Really? Norway?
So, if you've been following the news, you know that two European men in Africa have been sentenced to death for murdering their driver and, among other charges, spying for Norway.
Wait...Norway?
On the surface, to western eyes, this sounds ludicrous. Norway, a mountain range masquerading as a small European country, is a quiet, peaceful place, blessed with one of the world's largest abundances of naturally occurring ski resorts. They, like most other nations, have a long and violent history, much of it involving men wearing helmets with horns on them who would swoop across the ocean down on unsuspecting villages and wage great battles until they were killed and carried off to a palace in the sky by busty, blond maidens who, for unspecified reasons, sang in German. But then they discovered oil, and gave up all this sailing nonsense (because yachting on the North Sea is sort of like bungee jumping into active volcanoes), and took up a life of skiing and drinking a variety of different alcohols.
Now, if there were one set of countries that had a reason to be paranoid about small European countries, it would be the former members of the Belgian Congo, where King Leopold's ghost still stalks about, rattling the windows. Belgian oppression leaves a long scar in the memory, and there are enough similarities between Belgium and Norway to stir up some unpleasant memories. But were they really spying for Norway?
Norway says no. That seems reasonable because there's nothing in the Congo really worth spying about. You can probably buy every government secret on the streets of Kinshasa with a hundred Euros in cash. But that doesn't change the fact that there's not much in the Congo that the government of Norway wants to know. Norway has oil. There's no way that they want much of anything out of the Land That Gave Us Ebola. But a better question is, were they spying? And there the answer could very well be yes.
Mr. French and Mr. Moland were trying to start that least reputable of business ventures, a security company. Security, in this case, is the modern term for mercenary. But modern mercenaries are not the same as their historic ancestors. Unlike the reputation of groups like Blackwater (and even theirs is inflated), most mercenary companies don't actually do much fighting. Instead they provide leadership, communication, and training to native forces (all things that take a rather extensive education not present in many African militaries), or provide physical security for important locations, by which I mean locations that make money for foreign businesses. This is of great advantage of African leaders, who, given the perilously shaky nature of most African states, prefer competent soldiers to eventually get homesick and go home.
By forming a company, Mr. French and Mr. Moland were probably not doing anything illegal. We allow our own citizens to do anything they want to overseas that doesn't harm us, and generally leave the law enforcement to the locals; otherwise a lot of college students coming back from Mexico would be busted for underage drinking. Had they decided to start a company buying real estate, or mapping out jungle paths, they probably would have been processed quietly, on the side. But there's something about the military profession that suddenly changes things; being in the business of overthrowing governments, destroying armies, and generally making a nuisance of yourself invites paranoia. And getting a little information on your competitors takes on new meaning when you intend to possibly be fighting the National Army.
And now Norway finds itself being blamed for spying on the Congo, and, almost by implication, fomenting revolt, and all those other crimes that the Europeans get hit with based on their past behavior.
The problem is that this might not be an isolated incident. Security companies are probably going to be on the rise; no longer can countries turn to their eastern or western-bloc patron whenever they need support. The boom of globalization, and the increasing amounts of Third World instability, coupled with First World apathy (or in some cases wisdom), lead to situations where people who can promise quick solutions growing from the barrel of a gun can make a fortune. It's a gold rush opportunity, but one that inevitably involves the shady side of the law; it's hard to run an above-ground company in the Third World period without paying at least a few bribes, and the act of moving weapons and soldiers around is doubly perilous. Especially when many of your prospective employers are in opposition to, or have only the loosest ties, to the officially recognized government.
So for now we get to laugh it off. After all, it's Norway, and even if Norway wanted to take over the Congo, their soldiers might melt in equatorial climes. So Norway may let them suffer in prison (or even the death sentence) for killing their driver, but I doubt that Norway will pay the $60 million indemnity demanded, and with any luck this will all be forgotten in the next big upheaval in the Congo. But the next time may not be lucky. What if the next group called out is an American group working for Southern Sudan; the implications of a group of Americans working against the Arab government could be devastating to the US's public image. Or British mercenaries in Kenya? Or French in Algeria? How do you deal with the problem that your own citizens are being hired as foreign nationals to fight in countries, and for causes, that you as a nation don't want to get involved in?
