Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill

Keith Locke was speaking. He is not here.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Madam Speaker—

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If the member wishes to take another member’s call, then she has to seek leave to take up the remaining time available.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Sue Kedgley, you need to seek leave from the House to take the remaining 8 minutes of your party’s call.

I would like to do that. I seek leave to complete Keith Locke’s speech.

💬 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? I call Sue Kedgley.

I speak on behalf of Keith Locke, who was speaking when the debate was interrupted. The Green Party supports this bill so that we can help to get rid of the scourge of mercenaries—soldiers of fortune who kill people for personal profit. This bill will enable New Zealand to implement the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

The disastrous situation in the Congo today has its origins not only in Belgian colonialism, but also in the use of mercenaries immediately after independence by Western political and business interests. The mercenaries overthrew the radical Lumumba Government and slaughtered thousands of people. Thankfully, political developments in Papua New Guinea prevented Sandline International mercenaries from going into Bougainville, so instead we were able to have peace negotiations there and a peace settlement.

Today there is much discussion about whether any of the 20,000 foreign contract bodyguards and security officers in Iraq qualify as mercenaries under this bill, and whether any of them are New Zealanders who could be prosecuted under it. The bill states that a mercenary is one who, for private gain, takes part in hostilities, and that mercenaries’ remuneration should be substantially in excess of that of locals, unless they are involved in a concerted act of violence, in which case they need be rewarded only with significant private gain.

Clearly, foreign bodyguards in Iraq earn several times as much as Iraqis—anything up to $3,000 a day—so on that count they would be classified as mercenaries under this bill. Some of them take part knowingly in hostilities with what is deemed to be an enemy force. A good example of real mercenaries are the commandos of the US firm who on 4 April were involved in an intense firefight around the US Government headquarters in Najaf against Shiite militia, and who used company helicopters to bring in more ammunition and ferry out a wounded marine. At the other end of the scale, a Kiwi with a sidearm who was escorting around a BBC cameraperson would not qualify as a mercenary under this bill.

One of the ruses that Governments use to try to hide mercenaries is to say that soldiers are really just a part of a national army. However, the test is not just the amount of money that hired foreigners earn, but whether they are independent of the command structure of the local army and not subject to the same discipline and rules of engagement. Real mercenaries have that degree of autonomy. Mike Hoare’s mercenaries in the Congo in the 1960s and mercenaries in Papua New Guinea in the 1990s were never part of the local army in a real sense. In fact, a common-sense reason why Governments hire mercenaries—and often they do it covertly—is basically to get them to torture people and to do the dirty fighting that is outside the Geneva conventions. They can then say that it was not their soldiers who committed the terrible atrocities. Another ruse that people have used to try to get around the anti-mercenary convention is to define those taking part in hostilities only as direct combatants with weapons, when clearly everyone in the command structure of a mercenary unit can and should be defined as a mercenary.

There certainly may be New Zealand mercenaries in Iraq. We know that six former members of the police’s Special Tactics Group have gone there, as have former SAS people, and they should know that when they do, they may have trouble with this law if they use arms in military hostilities in Iraq. Their Kiwi recruiters need to be aware of that too. Companies like Red Key Security are advertising in New Zealand papers.

The Green Party is disturbed about the complicity of the New Zealand Defence Force in that recruitment. For example, Brigadier Southwell provided a testimonial for a Defence Force sergeant who resigned last year to operate in Iraq. The brigadier wrote that he had no hesitation in recommending the sergeant as a leader of a close protection team in even the most severe of security situations. If this bill had been passed at that time, Brigadier Southwell could arguably have been caught up in its provisions and ended up before the courts, if that close protection team had been proved to be a mercenary unit.

Just because our Defence Force is operating alongside the Americans and the British in Afghanistan and Iraq—unfortunately, in the opinion of the Green Party—that does not give New Zealand Defence Force officers the right to recruit mercenaries for the American or British authorities in Iraq. Hopefully, this bill will put a stop to that sort of behaviour and, for that reason, the Green Party strongly supports the bill.

I will take a very brief call on the second reading of the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill. This bill, according to its commentary, contains provisions required to be implemented in New Zealand law to enable us to comply with the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

There was some concern about the small number of parties that have so far ratified that treaty, and questions were raised as to whether New Zealand should, for that reason, tarry in terms of signing it. I think the point made at the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which is reflected in the commentary, is that New Zealand should make up its own mind and not necessarily always wait for the actions of other countries. We should be autonomous in our decision making in that regard.

