disciplined and professional manner and in no way bring embarrassment to their government.

There have been numerous arguments for and against this approach but when governments find themselves under siege and their calls for assistance fall on deaf ears, a dedicated and professional PMC can make the different between the survival of the government or its collapse.

THE PHENOMENON OF CHILD SOLDIERS

According to the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of a Child, any person who has not yet reached the age of 15 years and partakes in an armed conflict is defined as a “child soldier”. Sadly, this criterion is simply ignored by many. In 2002, an optional UN protocol came into effect; it declared that State Parties should take all “feasible measures to ensure that persons below the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities and that they are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces".

When Executive Outcomes (EO) was operating in Sierra Leone in 1996, we tried very hard to get members of the media to give coverage to the child-soldiers fighting in that conflict. Sadly, this did not interest them as they were apparently more concerned at finding reasons to get EO out of that country so that the rebels could continue with their orgy of violence. We also appealed to the UN on this issue but they seemingly did not understand their own conventions and protocols on children. The men, however, continued to do what they could to get the children out of the firing-line and help the process of rehabilitating them. These efforts applied to both government and rebel forces. For this, EO was given a certificate of appreciation by the Sierra Leone organisation “Children Associated with the War”.

But, the use of children in war is nothing new. Indeed, children have been soldiers and casualties in most, if not all wars. Modern media reporting, however, makes it easier to highlight their plight on television and in the printed media. But, these children that have been robbed of their innocence are not a phenomenon unique to Africa.

The vast majority of these children are forcibly acting as “trigger-men” and “cannon-fodder” after being brutally inducted into war by torture, rape, threats, murder, and so forth. They are given real guns and told to kill whoever stands in their paths. As an example, in Sierra Leone, boys were forced to rape their mothers or sisters before killing their parents. There is no clear chance to escape and any attempt at escaping is met with extreme violence, torture and even death.

Once inducted into their life of murder and mayhem, they are easily influenced by their “leaders” and peers. Killing becomes a way of life. However, when they are in the opposite trenches trying to kill those who wish to stop them, they become valid battlefield targets – and often lose life and limb without understanding the reason for their being there. Those that survive, suffer enormous emotional trauma.

Estimates are that approximately between 250 000 and 300 000 children are currently serving as soldiers, actively engaged in conflict, across the world. They act not only as soldiers but also as spies, porters, sexual distractions, messengers and so forth. Some of these children are used to lead the assaults against government forces and even to act as suicide bombers. And it is not only boys who are forced into the world of warcraft.

But rebel forces are, however, not the only ones to use children to bolster their forces. Several governments are equally guilty of recruiting children – or coercing them – into their forces. This desire to swell the number of men under arms points directly to a flawed strategy of winning any conflict.

Actively participating in armed conflict as soldiers not only traumatises the children, it also violates their very rights as children. Robbed of their youth and forced to kill, main or torture, they are devoid of any moral compass. Their education is killing - or to be killed. They have no schools, homes, medical facilities and so on. In fact, all they have is a gun and ammunition. In using these weapons of war, many of these child soldiers commit horrific atrocities, effectively making them war criminals. But, international law restricts their punishment as they remain children.

This problem can manifest itself in a serious manner at the end of hostilities as these child-soldiers have the ability and the means to enter into a life of serious organised crime. With their only real education being that power comes through the gun, where will it end?

Added on 24 February 2009: David Isenberg sent me this interesting copy of a thesis document submitted to the University of Victoria. Thank you, David.
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk3/ftp04/MQ62035.pdf

A CONTINUATION OF DISINFORMATION

An article published on the website Africa Crisis on 17 December 2008 (http://www.africancrisis.co.za/Article.php?ID=40085&) was sent to me by one of the followers of this blog. The article was submitted by a person using the pseudonym of “Fox”, who currently resides in Germany. “Fox” has for sometime been a person who has decided to leave no stone unturned in an attempt to continue the disinformation campaign against both myself and Executive Outcomes.

Whereas I have no problem with someone who does not like me (being disliked by such people causes me no loss of sleep), I have a problem with the lies these people have made up, perpetuated and regurgitated.

I have also, in the meantime, learnt the identity of “Fox”, who, upon deeper investigation, was apparently very closely tied-in to the old SA Military Intelligence (MI).

