THE government’s efforts to curtail the activities of Executive Outcomes (EO) – the South African company which appears to be running a booming business in the export of mercenaries and ancillary services – are understandable, but should perhaps be the subject of more public debate before legislation is passed.
There are a number of reasons why the profession of the mercenary should be discouraged, in addition to a general dislike of war. If war cannot be avoided it is surely desirable, for example, that the combatants fight on issues of principle which concern them personally. Otherwise they are nothing more than hired killers and as such they criminalise the cause in which they fight.
There is an argument to be made that what has been described as the privatisation of war usurps government’s prerogative where foreign policy is concerned.
The character of EO itself further prejudices the case against mercenaries. At least two of its senior executives have been identified as former members of the Civil Cooperation Bureau (CCB). The activities of the CCB during the apartheid era have still to be unravelled, but it has been widely described as a state assassination squad.
Until such time as their members clear the record by making full dislosure, there is justification for fearing the worst: that they are akin to the likes of Eugene de Kock.
As such they would be better described as rabid dogs, rather than dogs of war, and (at least until they convince that they have been misunderstood) it is dangerous to unleash them on our neighbours in Africa.
For all of that, we are not enthused by the course of action being pursued by government. The proposal is essentially to subject the sale of military services to the same controls as the sale of a piece of military hardware, such as an artillery shell. Dealers would need to be registered and deals licensed to the extent of end- user certificates.
Apart from practical considerations relating to jurisdiction, it needs to be pointed out that there is a considerable difference between a piece of military hardware and a South African citizen.
Among other things, the latter has the advantage of various constitutional guarantees not enjoyed by artillery shells where freedom of movement is concerned, as well as rights to sell his or her labour.
We know where Kadar Asmal is coming from. But we’re not too sure where he is going.