So the key issue is whether New Zealand is willing to subscribe to the particular obligations the treaty imposes. United Future believes that that is an appropriate action—mainly because we think this bill needs to act as a deterrent, so that New Zealanders who may be contemplating becoming mercenaries would give it a second thought. We would never want New Zealand to be considered a safe haven for those kinds of activities.

It is kind of interesting, too, that over the years we have heard reports, which we often put down to urban myths, of private armies training in obscure parts of New Zealand. I have always had huge amounts of doubt, but in the new climate in which we now find ourselves, with the rise of terrorism, I think we would be foolish to neglect this issue and to think that somehow, because of our distance from other countries, we are somehow excluded from the possibility of New Zealand being a place where mercenaries may want to set up and conscript people to work for their cause.

There are also some interesting facts listed in the commentary about the definition of a mercenary. It is interesting that the scope of this legislation has been very specifically targeted to definitions that are based on provisions in the Geneva convention. There has also been an attempt to look at definitions that define the difference between people who take part in coups and terrorists attacks, and those who take part in other events that may fail to reach the definition of being full-blown wars but nonetheless are aggressive acts, the forces for which are supplied by mercenary armies. I finish by saying that United Future is very pleased to support this bill, for the safeguards it will provide.

National is opposing this bill, and there are particular and deliberate reasons why we do so. In fact, the set of circumstances set out by the Green Party tells us why the bill as it has come back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee fails to meet the requirements necessary for National to support it.

National did vote for this bill to go to a select committee, and we do recognise that there is a category of people—the private army, if one will—whose activities should be prohibited. A number of people from across various parties have referred to cases in, particularly, Africa, where persons are recruited who would never form part of the armed forces of a particular nation but who are there, effectively, to create mayhem. They are not in the category of bodyguards and they are not contracted to assist—as, for instance, occurred in Iraq, where Mr Bremer had privately contracted bodyguards—but they are there in the classical sense of the mercenary. They are a private army undertaking armed conflict, creating havoc, death, destruction, and instability, and often overthrowing legitimate Governments. If the bill was limited to that and precisely aimed at that, National would have absolutely no doubt that to support it was the right thing to do, and I believe that every party in the House would have shared that view.

I guess the benchmark is this—and I will refer to the situation of my colleague Ron Mark, because it has been referred to in the past. As he has stated many times in this House, he was contracted to join the Sultanate of Oman’s army. It was largely arranged through the British Government, so he was in a sense an instrument of foreign policy. There would be no doubt, and it would be common knowledge, that people recruited in those circumstances were paid more than local citizens; that was never in any question. Yet this bill would capture someone in the situation that Ron Mark was in in 1990.

The action of people with particular skills joining the army of a legitimate Government in order to provide those specialist skills is a long tradition, and is commonly used by many countries—often with the blessing of many democratic countries, because it is designed to reinforce stability in those countries, and, in fact, has done so. If the select committee had used its wit and wisdom to ensure that the situation Major Mark was in was excluded, then there would have been no doubt that National would support the bill. But to find a definition set out carefully in clause 5 that was fully considered by the select committee, and that still effectively covers that situation—the Greens say it does, and so does the Government—tells us that the bill is wrong. Surely the Government should have taken on board the countries that are not signatories: Britain, the United States, Australia, and Canada. Those are countries from which highly skilled military professionals are often recruited by, particularly, Middle Eastern nations to form part of their armed services. Those people are under the normal chain of command; they are not a private army or anything of that nature.

For this bill to capture them is, I think, a case of New Zealand essentially trying to have an expression of political correctness. The idea of prohibiting mercenary activities sounds reasonable on the face of it. What person would want to support a mercenary in the classical sense? The answer is that very few people would. But the way that this convention was pulled together, and the way that the select committee did not then do a proper job of limiting the application of the bill, show that the Government was not serious about the convention, but, rather, simply wanted to have a record of being some kind of model citizen. I wonder whether the New Zealand Government would ever prosecute in that situation—because I cannot imagine that it would—and if it does not intend to do that, then what is the point of passing law like this?

The reality is that this bill should not be passed in the form it is in. The select committee had the opportunity to come up with a sensible definition, but it failed to do so. One has only to look at a number of situations in the Pacific, and I am not talking about the Sandline International situation. For instance, if any Pacific nation decides to employ a New Zealand helicopter pilot for quite legitimate reasons, and to have that person in its armed forces, who almost certainly will be paid more than the local people—let us be realistic about this—then such a person is likely to be caught by the convention. That, frankly, is ridiculous. It is bad law to sign up to conventions that are there for the warm glow of it, if one will, rather than to take a reasoned and sensible approach to prohibit the genuinely egregious behaviour of the private army operating outside the normal military conventions. The British Government, the United States Government, and many other European Governments have said this kind of convention simply does not take account of the real world.