It's not a question with an easy answer, but I wonder if it's a question we'll be hearing more and more frequently.
Wait...Norway?
On the surface, to western eyes, this sounds ludicrous. Norway, a mountain range masquerading as a small European country, is a quiet, peaceful place, blessed with one of the world's largest abundances of naturally occurring ski resorts. They, like most other nations, have a long and violent history, much of it involving men wearing helmets with horns on them who would swoop across the ocean down on unsuspecting villages and wage great battles until they were killed and carried off to a palace in the sky by busty, blond maidens who, for unspecified reasons, sang in German. But then they discovered oil, and gave up all this sailing nonsense (because yachting on the North Sea is sort of like bungee jumping into active volcanoes), and took up a life of skiing and drinking a variety of different alcohols.
Now, if there were one set of countries that had a reason to be paranoid about small European countries, it would be the former members of the Belgian Congo, where King Leopold's ghost still stalks about, rattling the windows. Belgian oppression leaves a long scar in the memory, and there are enough similarities between Belgium and Norway to stir up some unpleasant memories. But were they really spying for Norway?
Norway says no. That seems reasonable because there's nothing in the Congo really worth spying about. You can probably buy every government secret on the streets of Kinshasa with a hundred Euros in cash. But that doesn't change the fact that there's not much in the Congo that the government of Norway wants to know. Norway has oil. There's no way that they want much of anything out of the Land That Gave Us Ebola. But a better question is, were they spying? And there the answer could very well be yes.
Mr. French and Mr. Moland were trying to start that least reputable of business ventures, a security company. Security, in this case, is the modern term for mercenary. But modern mercenaries are not the same as their historic ancestors. Unlike the reputation of groups like Blackwater (and even theirs is inflated), most mercenary companies don't actually do much fighting. Instead they provide leadership, communication, and training to native forces (all things that take a rather extensive education not present in many African militaries), or provide physical security for important locations, by which I mean locations that make money for foreign businesses. This is of great advantage of African leaders, who, given the perilously shaky nature of most African states, prefer competent soldiers to eventually get homesick and go home.
By forming a company, Mr. French and Mr. Moland were probably not doing anything illegal. We allow our own citizens to do anything they want to overseas that doesn't harm us, and generally leave the law enforcement to the locals; otherwise a lot of college students coming back from Mexico would be busted for underage drinking. Had they decided to start a company buying real estate, or mapping out jungle paths, they probably would have been processed quietly, on the side. But there's something about the military profession that suddenly changes things; being in the business of overthrowing governments, destroying armies, and generally making a nuisance of yourself invites paranoia. And getting a little information on your competitors takes on new meaning when you intend to possibly be fighting the National Army.
And now Norway finds itself being blamed for spying on the Congo, and, almost by implication, fomenting revolt, and all those other crimes that the Europeans get hit with based on their past behavior.
The problem is that this might not be an isolated incident. Security companies are probably going to be on the rise; no longer can countries turn to their eastern or western-bloc patron whenever they need support. The boom of globalization, and the increasing amounts of Third World instability, coupled with First World apathy (or in some cases wisdom), lead to situations where people who can promise quick solutions growing from the barrel of a gun can make a fortune. It's a gold rush opportunity, but one that inevitably involves the shady side of the law; it's hard to run an above-ground company in the Third World period without paying at least a few bribes, and the act of moving weapons and soldiers around is doubly perilous. Especially when many of your prospective employers are in opposition to, or have only the loosest ties, to the officially recognized government.
So for now we get to laugh it off. After all, it's Norway, and even if Norway wanted to take over the Congo, their soldiers might melt in equatorial climes. So Norway may let them suffer in prison (or even the death sentence) for killing their driver, but I doubt that Norway will pay the $60 million indemnity demanded, and with any luck this will all be forgotten in the next big upheaval in the Congo. But the next time may not be lucky. What if the next group called out is an American group working for Southern Sudan; the implications of a group of Americans working against the Arab government could be devastating to the US's public image. Or British mercenaries in Kenya? Or French in Algeria? How do you deal with the problem that your own citizens are being hired as foreign nationals to fight in countries, and for causes, that you as a nation don't want to get involved in?
It's not a question with an easy answer, but I wonder if it's a question we'll be hearing more and more frequently.