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.
