1 Derk Hortensius
S1704125
Supervised by: Prof. dr. J.A. Koops
Leiden University – Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs MSc Crisis and Security Management
Master Thesis 07-08-2019
Word Count: 23.864
The effective and appropriate way of
Private Military deployment
A case study on the United States in Colombia and Iraq
2
Index
Part 1: Introduction ... 4
Academic relevance ... 5
Societal relevance ... 6
Part 2: Theoretical framework ... 7
Literature review ... 7
The concept of PMCs ... 7
Historical development of PMCs ... 8
Advantages and disadvantages of PMCs ... 10
Legal Issues ... 11
Ethical Issues ... 12
Conceptualization ... 14
The concept Foreign Security Policy Tool ... 14
Appropriateness ... 17
Effectiveness ... 18
Part 3: Methodology ... 21
Methodological Framework ... 21
Logic of case selection ... 22
Data gathering method ... 23
Data analysis method ... 24
Operationalization ... 25
Reliability, Validity and Limitations ... 27
Part 4: Analysis ... 28
Chapter 1: ‘War on Drugs’ in Colombia ... 28
4.1.1 Context and the roots of the conflict in Colombia ... 28
4.1.2 PMCs as a foreign security policy tool in Colombia... 30
4.1.3 Appropriateness ... 32
4.1.4 Effectiveness ... 36
4.1.5 Conclusion Colombia ... 40
Chapter 2: ‘War on Terror’ in Iraq ... 42
4.2.1 Context and the roots of the conflict in Iraq ... 42
4.2.2 PMCs as foreign security policy tool in Iraq ... 44
4.2.3 Appropriateness ... 46
3
4.2.5 Conclusion Iraq ... 57
Part 5: Conclusion ... 59 Part 6: References ... 64
4
Part 1: Introduction
Private military companies (PMCs) are involved in many of today’s conflicts around the world. From Iraq and Afghanistan for the protection of diplomats, to Bosnia and Kosovo for the training of security forces (Faite, 2004, p.1). After the collapse of the Cold War, PMCs rapidly emerged. According to data compiled by the Congressional Research Service (2017), private contractors outnumber United States(US) troops by a 3-to-1 margin, since 2011. The US is one of the largest users of private military contractors, with $304 billion in contract awards to corporations in 2016– nearly half of the department’s $600 billion-plus budget for that year (Hartung, 2017). Compared to the whole European private security industry with $39 billion in contracts in 2013 (COESS, 2014) and Chinese private security industry with an estimated $10,3 billion in contracts in 2015 (Arduino, 2018, p.43).
However, the use of PMCs is sometimes seen as controversial. The reason for this is that the relationship between states and PMCs is all but transparent and, there are many ethical and legal issues attached to it (Faite, 2004; Schooner, 2005; Hedahl, 2012; Huskey, 2012; Keypour, 2013; Lovewine, 2014; Bejesky, 2014). One of the legal issues attached to PMCs is about their legal personality in International law, because there is no clear distinction between civilians and combatants (Faite, 2004, p.3). In addition, are PMCs not the same as mercenaries and is mercenary law applicable (Bejesky, 2014, p.46)? Nevertheless, the accountability and liability for these PMCs, and states making use of them is also
questionable (Huskey, 2012, p.194; Hedahl, 2012, p.176). One reason for this is the plausible deniability of states.
Besides the legal issues, there are also ethical issues attached to the use of PMCs. One of the issues concerns the profit motive of PMCs (and in wider aspect the profitability of war) operating in areas with very poor humanitarian conditions and tragic aspects of human life (Machairas, 2014, p.64). Furthermore, PMCs have the potential to erode the state’s monopoly on violence (Due-Gundersen, 2016, p.3). As a result of these societal issues it is unclear to determine if and how PMCs can be used as an appropriate and effective tool within foreign security policy. In order to explore possible factors influencing the appropriateness and effectiveness of PMC interventions, this research will focus on PMCs in Colombia and Iraq. Therefore the research question used in this thesis is: To what extent was the use of PMCs as
5
Academic relevance
Within academic literature there is no clear framework for measuring the appropriateness and effectiveness of PMCs. By examining the appropriateness and effectiveness of the PMC interventions in Colombia and Iraq, the wider legal, ethical and strategic issues can be identified. As a result of this there can be determined if these
interventions were appropriate and effective, and a better understanding of the possible factors influencing the appropriateness and effectiveness can be achieved. Nevertheless, what is appropriate is determined by the legal framework on PMCs, ethical standards and what is expected of PMCs. Moreover, what is expected is determined by the norms and principles on PMCs and their behavior. Effectiveness is measured through performance and the
achievement of goals. However, there is no consensus on how to measure effectiveness (Zammuto, 1982; Gustafson, 1999; Dubnick, 2005; Van Dooren, Bouckaert & Halligan, 2015). When measuring effectiveness of a performance, should there be focused on the quality of only an action, which leads to the achievement of a goal; the quality of only the achievement of a goal; or on the quality of both the action and the achievement? This depends on the discipline of science, but also on the actor who performs the action, which eventually results in an achievement (Van Dooren et al., 2015, p.2).
In this thesis the effectiveness of PMCs used as foreign security policy tool is assessed through Dunigan’s (2011) framework on measuring military effectiveness together with Gustafson’s (1999) three dimensions of performance. This is done through examining the achievement on four levels of goals: political, strategic, operational and tactical goals. Policy goals are the broadest political objectives and these are narrowed down by each level until the actual tactical goal of the mission on the ground. However, not only the achievement of the goals is important but also the process of the achievement. Therefore Gustafson (1999)
provide three dimensions: ‘mission’, ‘service’ and, ‘efficiency and productivity.’ Nonetheless, to measure this for PMCs it is very hard to find actual accurate data on these companies and there are too many PMCs operating in conflict areas to assess this in a master thesis.
Nevertheless, by tightening the scope this thesis will focus on the US and its use of PMCs as a foreign security policy instrument in Colombia during the 1990s and 2000s, and Iraq from 2003 till the US withdrawal in 2011.
6
Societal relevance
A multiple-case study on the US and their deployment of PMCs in Iraq and Colombia will provide answers to this gap. Especially the focus will be on the deployment of PMCs under Plan Colombia and the Invasion of Iraq. The reason for this case-study on the US is because the US is the most prominent user of PMCs which became evident with their
interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Tonkin, 2011, p.1). Nowhere has the scale and scope of PMC activity been more evident than in Iraq and Afghanistan during the US’ war on terror (Due-Gundersen, 2016, p.1). However, PMCs are not only used for the war on terror. Also in the war on drugs in Colombia, PMCs are used for the aerial eradication program (Boysen, 2007, p. 3). On the one hand, the Colombian case is used to assess how PMCs are used in support of another countries conflict, without actually operating there with your own military. While on the other hand, the Iraqi case is used to assess how PMCs are used in support of your own military operating inside another country.