The issue of Iraq has been mentioned recently—and so it should be; it is an important issue—and there are literally thousands of people there who are highly skilled and undertaking a wide variety of tasks. I mentioned the case of Mr Paul Bremer. His immediate security was privately provided. I absolutely guarantee that those security personnel were earning more than a Private First Class in the United States army.

💬 Peter Brown: You think so?

Yes, I hazard a guess that they were earning a little more than a Private First Class. Yet that activity, which clearly has approval at the highest levels of the United States Government, would be caught by this convention. Does New Zealand really think it is right for such people to be caught by the convention? I would not be at all surprised if the Prime Minister, either knowingly or unknowingly, had the benefit of such protection herself when she visited Iraq. Surely she is not suggesting that those people should be at risk of prosecution, yet that is how this convention is worded. It is wrong to pass conventions that are so poorly drafted as to capture a wide class of people whom we would think are doing a good job—helping peace, preserving security, and providing countries with the ability to get ahead—just in order for Mr Goff to go on some sort of international stage and say that New Zealand is a party to the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. We do have to take a more critical approach to the precise wording, work out precisely what we are really against—and it is clear what that is—and also work out what we say is OK. This bill, as presented to the House, simply does not meet that threshold test.

That was a very compelling speech from Captain Mapp, and I have certainly taken on board the very many good points he made and I concur with them. I think the key point he made is that the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries is nothing other than UN feel-good pap that this Government, again, rushed out there to sign up to without scrutinising and thinking it through. The convention has not been signed by our traditional allies Britain, the United States, Canada, and Australia—not one of them signed this convention. Why did the New Zealand Government rush off and sign this convention, and why now, today, does it want to legislate to give it effect? This is a classic example of what this Government does—and now Major Mark has joined the debate, and I hope members also hear from him shortly. The Kyoto Protocol is another classic case of UN feel-good pap. We know that it will not work and that it is ineffective, but bureaucrats and officials rush off to those meetings, sign up, and commit us to it. In this instance, we know that the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom have not signed the mercenaries convention. They disagree with it, so why on earth should New Zealand sign that convention and, here today, try to legislate for it?

There have been some very good examples of our getting into very serious problems with definitions. Modern military activity is not just a matter of a bunch of foot soldiers being issued with muskets and lining up against each other; it engages an incredibly high level of technology and support services, in terms of the weaponry and the deployment. The example was given of whether a private helicopter pilot who was assisting Papua New Guinea, Fiji, or Tonga would come within the definition of mercenary in this instance, and it seems that that pilot would. But the bill then goes on to state that a computer consultant looking at the computer systems and information technology that control weaponry would certainly come under the definition of a mercenary. So it is bad legislation. We do not support it.

An example was also given of the Iraq situation. Tens of thousands of people who are assisting in the post - Saddam Hussein reconstruction would fall within the definition of mercenary in this bill. It would be foolish to expose them to prosecution and to the provisions of what is very bad legislation. So the ACT party will not be supporting this bill.

The example was also given of Major Ron Mark, who was a mercenary. I have his attention now.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: No, he wasn’t a mercenary.

He was a mercenary, and he should be proud of it. He did a very good job for the Sultan of Oman. The other classic example is the Gurkhas, who have a very proud tradition within the British army. They are actually paid less, not more, than the normal British troops, which has been a real problem for them for some time. They would clearly be defined as mercenaries within this bill, even though they have done a very good job in many areas and theatres of conflict around the world.

I see no redeeming features in this bill, whatsoever. I ask the Labour Government, for goodness’ sake, to look at things as an independent sovereign State, rather than just signing up to UN pap. That is what it has done with this example. It should not be signing up to and implementing this convention. It is foolish, and the ACT party will be opposing it strenuously.

The National Party has made it very clear—particularly in the succinctly put speech by Wayne Mapp—

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: Captain Mapp.

—who I note was a captain—that we are not in favour of the activities of mercenaries, as the Green Party was certainly speaking about before. What we are in favour of is accepting reality. People in the circumstances of Ron Mark—who is now a member of this House—when he was with the Sultanate of Oman would be caught by this bill. Quite clearly, that is ridiculous.

