|
View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-War's November 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-War home page.
1. Palle Rasmussen <palle.rasmussen@GMAIL.COM> 2. Ed Haynes <maharao@yahoo.com> -----Message from: Palle Rasmussen <palle.rasmussen@GMAIL.COM>----- Not directly linked to mercenaries in Middle-Eastern and South Eastern Asia, but nonetheless linked and interested is the debate on the UN role in Africa and possible employment of PMCs there. UN is possibly on a hopeless task solving the many and very bloody conflicts on the African continent. Especially as very few of the usual core members of normal UN Peacekeeping forces seem willing to risk their lives in the endless struggles connected with the disintegration of the artificial states Colonialism left on the continent. The West rarely deploy anything but rapid reaction forces to Africa, and by and large only when their own interests are threatned (for example France in Côte d'Ivoire and UK in Sierra Leone). Meanwhile the few African (and other non-western countries) nations actually willing to undertake peacekeeping often do not have armies capable of it, so the UN is at a dead end. Especially as the UN officially condemns the use of mercenaries, again Sierra Leone and Côte d'Ivoire as well as Congo are ardent examples. To further problems, the often ineffective UN Peacekeeping missions are horrendously expensive and seem to drag on and on, only rarely leading to a solution. However, it has been suggested instead to allow the use by legally elected goverment of PMCs based in and answerable to democracies. Supporters of this solution claims that it is a faster, more effective and far cheaper method. But one not allowed by the UN, which condems the use of such. Private companies have been hired to solve some problems that are traditionally the job of NGOs and UN though. An ex-captain friend of mine is currently working for Danish Demining Group in Uganda, Kenya and S. Sudan to disarm and rebuild the area. *I am interested in your thoughts on this complicated matter*. Some links arguing for the employment of PMCs http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=8986 http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2000/s229144.htm http://www.hoosier84.com/02-00africaswelcomepariahs.pdf Googling "Sandline International" and/or "Executive Outcomes" will yield many arguments against it. Danish Demining Group's Armed Violence Reduction section can be found here http://www.danishdemininggroup.dk/about-armed-violence-reduction/ Best regards, Rasmussen, Palle- Ma Hist, Independent Scholar. Palle Rasmussen <palle.rasmussen@GMAIL.COM> -----Message from: Ed Haynes <maharao@yahoo.com>----- Again, I'm sorry if this is off-topic (as the original query related only to the Middle East and South East Asia (though it included Afghanistan?). There is much carefully crafted misunderstanding of the Gorkhas/Gurkhas and most of the scholarly work on them is really pretty poor Before 1948, Gorkhas never served in the British Army. They served in the Indian Army, and this was a completely different institution. The Gorkhas had been recruited into that force both from Nepal and from Gorkha communities residing in India. The Nepali Gorkhas were recruited under a special agreement with the Government of Nepal and their service in a foreign military was entirely financially driven. Wealth was returned to Nepal (and to select Nepali officials) from this recruiting agreement, though there were only ten Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army. With Indian independence, six of these regiments remained in the Indian Army and the other four entered into British service. The recruiting agreements with Nepal were suitably redrafted to cover this situation and soldiers who wished to remain in one service or the other were given the opportunity to transfer. (There is much mythology surrounding this Gorkha Patrrition, and some serious research is long overdue.) Gorkhas continue to serve as foreigners in the Indian Army (though some are Indian nationals) and as foreigners in the British Army (though their numbers have been reduced in recent years). The recruiting agreements remain in effect, though they are expected to be restructured by the new government in Nepal, especially as far as British recruitiment is concerned. Excect for their service in the Nepali Army (obviously), Gorkhas that serve in the Indian and British Armies are foreign nationals, serving for pay in a foreign force, fighting the wars of others. The last time I checked the meaning of "mercenary", I see no problem using it here? Ed Haynes Winthrop University Ed Haynes <maharao@yahoo.com> ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|