The appropriateness is determined by examining if the plans to the actual conduct was in line with legal and ethical standards, and if so, these are appropriate. Together with the effectiveness of the achievement of policy objectives and strategic goals on the ground trough the framework provided by Dunigan (2011) and the dimensions provided by Gustafson (1999), there can be determined when PMCs are an appropriate and effective foreign security policy tool? If this is determined even policy recommendations can be given, next to the fact that this analysis will provide answers to societal issues like the undermining of the state’s monopoly on violence and academic debates around measuring appropriateness and effectiveness.
First, the broader academic debate on PMCs will be elaborated, to get a better
understanding of the context of PMCs. Subsequently, the literature about the US and their use of PMCs will be explored by looking at the foreign security policy aspects. Next, the legal and ethical issues attached to the use of PMCs will be examined and after this literature review, the main concepts used in this thesis will be explained together with the debates around these concepts. Finally the research design will be elaborated.
7
Part 2: Theoretical framework
Literature review
The overall goal of this literature review is to provide an overview of the academic debate regarding the ethical and legal concerns of the appropriateness together with the effectiveness of PMCs. First the core concepts within this debate will be elaborated and subsequently the rise of PMCs will be explained. Next the US and their use of PMCs will be examined. In addition, the use of PMCs has advantages and disadvantages, but there are also legal and ethical issues next to the policy impacts. Therefore these issues will be explained to get a better understanding of the problems that come with the use of PMCs and the gap within the literature, to eventually identify the factors for this effective and appropriate use.
The concept of PMCs
First of all, PMCs are defined as independent corporations that offer military services to national governments, international organizations, and sub-state actors (Bell, 2018). Within this definition there is no distinction made between Private Military Companies, Private Security Companies and Private Military Firms; the definition of PMCs is all
encompassing of corporations providing services within the military domain (Huskey, 2012, p.194). Singer (2003) divides PMCs into three categories with the “tip of the spear” typology: ‘military provider firms’ supplying direct, tactical military assistance; ‘military consulting firms’ that provide strategic advice and training; and ‘military support firms’ that provide logistics, maintenance and intelligence services to armed forces.
Besides Singer, other scholars also presented a categorization of PMCs. Adams (1999, p.105) describes three types of PMCs: first, the ‘traditional’ mercenary groups and individuals who provide immediate military or combat support; second, derived from the late 20th century phenomenon of high-quality tactical, operational and strategic military advisors on the
equipping and employment of armed forces; and third, the PMCs which provide high specialized services with a military application, but these organizations themselves are not notably (para-)military. The final type, consists of small companies with specialized services which both are of military and civilian use like air surveillance or computer hacking.
Although Adams’ categories are somewhat similar to Singer’s division, Avant (2005, p. 17) extends the ‘tip of spear’ typology, by focusing on the contract rather than the PMCs as unit of analysis. She divides these contracts into two types based on external support or
8
internal military support on security. Singer’s categorization of PMCs fall with the external provision of security, while according to Avant (2005, p.16) PMCs also provide internal security through site security or crime prevention and intelligence. As a result, this extension provides a more encompassing definition on PMCs. Furthermore, to achieve a better
understanding of the concept of PMCs the historical background will be explained.
Historical development of PMCs
Singer (2007, p38) describes four overall patterns in the history of private militaries. First, whenever quality mattered more than quantity mercenaries were hired because of their superiority compared to ill-trained citizens. The second pattern shows that mass
demobilization in one zone leads to new wars in other weak zones, like a large number of Germans ended up fighting for their old adversaries in the postcolonial wars (Singer, 2007, p.38). Moreover, the third pattern shows that private military actors thrive in areas of weak governance. For example, in the 1960s the former European national soldiers offered their services as mercenary groups in the decolonization process in the Congo (Singer, 2007, p.42). However, these groups began to organize themselves in better manner. In regard of the second and third pattern, the first PMC of the twentieth century, WatchGuard International was established in 1965 by British SAS veterans (Crowell, Contos, DeRodeff, Dunkel, & Cole, 2011, p. 51). As a result a fourth pattern became apparent: the frequent linkages between private military organizations and business ventures, enabling both military successes and greater profits (Singer, 2007, p.39). In addition, during the 1970s and 80s other SAS veterans and American veteran established their own PMCs and these companies began expanding their services (Crowell et al., 2011, p. 51).
After the Cold War period the use of PMCs began to increase massively. The rise in the use of these firms can be explained through Singer’s (2003) supply-demand theory and shows links to the second, third and fourth patterns. Within this theory the massive military demobilizations after the collapse of the Cold War provided the pool of private security actors with a large increase in supply. Moreover, Singer (2003, p.56) concludes that “many states are less willing and less able to guarantee their own sovereign autonomy. Instead they have increasingly delegated the task of securing life and property of their citizens to other
organizations, including PMCs”. Mandel (2002), points out that a fundamental tension exists between the public’s desire for security and many lawmaker’s attempts to provide a public service with limited resources. Therefore they choose for cost-reduction and in their policy there is a tension between privatization and statism and, choices between public security and
9
private infrastructure security. The turn to PMCs can therefore best be understood through new public management (Ortiz, 2010, p. 35). New public management is based on the assumption that markets are more efficient and effective compared to governments (Hood, 1991). Next to this development, many weak states fell into civil wars and these fighting governments sought for private security assistance (Singer, 2005).
Another explanation for the proliferation of PMCs is the Global War on Terror. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the US military has operated at a high operational tempo, characterized by sustained combat operation in Iraq and Afghanistan (Lovewine, 2014). For this military effort, large-scale material and logistical support was required and therefore the US Department of Defense (DoD) hired PMCs to perform critical support missions. The DoD spent $320 billion of the total of $507 billion on contractual obligations of the US government in 2017 (Congressional Research Service, 2018, p.2). 41% of these contracts were for services, 51% for goods and 8% for research and development
(Congressional Research Service, 2018, p.6).
The US is the world’s largest user of PMCs and it is even part of its Grand Strategy (Isenberg, 2009). This means that the US deliberately choose to outsource and privatize several functions of its military and foreign security policy. In 1995, a report on the roles and missions of the US armed forces suggested that the US could save up to $12 billion a year if it outsourced all support functions except actual fighting functions (Department of Defense, 1995). That is why it seemed very attractive to hire the contractors only if they were actually used, instead of keeping a permanent army in peacetime. As a result in 2002 the Pentagon started with the “Third Wave” of competitive sourcing initiatives for three different purposes: “to free up military manpower and resources for the global war on terrorism; to obtain
noncore products and services from the private sector to enable Army leaders to focus on the Army’s core competencies; and to support the President’s Management Agenda” (Isenberg, 2009, p.20). As a result, with the global war on terror, the US military outsourced many of the support functions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Lovewine, 2014, p.2). As a reaction to this
increase in demand many PMCs tried to fill the gap within the security market (Fitzsimmons, 2015, p.149). Moreover, in Colombia the US deploys PMCs under bilateral pacts with the Colombian government for their fight against the illegal drug production (Priv-War, 2009, p.2). This shows the outsourcing of security tasks for two different purposes, fight against terrorism and war against drugs.
