Britain’s Mercenary Motives
Attention mercenaries: Britain may be hiring. A July 2003 report by the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee sets out a new role for private military companies (PMCs) but insists they be "properly regulated" in order to distinguish between "reputable and disreputable" operators. The report responds to government proposals for legislation demanded by the committee following ...
Attention mercenaries: Britain may be hiring. A July 2003 report by the British Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee sets out a new role for private military companies (PMCs) but insists they be "properly regulated" in order to distinguish between "reputable and disreputable" operators. The report responds to government proposals for legislation demanded by the committee following the 1998 Sandline affair, when the British-based PMC delivered arms to Sierra Leone in violation of a United Kingdom-enforced U.N. arms embargo. Noting that "something went very badly wrong" in that case, the committee recommends that hired guns be licensed and monitored, effectively treating the trade in mercenaries like any other weapons export. This parliamentary effort is the latest in a series to regulate and improve transparency in the U.K. arms trade -- part of a larger campaign by the U.K. government for an "ethical foreign policy."
Attention mercenaries: Britain may be hiring. A July 2003 report by the British Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee sets out a new role for private military companies (PMCs) but insists they be "properly regulated" in order to distinguish between "reputable and disreputable" operators. The report responds to government proposals for legislation demanded by the committee following the 1998 Sandline affair, when the British-based PMC delivered arms to Sierra Leone in violation of a United Kingdom-enforced U.N. arms embargo. Noting that "something went very badly wrong" in that case, the committee recommends that hired guns be licensed and monitored, effectively treating the trade in mercenaries like any other weapons export. This parliamentary effort is the latest in a series to regulate and improve transparency in the U.K. arms trade — part of a larger campaign by the U.K. government for an "ethical foreign policy."
The committee recognizes the increased global demand for private military services since the end of the Cold War, and although it stops short of recommending that Britain hire mercenaries for active combat, it does suggest PMCs might help an overstretched British Army by staffing humanitarian and peacekeeping operations. Noting the success of limited PMC operations in the Balkans, the committee suggests that PMCs could have significantly assisted U.N. efforts to prevent genocide in Rwanda. The parliamentary committee also sees a role for PMCs in helping weak governments "secure revenue streams." Indeed, the British East India Company’s private army helped secure quite a few "revenue streams" from the empire and almost matched the size of the British Army by the 19th century.
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