We have talked a lot today about the fact that none of our traditional allies—when we had allies—and friends have signed up to this treaty, but I think it is really important to take a moment to remind the House who has signed it. It is stunning. I will read them out: Azerbaijan; Barbados; Belarus; Belgium, which was so good against the Germans, did members not find; Cameroon; Costa Rica; Croatia; Cyprus; Georgia, and I remind members that that is the country not the State; Guinea; Italy, which at least is well known; Libya—how about a bill on terrorism; no, that is right; the Libyans have now sorted themselves out—Maldives; Mali; Mauritania; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Senegal; Seychelles; Surinam; Togo; Turkmenistan; Ukraine; Uruguay; and Uzbekistan. The stunning comment we make here is that the vast majority of those nations did not exist 20 years ago. The only reason they do exist is the breakdown of the cold war, and the work that the Americans and the other Western countries did to free them from the yoke of socialism.

💬 John Carter: Communism.

Communism, as Mr Carter quite correctly says. There is not much difference, I say to Mr Carter. That is what we are signing up to. We are in great company with that lot, are we not?

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Lots of democratic countries.

There are lots of democratic countries, as Mr Wayne Mapp says! That is what we are signing up to.

I was concerned by what Mr Shirley said about the situation of the Gurkhas, and I would like clarification from a Minister that the Gurkhas would not be included in the legislation, because their deeds are legendary. Their courage, their stamina, and their loyalty to the British Crown have been utterly legendary. We need to take that into account.

Having read the bill and looked at the definition of “mercenary”, I am concerned as to whether the Papal State might have a bit of a problem. Does it not have the Swiss Guard? Is the Swiss Guard not in fact a private army that is made up of mercenaries—that has always been made up of mercenaries? Every Catholic person in this Parliament should consider that he or she is about to outlaw the Swiss Guard.

The comment was made in the House that the Prime Minister, when she was in Iraq for her photo opportunity, might in fact have been protected by some of these dreadful contractors who are paid more than the locals for doing their jobs. Frankly, I can understand why they might need to be paid more than the locals to do their jobs—in more ways than one. Those people might have protected her. Did she not travel through Italy in a car at 200 kilometres an hour to visit the Pope, and was she not looked after by the Swiss Guard at those times? Was that not so?

💬 Hon Ken Shirley: She wore a dress!

I think it was a skirt, I say to Mr Shirley; we should get it right. I think so. So, really, will that not be a problem—the fact that the Papal State might have an issue with the legislation? Is that not a problem?

Where is the great call for the legislation? Where is the great need? Is it not all about the fact that some New Zealanders have gone to Iraq to help out the Iraqi people in their liberation? Is that not what it is all about? The Prime Minister is brassed off that they can earn more money there—and they should, as they are in great danger and have shown the way to a lot of other people who would like to see that happen, as well. They are doing some really good work.

Occasionally I wonder about people who go on about peacekeeping. Who do we think makes the peace? It is the people who put their lives on the line, day after day. I heard the Green member speaking about mercenaries and war. She talked about “clean war”. My dear old dad, who is long departed now, spent 4 years overseas in the Second World War as an engineer. He was in the front line, as engineers were. He always said to me that the people who say war is fun and glorious were not there. The people who say there is such a thing as “clean war” were not there. The fact is that not only do mercenaries commit acts of barbarity against each other and others, but so do armies generally. That is the way it works in war. War is hell, it has never been any different, and it never will be.

There will always be war when there are people who will not accept the democratic process and will not accept that people have the right to determine their own result for their country. That is what happens. If we do not stand up for democracy, we will be calling on mercenaries ourselves. One of the things that is really obvious in the bill is that it will not allow our people to be able to make their own decisions about where they want to be and what they want to be doing. I wondered whether this bill would have applied—if it had been in place 60-odd years ago—to the American servicemen who went over and served with the British before Pearl Harbor. Of course, if they were paid more than the locals, then, yes, it would have. Those people risked their lives fighting against fascism, and in this House today we are condemning them, provided that they were, in fact, paid more. We need to be able to accept that some people have specialties—Mr Mark obviously had a specialty, which he took to the Sultanate of Oman. We are condemning them for using that, for going into harm’s way without someone demanding that they do so. Because they exercise their free will they are condemned.

I completely support the comments made by my colleague Mr Mapp, and I say that this bill is an unnecessary piece of feel-good rubbish that is being put together by this Government so that we can hang out with the likes of Qatar.