10 Advantages and disadvantages of PMCs
According to Benicsák (2012, p.8) there are four advantages of the use of PMCs for the US. First there is policy flexibility, because the political and bureaucratic time required for the decision-making to mobilize forces has disappeared. Instead PMCs are most of the time directly deployable, which in its turn raises questions of accountability, legitimacy and the role of Congress in oversight of military activities. Nevertheless, the second advantage is the ability of PMCs to provide specialized forces. PMCs can recruit personnel with a particular skill set, who are already trained or specialized, but mainly not eligible for state service or retired military personnel (Howe, 1998, p.308; Benicsák, 2012, p.8). For national military organizations it is much harder to find the specific skills, experience and eventually deploy them in a particular arena. In addition, this benefit can be derived from the ‘body-bag syndrome’, by which states want to minimize their casualties because this affects public opinion (Howe, 1998, p.308; Spearin, 2005). If PMCs are hired and their personnel dies during the operations, these casualties will not be taken into account as state casualties. The last advantage provided by Benicsák (2012), are the already mentioned financial savings.
However, there are also disadvantages to the use of PMCs. First of all, the rules of engagement and the transparency of private contractors. One of the well-known infamous missions is the 2004 Abu-Ghraib prison scandal where CACI International provided more than half of the interrogators and Titan corporation supplied the linguistics personnel
(Schooner, 2005, p.7). During the Iraq war, several human rights violations were committed by the CIA and US army against detainees in this prison in Iraq. Furthermore, much of the responsibility for the abuse committed inside the US military-controlled facility was placed on American servicemen, however, culpability did not rest entirely with the military (Keypour 2013, p.730; Tonkin, 2011, p.24). At least five private military contractors involved in ten separate instances were identified (Keypour 2013, p.730). Another incident happened “on September 16, 2007, when Blackwater security personnel, operating under a ‘personal
protective services’ contract on behalf of the U.S. Department of State (DoS), fired at vehicles in Nisour Square, Baghdad, killing seventeen Iraqis and injuring twenty-four” (Bejesky ,2014, p.71). Similarly, in 2009 the US hired ArmorGroup security guards in Afghanistan for the guarding of the US Embassy in Kabul, but these contractors could not speak English, had no security training or experience and incidents of sexual misconduct were reported (Tonkin, 2011, p.24). In short, these incidents show the involvement of PMCs in violations of International Law and other legal and ethical misconduct.
11
Moreover, with the deployment of PMCs at the battlefield, a new operational reality changed the view on warfare and raised questions even more. These questions concern the legal and ethical aspects of the use of private actors within a domain where the monopoly on violence lies with state actors. The employment of PMCs raised questions concerning overreliance on private actors, but also about the possible undermining of US policy and military efforts in Afghanistan or Iraq, by PMC activities (Lovewine, 2014, p.1).
Legal Issues
At first the legal issues, PMC personnel operate in chaotic and hostile environments for the provision of security whilst most of the time heavily armed and under threat of an attack. If they become under attack and return fire or themselves participate in direct
hostilities what are the implications under humanitarian law? This raises questions concerning their legal personality and “the fundamental distinction between civilians and combatants, that lies at the core of international humanitarian law” (IHL) (Faite, 2004, p.3). This fundamental distinction is based on the principle that civilians must be protected to the largest extent as possible from the effects of armed conflicts (Faite, 2004, p.5). In addition, combatants do not enjoy this protection and enemy combatants may be attacked lawfully (ICRC, 2019). Another legal issue attached is the question whether PMC employees are mercenaries. Mercenarism is criminalized in International Law through Article 47 of the 1997 Additional Protocol of the Geneva Conventions. This protocol provides a definition of six conditions, all of which must be met by that individual before he is considered a mercenary (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1977). Therefore, from a strictly legal point of view it appears that most of the time PMC employees fall outside this conjunctive definition (Faite, 2004, p.5).
Nevertheless, an international attempt to clarify the legal status of and further regulate the operations of PMCs, the Montreux Document, was signed by the US. The Montreux document is an intergovernmental document intended to promote respect for IHL and human rights law when PMCs are present in armed conflict (ICRC, 2008, p.31). On the one hand this may be an attempt to overcome current inadequacies of private military force, but on the other hand this may indicate that the US government is unwilling to develop stricter regulations that would perhaps deprive the political and economic advantages of PMCs (Machairas, 2014, p.64). According to CHR&HL, IHRB, and NOVACT (2013, p.8), which examined if the US acts conform the Montreux document five years after signing, they concluded that
outsourcing, licensing and contracting are according to the standard. However, the complex overseeing and monitoring system needs to be improved, especially the implementation of
12
applicable statues, regulations and guidelines (CHR&HL et al., 2013, p.8). Moreover, CHR&HL et al. (2013, p.9) concluded that there is a comprehensive system of laws and regulations missing within the accountability domain, to hold PMCs and their personnel criminally accountable for violations of national and international law. Currently there is only a patchwork of statues that, in some instances, allow prosecution of individuals, but not of PMCs in federal civilian or military courts (CHR&HL et al., 2013, p.8). Therefore it appears to be problematic from an international legal perspective if the largest user of PMCs in the world is not willing to develop and not acting upon these international regulations (Hedahl, 2012, p.178).
However, on a national level, the US have put regulations in place for PMCs and a division can be made between: the determination of services, authorization and licensing system, monitoring system, and the accountability system. PMCs operating domestically are regulated at state rather than federal level (Public-Private Partnerships Hub, 2019, p.1). As a result there are differences in regulations for the determination of services, the authorization and licensing and the monitoring of PMCs among the states. Some states have no regulations while others have certain codes of conduct for PMCs. The PMCs operating abroad are regulated by a detailed procurement and licensing system run by the State Department (Public-Private Partnerships Hub, 2019, p.2). For accountability issues the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Military Exterritorial Jurisdiction Act, and the Alien Tort Statute apply (Public-Private Partnerships Hub, 2019, p.2). Nevertheless, the US has prohibited the outsourcing of inherently governmental functions, like the use of force, through OMB Cricular No. A76. (Public-Private Partnerships Hub, 2019, p.3).
Ethical Issues
Next to the legal issues attached to use of PMCs, there are also ethical issues. First of all, is the profit motive that comes with the employment of PMCs during warfare, in an already tragic and chaotic aspect of human life (Machairas, 2014, p.64). Profit-seeking can lead to immoral behavior. Therefore, is it desirable to employ companies, with an aim for profit maximization in a domain where immoral behavior is not desired? A reason for this is issue of divergent interests. The problem is that the interests of the company can diverge from the interests of the public (Hedahl, 2012, p.177). The employees of PMCs are only judged by their bosses and clients on the basis of the achievement of the contractual arrangements. However, sometimes these tasks are to protect a certain person or facility at all cost, and so they will. This positively effects the effectiveness of PMCs in their achievement of
13
contractual arrangements, but it also can have bad consequences and even cause collateral damage (Hedahl, 2012, p.177). Therefore the issues of divergent interests again leads to accountability issues.