Whereas the article (dated 2006) contained at lot of regurgitated misinformation, it also had some new “elements” added to it. What struck me about the article was that the author, one Dr. Alexander von Paleske, stated his profession as “Ex-Barrister-at-Law, High Court Frankfurt (M)”. One would have hoped that as a barrister, he would at least get some historical facts correct. As he is a legal man, I am sure Dr von Paleske will gladly accept my challenge to prove his allegation that either EO or myself are linked/were linked, found guilty of anything illegal or of associating with criminal elements, or being linked to the “global spider web of crooks, arms dealers…” and so forth as he claims.

Given the fact that he felt he had to include both myself and EO in his article (see my earlier posting “CHOSING TO DISINFORM”), I wonder what Dr von Paleske’s real agenda is? Whereas I will most probably never know unless I choose to investigate the good doctor, I am grateful to him for showing that he too is just another purveyor of disinformation.

My very special thanks also to “Fox” for exposing the relationship with MI.

PERPETUATING DISINFORMATION

I was somewhat surprised to receive an article titled “China’s capitalist gangster” written by Jody Ray Bennett and published by the International Relations and Security Network, otherwise known as ISN Security Watch. The ISN is, in turn, a service of the Centre for Security Studies (CSS) at the ETH Zurich (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich).

For some inexplicable reason Bennett felt the great irresistible desire to not-so-subtly include Executive Outcomes in the body of the article, trying to draw a link/distinction/parallel between the Chinese mafia boss Yang Shukuan and the “adventurous profiteering operations” of EO. (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=94172).

This really caught my attention and by doing some internet searches, I discovered that Bennett is also apparently another self-styled expert on EO and especially Simon Mann’s alleged role in establishing and running the company. Apart from discovering that Bennett’s “research” is based on the internet and lies, Bennett is also based in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Those of us who served in the South African Defence Force in the 80s are well aware of how that country was supporting terrorism and “armed struggles” in Africa and elsewhere.

Upon further investigation of the ISN’s partners, I discovered that the South African NGO, Institute of Security Studies (ISS) – another vigorous purveyor of disinformation about EO and myself – have a very close tie. Coincidence, I wondered? But then again, NGOs are famous for rebuking anyone who makes a profit – as long as no-one points a finger at their profit margins. Their oft-pronounced claims that they do what they do to make the world a better place are pure fabrication in many cases – they do it because they profit from it. However, Bennett would undoubtedly defend their sponsorships as a mere income, whilst denouncing EO’s income as shameless profiteering.

But then I have often wondered – who sponsors these people and organisations? From the manner in which they target select companies for often inexplicable specific reasons, I wondered if their sponsorship is not perhaps derived from governments and multi-national corporations whose interests EO threatened. Finding out exactly which multi-nationals and governments sponsor these fabricators of disinformation will be an interesting direction to take up for people who take pride in independent research – and who are not using the convenient label of findings to disguise propaganda as research.

The title researcher is undoubtedly meant to convey authority, professionalism and objectivity. That is why so many people believe what they write in their reports. That is why so few people will never realise the extent of the abuse by some of them of the generally accepted notion of research as something objective. They count on the fact that the public at large would be certain to accept as truth the findings of researchers working for an institute or other such body. Even newspapers and magazines who publish these findings don’t usually go to the trouble to first check by whom a particular institute is funded. Thus very few people come to realise that both the topics of so-called research as well as so-called findings often depend on who is doing the funding – and what their agenda is.

Having aired my opinion on this disturbing trend, I have to note that I do know of ethical researchers who double-check the intelligence they get fed by governments and who resist attempts by companies with vested interests to dictate the nature and the outcome of their research.

I responded to Bennett’s disinformation with the following:

I find it amazing how the gross fabrications on Executive Outcomes are continually perpetuated due to poor research and lack of facts and somehow worked into an otherwise good article. However, if your facts on EO are incorrect, how correct can the other facts in the article be?

Simon Mann was NEVER a founder/member/partner or anything else in EO, yet for some reason (again no research) he is continually portrayed as such. What a shame that you abuse your responsibility to inform and instead choose to misinform.

However, I am sure that no attention will be paid by this researcher of the ISN or any other one for that matter.

In my next posting I shall take a look at how the media acts as a source of disinformation.

THE FAILURE(S) OF THE UN IN AFRICA

It is astonishing that no-one in the United Nations (UN) has the moral courage to step forward and admit their shameful behaviour and subsequent failures in Africa. In fact, their lack of contribution to keeping peace in Africa has been nothing but disgraceful. At least some UN generals have opted to rather leave than be tainted with this shambles. Perhaps they knew that if they didn’t jump they would be pushed.

