Mercenaries and Mischief: The Regulation of the Foreign Military Assistance Bill

Morally, there can be no doubt as to the repugnance of mercenary activity which makes a direct contribution to igniting or prolonging conflict

Morally, there can be no doubt as to the repugnance of mercenary activity, or any form of private activity which makes a direct contribution to igniting or prolonging violent armed conflict. The decision to intervene and to take sides in an armed conflict is a political one, whether it is made by an international organisation, a regional organisation, a coalition of states, or a single state. When private individuals and companies are allowed to make such decisions, the concept of international law loses all meaning. Privatised soldiers and gun- runners operate in a secretive world. They recruit in an underworld, one shared by international drug cartels, terrorists, and dealers in endangered species.

On 30 April 1997, the South African Cabinet approved the Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Bill [B54-97]1 pending submission and approval by Parliament during the 1997 session. This legislation is co-sponsored by the ministers of Defence, Justice, and Foreign Affairs, with the chairperson of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC), Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Professor Kader Asmal, as the driving force behind the Bill. The legislation aims to prevent South African companies and citizens from rendering military or military-related services abroad without the Government`s authority – particularly those services which may fall within the ambit of the new style of mercenary activity (such as the much publicised exploits of Executive Outcomes in Angola, Sierra Leone and its proxy involvement in Papua New Guinea). This curbing of mercenary activities is sure to be welcomed by peace loving South Africans everywhere. However, serious questions arise from the Bill (in its present form) since it casts its net to include much wider activities unrelated to `military` matters in the conventional sense. At the same time, the Bill subverts parliamentary oversight and accords Minister Asmal extensive discretionary powers more reminiscent of the apartheid era, than of Mandela`s Government.  

Authors

Mark Malan and Jakkie Cilliers, Institute for Security Studies