When looking back in history the use of private force is not a recent phenomenon (Singer, 2007, pp.19-20). States made use of private armies, mercenaries, trading companies and privateers in pursuit of their interests. Furthermore, before the nineteenth century
boundaries were unclear between state and non-state realms of authority (Thomson, 1994, p.19). Because states themselves authorized non-state violence, it was difficult to determine which acts of non-state violence were state-authorized or for a private and independent cause. For this reason state rulers could easily made use of the plausible deniability approach to get rid of their accountability by denying any responsibility for wrongful acts by non-state actors. However, at the turn of the nineteenth century states began to feel the unintended
consequences of private violence and state rulers started to claim the monopoly on violence. Furthermore states even started to delegitimize and abolish state-authorized non-state violence. One of the first steps was the abolishment of privateering with the Declaration of Paris in 1856 (Stark, 1897). As a result of this declaration, every government would be held accountable for illegal acts committed by privateers they had licensed, and therefore the ultimate responsibility was placed on states instead of individuals (Lemnitzer, 2014). The abolishment of privateering is the best example that non-state violence was not delegitimated by society or domestic political actors, but by European statesmen (Thomson, 1994, p.105). Nevertheless, 180 years later the same states seem to give away the legitimate use of force to PMCs again. In other words, the privatization of military force caused the shift from the state’s monopoly on violence to an actor that is not democratically controlled or held accountable (Machairas, 2014, p.53). In addition, another aspect that challenges the ethical standards, is the possibility of surpassing the nation-state by the use of PMCs. This builds upon to hollowing out of the monopoly on violence.
While examining the academic debate regarding PMCs, a gap remains in the literature in determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of the use of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool in Colombia and Iraq. Although, several advantages and disadvantages are given by several authors (Mandel, 2002; Signer, 2003; Faite, 2004; Benicsák, 2012; Lovewine, 2014; Machairas, 2014) together with the legal (Faite, 2004; Hedahl, 2012; CHR & IHL et al., 2013) and ethical issues (Thomson, 1994; Hedahl, 2012; Machairas, 2014) there is still a gap
14
on determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of the use of PMCs in Colombia and Iraq. Therefore this thesis will go into this gap to provide an answer to research question.
Conceptualization
To get a better understanding to what extent the use of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool was appropriate and effective within Colombia and Iraq, it is important to define some of the core concepts used in this thesis. Therefore, first the concept foreign security policy tool and the different approaches on foreign policy will be explained. Next the concepts of appropriateness and effectiveness will be elaborated.
The concept Foreign Security Policy Tool
The concept ‘foreign security policy tool’ is best understood in the broader context of the foreign policy of a state. Foreign policy is defined as: the general objectives that guide the activities and relationships of one state in its interactions with other states (Britannica, 2019a). In addition, with foreign policy we mean the actions, strategies, and decisions directed at actors outside the borders of a domestic political system (Kesgin, 2011, p.336). Therefore the main distinction with domestic policy is the targeted sphere of influence, which is external rather than domestic. As a result the decision-making process of foreign policy is influenced by other factors than domestic policy. Moreover, foreign policy encompasses a variety of issues ranging from traditional security and economic areas to environmental, energy and migration issues (Breuning, 2007).
Foreign policy analysis (FPA) is used to achieve a better understanding of state’s foreign policy, by using different theoretical approaches. FPA looks beyond the state as a single entity and focusses on multiple actors within the state, both individuals and groups of individuals and their capacity to make or influence foreign policy, although this varies by approach (Kesgin, 2011, p.336). Within FPA, analysts are interested in how foreign policy is shaped and this is done by looking at the different foreign policy interests or objectives, which are defined as national interests, like the promotion of democracy in Iraq (Rosenau, 2006, p.248). In order to advance or defend an interest, a foreign policy strategy is created in which the objectives are stated and policy instruments are chosen (Grieco, Ikenberry & Mastanduno, 2015, p.107). Furthermore, the different sources of foreign policy play an important role in shaping foreign policy. Allison and Zelikow (1999) use three models to understand the decision making on different levels of analysis during Cuban Missile Crisis. The models are
15
on international, state and individual level in which every level has its own characteristics dynamics of decision-making. Therefore foreign policy can one the one hand be influenced by domestic factors or behavior of other states; while on the other hand, the policy objectives can be achieved through different instruments and on different levels of analysis (Snyder, Bruck, & Sapin, 2002, pp.160-164). How this is done differs per theoretical approach.
From a realist point of view, the state is perceived as a unified rational actor in an anarchist world system, which leads to self-help for that state and its foreign policy is aimed at the achievement of the ultimate goals; survival and power maximization (Heywood, 2011, 54). Foreign policy is all about power politics; power has a strong materialist component and is influenced by domestic politics on security challenges stemming from the external
environment (Wivel, 2017, p.1). Within this power politics the use of military force is the tool for survival and the maximization of power (Wivel, 2017, p.10).
Contrary to this is liberalism. Although liberalists agree with realists that there is no higher power than the state, they see possibilities for international cooperation. Moreover, it is in the self-interest of states to cooperate with each other and international institutions play a crucial role (Kesgin, 2011, p. 337). International institutions can have a supranational character. Therefore liberalists focus on multiple actors; international and domestic (groups of) individuals for their analysis of foreign policy. Moreover, foreign policy is focused on the achievement of absolute gains rather than relative gains, as realists see it (Mowle, 2003, p.567). Military force is used to protect the own state, but also for the protection of the international community (Mowle, 2003, p.568). Therefore from a liberalist view, military force is a tool in foreign policy to achieve justice in an appropriate way through regulated warfare, rather than the removal of dangers and threats as realists would pose it.
Next to realism and liberalism, there are other approaches within foreign policy analysis. However, these approaches – constructivism, feminism or Marxism – study foreign policy with the focus on other aspects. Broadly speaking constructivism sees foreign policy as a social construct in a intersubjectively created social world with its norms and values within the international system (Kesgin, 2011, p.337). Constructivist theory is based on four
assumptions. First, interests of individuals and groups are shaped by identities of actors, while second, the identities are constructed through a variety of ideational factors like culture, religion or normative beliefs (Grieco et al., 2015, p.93). Thirdly, elite individuals play the most important role in both society and the state, because the ideas and identities these elites possess, tend to shape the actions of the groups and states within the international system
16
(Grieco et al., 2015, p.93). Finally, communication plays a crucial role in shaping and
changing identities, like a speech of a president (Grieco et al., 2015, p.93). Feminism focusses on the exclusion of women in world politics, while Marxism emphasizes the class relations and sees foreign policy in terms of economic interests and conflicts of states (Kesgin, 2011, p.338; Heywood, 2011, p74).
The different foreign policy tools can be divided into instruments of persuasion and instruments of coercion (Grieco et al., 2015, p.107). Diplomacy and economic incentives can be categorized as instruments of persuasion. While economic sanctions, covert operations, and military force can be categorized as instruments of coercion. The concept foreign security tool can be placed within the category coercion and the use of force, because in this sense the military or private military are instruments for the provision of security through the use of force. According to Heywood (2011, p.213), there was a shift in the nature of the exercise of power in world politics. The military use of force became more costly and, a less reliable and important policy option because of the increasing economic interdependence. Therefore neoliberals argue that states rather compete through trade than through the use of force (Heywood, 2011, p.213). However, there are opposing views to this statement. Realists state that war is endless and military power is the only guarantee for survival (Heywood, 2011, p.246). Moreover, there are (new) security challenges, like terrorism and humanitarian wars which cannot be handled without the use of military force or intervention (Heywood, 2011, p.246). Therefore military force still plays an important role is states’ foreign policies.