Perhaps the time has come to hold the UN accountable for not only its mismanagement, mis-strategising, misconduct and for completely missing the objectives of peacekeeping but also for the many thousands of lives that their incompetence has caused. But, this will never happen as long as their salaries are paid. They will merely continue to show their complete lack of understanding insofar as conflict-cause, conflict resolution, strategy and conflict-containment is concerned. Coupled to a lack of discipline, poor command and control, inadequate training and little to no intelligence, the state of affairs just gets worse.

The current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is a perfect example at hand.

The UN boasts that this is its largest peacekeeping mission in the world with in excess of 17 000 men. The costs to maintain this monstrously inept machine are enormous. The results they have achieved thus far hover close to an absolute zero. The fact that they are even allowed to wear military uniforms and travel in military vehicles ought to be a disgrace to any military man with some pride.

Hiding behind the impressive name of MONUC, this force has been unable to enforce or keep any peace whatsoever. Yet, their press releases appear to intimate successes that are invisible to everyone else. Chaos and lives lost are apparently of no consequence to them. Hundreds of thousands of people have been made homeless and continue to flee the conflict area, yet MONUC seems oblivious to all of this. If they really are that keen to do their job, why aren’t they then doing it? Perhaps they too will soon blame “mission creep” for their failures. Or, when the whole world finally sits up and takes note, they will probably state that a peace agreement is “imminent”. Until then, Ban Ki-moon and his cohorts will continue to express their desire to solve problems – and do nothing. Besides, solving the problem could have a negative influence on their “jobs-for-life” mentality.

They give themselves a new name for every mission and loudly proclaim how they are going to make a difference. The truth is that they do make a difference – upon their arrival things rapidly progress from bad to worse. Then, as they steadily entrench the chaos they bring, they quickly blame everyone else for their ineffectiveness. When they are called on to stand their ground, they buckle and leave in a hurry – or even worse, as they did in Angola, they blame the government for wanting to finish off the rebel forces while they in turn ooze sympathy for the rebels.

Indeed, in Angola it was well known to the men of EO that these so-called blue-helmeted soldiers would, once they arrived to keep the peace, snivel in their bases and send back false area intelligence and patrol reports to their headquarters in Luanda. These reports, which the EO signallers intercepted – and which I still have in my possession - showed what true peacekeeping incompetence is. Even worse, they gave the rebels glowing reports while blaming government forces for any cease-fire violations when the opposite was true.

Had that same situation occurred anywhere in Europe or even the USA, the besieged government would have been helped to defeat any rebel movement aimed at overthrowing or destabilising it. But this does not happen in Africa. Here both sides are supported by the UN and some Western governments/multi-nationals and then a decision is made as to who the winner is likely to be and then that side is supported – until they are overwhelmed. The UN is able to switch sides faster than one can throw a light switch. After all, Africa is mainly black with a couple of whites thrown in – so why would they care? At the end of the day, these lives – be it black or white – are just expendable Africans as far as they are concerned.

Just look what the UN actually achieved in Angola: The rebels, defeated on the battlefield, signed the peace accord in Lusaka, the peacekeepers arrived, confined everyone to base, forced the military to disarm while quietly (and knowingly) allowed the rebels to re-arm and then, when the war broke out again, they fled with their tails between their legs, blaming the government for defending itself. Is that peacekeeping or chaos-creation?

They also successfully applied a similar strategy in Sierra Leone, eventually losing so much control that the British and US had to race to the rescue. Before the DRC, this was their largest mission which they eventually hailed as a great triumph to peacekeeping. If one really looks at what happened in Sierra Leone, the UN is solely to blame for massive loss of life and destruction to personal property – to say nothing of the trauma, disillusionment and refugees they left in their wake.

Their record of indulging in criminal acts is also well documented – child prostitution, looting, rape, robbery and even murder are seemingly part of their peacekeeping portfolio. Perhaps the time has come for governments to start speaking out against the UN’s blundering and fuelling of fires. African governments should hold the UN accountable when they fail as dismally as they do.

It would furthermore do African leaders well to contract reliable PMCs to assist them with redefining containment strategies and implementing those strategies. The UN’s peacekeepers can then be expelled from African soil. This will ensure that there is a definite timeline for ending the conflict. Apart from the fact that it will cost a fraction of what it costs the UN – the DRC costs are currently estimated to be US$ 1,2 billion a year - it will also ensure commitment to complete the mission and there will be accountability to the contracting government – something the UN has neither of.

My next posting will take a brief look at the piracy problem off Africa’s east coast.