The use of military force is still a major component in American foreign policy, with 226 thousand active US troops acting overseas in December 2018 (DMDC, 2018). Although these troops are not explicitly using military force, their presence is one form of military deployment and part of the American foreign security policy. According to the State
Department’s Foreign Policy Agenda, the official goal of American foreign policy is to create a more secure, democratic and prosperous world for the benefit of the American People and the international community (Foreign Policy, 2010). The use of PMCs is another mean in the foreign policy of the US to achieve this end, in addition to or instead of using its own military.
To conclude, FPA is used to achieve better understanding of a state’s foreign policy. By applying different theoretical lenses on foreign policies, these decisions to use certain instruments of foreign policy, like the use of PMCs, can be placed into the broader context of that state’s policy. By doing so, these theories provide more clarification in why governments chose to use an foreign policy instrument in a certain situation. Especially the decision to use
17
(military) force, is not supported in all theories and therefore can these theories provide more clarification on this decision.
Appropriateness
The logic of appropriateness is a perspective on how human action is to be interpreted and what is perceived as appropriate has both a cognitive and a normative component (March & Olsen, 2011, p.1). The determination of what is appropriate is through social constructs. A social construct is a subjective conception or perception of reality created by interactions between individuals within a society, on which these individuals collectively agree (Berger & Luckmann, 1991; Andrews, 2012, p.40). The cognitive construction of these constructs is on the basis of experience, expert knowledge or intuition, in which it is often called recognition to emphasize the cognitive process of problem-solving action (March & Olsen, 2011, p.2). In addition, these constructs can also have a normative component. “Values are the conceptions of the desirable and standards to which existing structures and behavior can be assessed. Norms specify how things should be done and reflect opinions about proper means and ends” (Van Dooren et al., 2015, p.168).
The determinants of appropriateness can be institutionalized into the legal framework if deemed important enough. However, this does not have to be the case and these
determinants can remain ethical standards like norms and values. On the one hand, legal conditions and requirements play an important role for the determination of appropriateness. Together these rules are followed because they are seen as natural, rightful, expected and legitimate (March & Olsen, 2011, p.1). As well as it is in these self-interest and mutual interest of actors to comply with these rules (Schrijver, 2014, p.32). Moreover, actors can be held accountable through these rules and punished when they do not act upon these rules. However, in international law there is no central legislator and therefore it can be hard to enforce these regulations. On the other hand, ethical standards are important for the determination of appropriateness. These ethical standards are based on principles, when followed these promote values such as good behavior, fairness and kindness. These principles differ per society and are determined by identities of people within a society (Welfel & Khamush, 2012). Some ethical standards are universal, for example the murder of innocent people would be perceived as unacceptable. Moreover, these principles are derived from norms and expectations. Norms are defined as: a statement specifying how a person is, or persons of a particular sort are, expected to behave in given circumstances—expected, in the first instance, by the person that utters the norm (Opp, 2015). However, also these ethical
18
standards are debated. For instance, the issues regarding profit maximization of PMCs or making profit out of war, can be questioned on there appropriateness.
In the case of what is appropriate for the use of PMCs, it is important to examine several sets of social constructs. First of all, there has to be a need to use PMCs and second, do the desired outcomes have to address these needs (Lachlan, 2002, p.2). This is constructed through the basis of experience, expert knowledge or intuition (March &Olson, 2011, p.2). Thirdly, the desired outcomes also have to be consistent with a governments priorities as they represent a state (Lachlan, 2002, p.2). Fourth, the proposed strategies have to deliver the desired outcomes (Lachlan, 2002, p.2). If there is a certain need to use PMCs, that need would legitimize the use of PMCs. Moreover, if the desired outcomes even address these needs, this would legitimize the use of PMCs even further. However, the desired outcomes should also be consistent with governmental policy and be lawful, in order to appropriately make use of PMCs as a foreign security tool. Nevertheless, the proposed strategies and the actual conduct on the ground also has to be in line with the legal framework and ethical standards, like IHL and principles that promote good behavior. All together the use of PMCS as a foreign security policy tool can be appropriate if it meet these requirements.
Effectiveness
Finally the effectiveness of PMCs as an instrument of foreign security policy is based on a performance and the result of that performance. Within social sciences there is no consensus on how to define and measure effectiveness, let alone performance. Effectiveness and performance can have different meanings and definitions, which depends on the
discipline of science (Zammuto, 1982; Gustafson, 1999; Dubnick, 2005; Van Dooren et al., 2015, p.2). Therefore it is hard to measure performance and effectiveness under the same label.
In relation to foreign policy, the measurement of the impact, performance or effectiveness is both through subjective and objective means (Ginsberg, 2001, p.51). Therefore a distinction in this measurement can be made between cognitive impact and empirical impact. Foreign policy can have a cognitive impact on public opinion, but this remains subjective as opinion is shaped through non-quantifiable means (Ginsberg, 2001, p.52). Empirical political impact can be measured through performed actions and the achievement of objectives (Ginsberg, 2001, p.52). Due to the subjective side of the
19
measurement of effectiveness, there is no consensus on how to perform an encompassing measurement of effectiveness.
Nevertheless, effectiveness can be defined as: the capability to produce or bring about desired outcomes or result (Bailey & Clegg, 2007, p.422). In addition, not only the result is important but, also the process of achievement together with the context and circumstances (Bailey & Clegg, 2007, p.422). From this definition two aspects can be derived. First, effectiveness is the degree of achievement of multiple goals, together with the degree of congruence between organizational goals and observable outcomes (Zammuto, 1982, p.22). In other words, effectiveness is the result of a performance which leads to a certain outcome. As a result of this performance, the second aspect ‘success’ can be determined. This is done by examining three dimensions of public performance and very of Gustafson’s dimensions has its own indicators for measuring the performance. First, the concept of ‘mission’, which is defined as the purpose or reason to achieve a goal under a certain mandate and, this is measured through the achievement of this mission (Gustafson, 1999, p.15). The second concept is ‘service’, which is defined as the way in which the mission is achieved. In other words, does the PMC meet the clients expectations and contractual obligations. Third, the concept of ‘efficiency and productivity’ of the performance, in addition to ‘service’ for achieving the mission. For efficiency and productivity during the performance the focus is on the optimization of outputs with available resources, the containment of costs within budgets and if actors are acting upon ethical standards and legal regulations (Gustafson, 1999, p.16). These indicators and they way these dimensions are used to measure the effectiveness of PMCs as a foreign security will be outlined in the operationalization section.
However, Dubnick (2005, p.391) defines performance as “behavior motivated or guided by some intent or purpose”. On the basis of this definition, performance can also be divided into two aspects: “the quality of the actions performed” and “the quality of what has been achieved as a result of those actions” (Dubnick, 2005, p.392). Furthermore, Dubnick (2005, pp.392-394) identifies four types of performance, depending on whether the focus is high or low on these aspects. (1) With ‘performance as production’, the focus is on both aspects is low and attention is given to if the task is carried out, no matter the success (Van Dooren et al., 2015, p.3). (2) With ‘performance as competence’ there is high focus on the quality of the actions, but low focus on the quality of the achievement. This is based on the assumption that the higher the competence of the performer, the better the quality of the achievement (Dubnick, 2005, p.392; Van Dooren et al., 2015, p.3). (3) When there is low
20
focus on the quality of the action, but high focus on the quality of the achievement, with ‘performance as results’, the only issue that matter is the quality of the outcome, not the process until the achievement. (4) Finally, when the attention on both quality of actions and achievement is high, performance is understood as sustainable results (Dubnick, 2005, p.393; Van Dooren et al., 2015, p.4).
To this extent, Dunigan (2011, p. 34) comes with an all-encompassing definition that both includes the inputs and outputs of (military) effectiveness, especially the quality of the actions and the achievement of the performance on different levels on analysis. In other words, success. Therefore military effectiveness is:
“(a) accomplishing its tactical goals, or the maneuvers pertaining to the most
immediate battlefield goals; (b) accomplishing its operational goals, or the sum of the tactical goals pertaining to a particular theater of operation; (c) accomplishing its strategic goals, or the broader politico-military goals equaling the sum of its tactical goals across various theaters of operation; and (d) accomplishing the political goals of its government” (Dunigan, 2011, p.34).
In short, the effectiveness of PMCs as an instrument of foreign security policy is determined by the achievement of goals (succes), but the performance in achieving this mission has to meet several norms to be effective. Therefore, when assessing the effectiveness of the use of PMCs as a foreign policy tool, it is important to examine the different dimensions with their indicators. As a result Dunigan’s framework of measuring military effectiveness is used to investigate the achievement of goals on different levels, together with Gustafson’s dimensions of performance in order to get an all-encompassing view on both the achievement and
performance for the effectiveness of PMCs in Colombia and Iraq.
21
Part 3: Methodology
In this part, the methodological framework will be outlined to answer the research question. In order to structure the analysis of the cases and make a comparison, to determine the appropriateness and effectiveness of the use of PMCs by the US in Colombia and Iraq.
Furthermore, the logic of case selection will be explained together with data gathering method and the data analysis method. Finally the operationalization of concepts will be given and there will be elaborated on the reliability, validity and limitations of this research.
Methodological Framework
What became apparent from the theoretical framework is that there is no agreement on a definition or framework to measure appropriateness and effectiveness of PMCs, while the US makes great use of these companies within their foreign security policy. This use has advantages and disadvantages together with the legal and ethical issues attached to the deployment of PMCs. In order to explore the appropriateness and effectiveness of PMCs within foreign security policy, this thesis will study the appropriateness and effectiveness of the US intervention with PMCs in Colombia and Iraq. This case study on the US and its foreign security policy regarding PMCs will be split into a case studies on the interventions in Colombia and Iraq, in order to answer the research question: ‘To what extent was the use of
PMCs as a foreign security policy tool by the US, appropriate and effective in Colombia and Iraq?’
In order to answer this question, a case study is the best strategy of the five strategies identified by Yin (2003): experiments, surveys, archival analysis, history and case studies. The method used in this thesis is an exploratory case study in which the aim is to gain a better understanding of the concepts ‘appropriateness’ and ‘effectiveness’ in regard to the use of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool. An exploratory case study is defined by Yin (2017, p.351) as a study with the purpose to identify the research questions or procedures to be used in a subsequent study, which might or might not be a case study. Moreover, exploratory case studies are used in a research context that is not clearly specified and still requires data for the formulation of valid hypotheses (Streb, 2010, p.372), like on the appropriateness and
22
of US PMC interventions in Colombia and Iraq are used to explore the appropriateness and effectiveness of this foreign security policy instrument.
Logic of case selection
A case study is defined as: a method used to investigate a contemporary phenomenon in depth and in its real-world context (Yin, 2017, p.349). That case should be a bounded empirical phenomenon, to determine the scope of your data collection (Yin, 2017, p.65). In order to explore the concepts of appropriateness and effectiveness of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool, the US is chosen to set a boundary. The US-case is called an extreme case, which means that this case demonstrates unusual manifestation of a phenomenon (Patton, 1990, p.182). This is based on the fact that the US is the largest user of PMCs in the world, which became clear with their interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Tonkin, 2011, p.1).
However, by looking at the full US deployment of PMCs, the scope would be too wide and therefore it is tightened to two particular interventions. When making use of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool, the US has a certain policy objective. In order to identify multiple factors that might influence the appropriateness and effectiveness of a foreign security policy tool, it is important to examine multiple of these policy objectives (Yin, 2017, p.98).
Therefore the cases of US PMC deployment in Colombia and Iraq are chosen, which makes the method a Holistic Multiple-case design, in order to diversify the variable ‘policy
objective’ and study the appropriateness and effectiveness of the means ‘PMCs as a foreign security policy tool’.
The cases of Colombia and Iraq are criterion cases which means that these are picked because they meet some predetermined criterion (Patton, 1990, p.183). This criterion is the difference in policy objective of the US for their intervention with PMCs. After the Cold War, the US increased its aid and presence in Colombia, as result of their ‘War on Drugs’ policy. During this intervention the US deployed PMCs to provide aid to Colombia, instead of sending their state-actors, like the military or police (Boysen, 2007, p.3). Therefore this thesis examines the involvement of the US and assesses the appropriateness and effectiveness of the US in Colombia after 1989, but the focus is on the period after Plan Colombia in 2000. Besides the ‘War on Drugs’, the US started its ‘War on Terror’ after 9/11 and as result of the ‘War on Terror’ the US invaded Iraq in 2003. With this global war on terror, the deployment
23
of PMCs in Iraq and Afghanistan is by far the highest number the world has witnessed today (Lovewine, 2014, p.2). During the invasion of Iraq the US deployed PMCs in addition to their military forces and government actors. However, the case of Colombia shows that PMCs are not only used for the war on terrorism, but also the war on drugs (Priv-War, 2009). Especially because the war on drugs requires other operational activities compared to the war on
terrorism. Together with the difference in policy objective, but also the difference in required activities, both Colombia and Iraq are researched in order to provide a more general answer.
Data gathering method
Yin (2017, p.138) identifies six common sources of case study evidence. The method used in this thesis to gather data is through the collection of qualitative data from two of these sources, namely documents and archival records. These sources include academic literature, policy documents, news documents and archival records. For the two cases there are four fundamental topics and two sets of sources which are relevant.
The first topic of the analysis chapters is the context and roots of the conflict in each case, in order to provide a sufficient basis to understand the context and reasons leading up to the intervention from multiple perspectives. For the Colombian case the overview that is provided is based on works of McCallion (2005), Perret (2012) and Stokes (2005). These scholars investigated the Colombian conflict and the American intervention. Moreover the context is further based on Congressional Research reports on the US intervention in Colombia. The roots and context of the Iraqi conflict are based on works of Harvey (2011), Heywood (2011), Schmidt & Williams (2008) and Lovewine (2014). These scholars
investigated the reasons for the Iraq war, but Heywood and Schmidt & Williams also tried to put the invasion into an international relations perspective.
The second topic is the actual use of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool in
Colombia and Iraq. This is important to get a better understanding of how, why and what goal these PMCs were used. The Colombian case is outlined via chronological path in which the different policy objectives are put forward. First the Cold War era and 1990s is based on the works of Perret and McCallion who analyzed the first involvement of American PMCs in Colombia. While the period after the 2000s is based on Boysen (2007) and Singer (2003) who investigated the use of PMCs during Plan Colombia. The use of PMCs in Iraq is outlined via
24
the different military operations in Iraq. The data that is collected is through the primary sources of Congressional Research Service reports and Congressional Budget Office reports, together with secondary sources like Singer (2007) and Lovewine (2014) who investigated PMC deployment in Iraq.
The third topic is the appropriateness. For this topic data is gathered from the relevant legal framework regarding the deployment of PMCs. These sources are IHL and its
distinction of international armed conflict and non-international armed conflict, but also American, Colombian and Iraqi national law which is applicable on the PMC intervention. In addition is data gathered from journalists reporting on PMC conduct in Colombia and Iraq to determine the appropriateness of it, together with academic literature on the relation between PMCs and US policy in Colombia and Iraq.
The final topic is effectiveness. Data on this topic can be divided on the different policy objectives and the strategic, operational and tactical goals. Together with the three dimensions of performance: mission, service and, efficiency and productivity. For each case data is gathered from governmental reports on the performance of achieving the stated goals. On the Colombian case there are also Colombian governmental reports used because PMCs operated together or commissioned for the Colombian forces, while in Iraq PMCs operated together with or commissioned for American personnel. In addition to these reports, data is also collected from news reports and especially academic literature on the achievement of the goals in order to gain a broad overview of the actual achievement and performance by PMCs.
Data analysis method
Now that the data gathering method is explained the method to analyze this data will be outlined. Yin (2017, p.212) states that there are several ways to start the analysis. One of the ways is to search for concepts by clearly defining your goal and priorities for what to analyze and why. In order to explore the concepts of appropriateness, effectiveness in regard to PMCs as a foreign security policy tool, the data on the two cases are used to gain more knowledge of these concepts.
As stated in the data gathering section, the first two topics are analyzed in order to describe the context and patterns that may be present within the two cases. The strategy used
25
to actually analyze the data on the concepts appropriateness and effectiveness is called by Yin (2017, p.217) ‘working from the ground up’. Through this analysis method, patterns on the concepts across the cases can be identified. This strategy has two benefits. First, the data may cover the behavior and events that your case study is trying to explain (Yin, 2017, p.217), namely the appropriateness and effectiveness of the use of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool in Colombia and Iraq. Second, the data may be related to an embedded unit of analysis within your broader case study (Yin, 2017, p.217), namely the foreign security policy of the US.
Operationalization
In order to operationalize the methodological framework this part will show how the appropriateness and effectiveness will be measured, and how the determination will be made when the use of PMCs in each case is deemed appropriate and effective. The analysis is divided into four sections, the context and roots of the conflict, the use of PMCs as a foreign security tool in that case, the appropriateness and the effectiveness section.
The context of the conflict is outlined to provide a basis of information and to place the conflict into the broader context of US foreign security policy. This section is based on two questions: (1) What are the roots of the conflict? and (2) Why did the US intervene in this conflict? Moreover, within the section about the use of PMCs as a foreign security tool, the policy objectives and the actual use of PMCs is presented. This section forms the basis for the appropriateness and effectiveness section because the next sections will continue on this data. There are also two question used to provide this basis: (1) What were the US foreign security policy objectives? and (2) How did the use of PMCs as a foreign security tool look like? In order to analyze the two cases in the same way, a set of questions is created to determine the appropriateness, and a set of indicators is used with their own questions to determine the effectiveness of PMCs.
Appropriateness
The first question is (1) is there need to use PMCs? This question is designed to understand why the US made use of PMCs instead of other foreign security policy tools. If there is a certain need, than PMC deployment would be appropriate. However, this is not the only criteria. (2) Do the policy objectives address these needs? This question is based on the assumption that the desired outcomes have to address the needs (Lachlan, 2012, p.2). The
26
desired outcomes are translated into the policy objectives of a state’s policy, as with the following question. (3) Are the policy objectives consistent with US government priorities and lawful? The final question is (4) is the use of PMCs going to achieve the desired
outcomes and is this conduct lawful? This is the most important question in determining the appropriateness. Although the PMC intervention can be appropriate on the basis of the other three questions, this question can result in an inappropriate PMC intervention as result of misconduct by PMC personnel.
Effectiveness
As effectiveness is divided into success and performance, the effectiveness of PMCs is assessed on both these issues. In order to measure the success of PMCs a top-down approach is used to apply the Dunigan’s (2011) framework. By starting to the assess achievement of the policy objective and further narrow it down to strategic, operational and tactical goals. This is done because every goal has different other goals on a lower level that need to be achieved in order to achieve the eventual policy objective. In other words the higher level goal is the sum of the lower level goals. To provide more clarification an example is provided:
Political goal: Prevention of drug trafficking in Colombia Strategic goal: Decrease drug flows by 50%
Operational goal: Increase drug seizures and decrease drug production
Tactical goal PMC: Increase ability of Colombian security forces to perform counter narcotics through consulting and supporting functions.
The posed goals by the US are measurable, like a 50% decrease in drug flows. If this is achieved the goal is met and the use of PMCs is effective on this aspect on the total deployment of PMCs in that case.
In addition, the performance of PMCs is measured through several indicators with a related question for each dimension of performance. The first dimension is ‘mission’. The indicators are (1) incident management, is there prevention and control of negative events? (2) Compliance, do these PMCs meet the requirements and service standards? (3) Benefit
management, is there accurate delivery of services and the fourth indicator, (4) service utilization, is there delivery and take up of services? The ‘service’ dimension has its own two indicators. First, (5) responsiveness, is there timely provision of services? The second
27
customers (the US). Finally the ‘efficiency and productivity’ dimension has also two indicators. First (7) productivity, is there optimization of outputs with available resources? Second, (8) cost and revenue management, is there containment of costs with budgets? If all the questions can be answered with yes, then the use of PMCs as a foreign security tool, would be very effective. However, by taking the context into account this use can also be effective while not all answers are yes,
Reliability, Validity and Limitations
Every research has its limitations, therefore one of the limitations is that this research is only using open-source data and there is the possibility that some secretive issues or policies are not taken into account. For this reason it is possible that with the availability of other data, the outcome of this research would be different. However, this research is internal valid. By first providing context to the cases through questions that form the basis for the actual analysis. Moreover, questions concerning the appropriateness are there to consider the appropriateness of the use of PMCs on different levels, namely political, legal and ethical level. The effectiveness is evaluated by examining two levels. The achievement of goals and the performance of the PMCs. By doing this full effectiveness of PMCs as a foreign security policy tool can be determined as effectiveness is based on achievement and performance.
The goal of this research is to explore the concepts of appropriateness and effectiveness and not to generalize the findings in order to say something about all PMC interventions. Therefore one of the most stated criticisms on case studies, that findings cannot be generalized, is not applicable. However, the findings of this thesis can be used to
investigate other PMC interventions. Another limitation of a case study is that there is a lack of theory on the cases. Nevertheless, the goal of this thesis is not to test theory but the explore the concepts appropriateness and effectiveness in regard to PMCs as foreign security policy tool and find possible factors influencing this.
28
Part 4: Analysis
Chapter 1: ‘War on Drugs’ in Colombia
4.1.1 Context and the roots of the conflict in Colombia
During the 1990s and 2000s private contractors battled Colombian guerilla rebel groups, manned armed helicopters, performed drug-eradication missions, and trained the Colombian Army (McCAllion, 2005, p.318). These operations were all part of the United States’ ‘War on Drugs’. This chapter will first go into the context of the Colombian conflict. Next the use of PMCs as foreign security policy tool in Colombia will be explained. There will be elaborated on the US policy objectives in Colombia, the different PMCs used in Colombia and the missions. As a result of this data the appropriateness and effectiveness will be analyzed in different paragraphs, and finally there will be concluded on the American use of PMCs in Colombia.
What are the roots of the conflict and why did the US intervene in Colombia? Colombia has a long history of armed conflicts, for sixty years the Colombian government fought against several well-organized armed groups which are closely linked with drug trafficking (Perret, 2012, p.49). Since the 1960s the US collaborated with the Colombian government in the fight against these armed groups and the drug-traffickers (Perret, 2012, p.49). Moreover, during the Cold War there was no other continent in which the US intervened so often as Latin America (Stokes, 2005, p.1). US foreign security policy was during the Cold War aimed at the containment of Communism. According to George Kennan, the architect of the US’ grand strategy of containment, it was strategically important and ethically correct to intervene in Colombia and hold a strong regime in power, instead of a liberal government that is indulgent and relaxed towards Communists (Stokes, 2005, p.1). For this reason were the American counter-insurgency (CI) operations in Colombia focused at the communist and Soviet-backed rebel groups, like the FARC and ELN. The FARC and ELN consisted of approximately 18.000 and 4.000 members in 2005 (McCallion, 2005, p.323) but, have since than decreased in numbers. Moreover, the CI operations were also aimed at the right-wing and anti-insurgent paramilitary organization AUC, it consisted of approximately 8.000 members in 2005 (McCallion, 2005, p.323). Unfortunately all these organizations have been linked to human rights abuses, terrorist attacks and drug trafficking (McCallion, 2005, p.323). Nevertheless, with the end of the Cold War the US did not stop funding and training the Colombian military, dramatically extended its support to the extent that Colombia was the
29
third largest recipient of US military aid in the world in 2005 (Stokes, 2005, p.1). The reason for this is the continued existence of American security and economic interests in Colombia, mainly counter-narcotics and counter-terrorism.
In 1989 the Bush administration launched to Andean Initiative, a five-year plan of $2.2 billion to aid Bolivia, Peru and Colombia for economic opening, neo-liberal
restructuring, military aid and assistance in new counter-narcotics (Stokes 2005, p.85). As a result, during the 1990s the targets of the CI operations continued to be the drug-traffickers and terrorists. In addition to the armed insurgents from the Cold War era, also broad swathes of civil society began to be targeted because of their involvement in drug trafficking (Stokes, 2005, p.85). The problem was seen as a police-problem and the US provided equipment, supplies and aid to the police for counter-narcotic efforts (Perret, 2012, p.49). However, a 1994 DEA and CIA report concluded that not the guerillas, but the ‘civil’ drug traffickers were the dominant players (Stokes, 2005, p.86). For this reason the approach seemed to be ineffective for this type of civil conduct and there was no clear link between narcotics and terrorism. Next to the ineffectiveness of the police to cope with these issues.
As a result, in 1999 Colombia and the US agreed on a new plan for cooperation: Plan Colombia. The objectives of the plan was to prevent the flow of illegal drugs to the US; promote peace, economic development, democracy, the rule of law, the application of justice, human rights and human dignity; increase security and end drug-trafficking (Congressional Research Service, 2006, p.1). With this new approach the US provided direct assistance to the Colombian military through the contracting of PMCs for the provision of logistical support and maintaining of intelligence databases (Perret, 2012, p.49). After six years the cooperation in Plan Colombia expired in 2005, and the Congressional Research Service (2006) assessed the progress of the Plan. There was concluded that there was made measurable progress in Colombia’s internal security, due to the decrease in violence and eradication of drug crops, but drug-trafficking had not been ended (Congressional Research Service, 2006, p.1). However, Colombia continued their fight against drug trafficking and a progress report on Colombian drug policy concluded that Colombia succeeded in reducing coca cultivation from 160.000 hectares to 48.000 hectares, in addition to halving the estimated value of the drug economy until 2013 (Mejía, 2016).
30
4.1.2 PMCs as a foreign security policy tool in Colombia
Now that the context of the conflict is explained, this part of this chapter will elaborate on the actual data regarding the use of PMCs in Colombia. Although the policy objectives did not shifted, the use of PMCs did change overtime. A distinction can be made in the different periods with differences in use of PMCs. Therefore the policy objectives will be presented first and afterwards will the use of PMCs be presented along each period to understand their performance.
What were the US foreign security policy objectives? US policy objectives shifted to fighting drug trafficking and terrorism during the 1990s, after the containment of communism during the Cold War. Despite this shift, continuity can be observed in the American foreign policy. As stated by the State Department’s Foreign Policy Agenda, the official goal of American foreign policy is to create a more secure, democratic and prosperous world for the benefit of the American People and the international community (Foreign Policy, 2010). For this overall purpose the US wanted to continue their pervasive strategy of state terrorism in Colombia for the protection of its economic and policy interests (Stokes, 2005, p.3). This continuity can be explained by two main reasons. First, the US uses the war on drugs and terror to justify continued funding of the Colombian military, in order to pacify Colombian groups that threaten stability and US interests (Stokes, 2005, p.3). Furthermore, drug-trafficking and terrorism are evaluated as high risks to US national security (Chillier & Freeman, 2005, p.2). Second, in the wake of the Gulf War in 1990 and the events of 9/11 the US sought to diversify its oil purchasing from the Middle East (Stokes, 2005, p.3). By enhanced access of the South American oil supplies, through a stable Colombia, the US has found the solution it was looking for. As a result, the US used PMCs as instruments for these foreign security policy objectives. From a realist point of view the use of PMCs can be seen as the continuation in the US’ fight for survival and power maximization. While from a liberalist point of view the use of PMCs is a way to cooperate with the Colombian and protect the international community.
Cold War era and the 1990s
Now that the policy objectives are clear, how did the use of PMCs look like? Since the mid-1970s the US invested billions of dollars in antidrug assistance programs in Colombia, however, these programs were privatized just like many other government tasks during the 1980s and 1990s (Perret, 2012, p.45). However, a distinction can be made between the period
