Trotter on the Shearer backstory

December 28th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Chris Trotter looks as the David Shearer backstory, and while it is one I approve of heartily, he seems less enamoured:

Some political observers have drawn comparisons between Mr Shearer and his chief antagonist, Prime Minister John Key. The young Labour activist, Connor Roberts, summed up the pair’s similarities and differences with his now famous quip: “John Key went overseas and made fifty million dollars; David Shearer went overseas and saved fifty million lives.”

This focus on Mr Shearer’s and Mr Key’s “overseas” experiences has led many to assume that both men were out of the country during the pivotal years 1984-1993. In Mr Shearer’s case, however, this is untrue. For nearly the whole period of the Fourth Labour Government (1984-1990) he was here, in New Zealand, studying, teaching and consulting. If he was a Labour Party member at any time during those tumultuous years, then he was a very quiet one. He certainly wasn’t among the ranks of those who fought against Rogernomics. He has, however, often spoken to journalists about his admiration for David Lange’s speeches.
This inability to get worked up about the core elements of neoliberal “reform”: labour market flexibility; privatisation; deregulation; monetary and fiscal discipline; explains his rather odd belief (for a Labour leader) that the contest between Left and Right is “a phony debate”. Such ideological agnosticism – explained away as good old Kiwi pragmatism – does, however, offer us a way into the most unusual and contradictory aspect of Mr Shearer’s entire career: his support for mercenary armies, or, as they prefer to be known these days: private military and security companies (PMSCs).
That reference I covered in Kiwiblgo in 2009 here and here.
That impression was intensified by Mr Shearer’s experiences three years later as the UN’s Senior Humanitarian Advisor in the West African nation of Liberia. Just across Liberia’s northern border, in the ravaged state of Sierra Leone, the PMSC known as Executive Outcomes had been employed under contract to the Sierra Leone Government. Shearer was deeply impressed by this mercenary army’s lightning-fast defeat of the Liberian-backed forces assailing the ruling regime.
A year later, in 1996, Mr Shearer was advising the UN in Rwanda. It was here, just two years earlier, that a brutal genocide had taken place while the United Nations watched – and did nothing. Trying to stitch the rudiments of civil society back together after a disaster on that scale cannot have been easy.
I think it is a good thing that Shearer used his experiences to learn that the private sector can have a key role in activities normally reserved for states.
This was followed by what might be called the John Le Carré phase of Mr Shearer’s career; his two-year stint (1996-1998) as a research associate at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. Like its sister institute – The Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House – the IISS has always laboured under strong suspicions of being a sort of “front organisation” for Britain’s foreign affairs, defence and intelligence “community”. This was most clearly illustrated in 2003 when the IISS released a report strongly favouring the UK’s participation in a US-led invasion of Iraq. Like the infamous “sexed-up” report released by the Security Intelligence Service (MI6) just two weeks later, the IISS also warned against Saddam Hussein’s (non-existent) “weapons of mass destruction”. Since 2003 the IISS’s Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk has been Nigel Inkster – formerly the Deputy Director of MI6.
Sounds a cool place to work.

By 2003 Mr Shearer was back with the UN, this time in the Middle East. As the Head of OCHA in Jerusalem and then as the UN’s Humanitarian Relief Coordinator during the Israeli assault on Southern Lebanon and Beirut, he distinguished himself as a fiercely independent upholder of the UN’s mission. Few were surprised, therefore, when, in 2007, after four years of negotiating his way through the labyrinth of Israeli-Palestinian relations, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ky Moon, named David Shearer as his Deputy-Special Representative in Iraq. He was also appointed Head of the UN Development Project Iraq. Holding these two very senior roles in the United Nations Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) Mr Shearer was almost certainly “in the room” when decisions about the use of PMSCs were being made. 

Lou Pingeot, author of the New York-based Global Policy Forum’s June 2012 publication Dangerous Partnership: Private Military and Security Companies and the UN, has compiled some useful statistics on the amount of money spent on PMSCs by the UN. “Using the highest available numbers,” he writes, “there is a 250 percent increase in the use of security services from 2006 to 2011.”
The numbers for UNAMI are particularly interesting. In 2007 UNAMI spent zero dollars on PMSCs. In 2009, when its former 2IC was back in New Zealand campaigning for Helen Clark’s old seat of Mt Albert, UNAMI also spent zero dollars. In 2008, however, the amount spent by UNAMI on PMSC’s was US$1,139,745.
Excellent – he practises what he preaches.

Mr Shearer’s position has been explained away as just another case of a good Kiwi bloke, impatient to get the job done, and not being particularly fussed about how things are made to happen – or by whom. And if the universal experience of mercenary involvement in “peace-making” was as positive as Executive Outcome’s foray into Sierra Leone, the argument might have some force. In reality, however, Executive Outcome’s success in Sierra Leone stands out as a very lonely exception to a much darker rule. 

The actual, on-the-ground, operational conduct of PMSCs over the past decade has demonstrated to the world just how dangerous it is to entrust the delivery of deadly force to individuals and corporations whose primary motivation is profit. Yet even in the face of the PMSCs’ appalling conduct in the Balkans and Iraq, Mr Shearer remains sympathetic towards private armies and mercenaries.
The Labour Leader’s on-going support for these private-sector problem-solvers speaks volumes – and very little is to his credit.
I disagree. Just because some private mercenary armies have done bad things, is no reason to have an ideological opposition to all private mercenary armies. We should judge them on outcomes.
UPDATE: A staff member in David Shearer’s office (Mike Smith) has complained at The Standard that a commenter there has referred to the Trotter story:
A good example showed up in the same Open Mike, where Karol referred us to Chris Trotter’s latest post on Bowalley Road, titled “Who is David Shearer?”, promising a post of his/her own on the matter.
I’m not sure it is a great strategy to try and tell readers off for what they mention in the general debate or open mike threads.
Trotter’s post reprises an old canard, obviously a product of the National Party opposition research team. that was first put up by David Farrar on Kiwiblog in 2009 when Shearer first emerged as a candidate for Mt Albert.
Mike is wrong here. The information on Shearer’s writings did not come from anyone in National, but in fact a leftwing (is there any other sort?) academic.
So we have Chris Trotter from the non-Labour left dredging up an old story originally planted on National’s behalf by Farrar’s Kiwiblog, and recently linked to by National’s Whaleoil. Now Karol, also from the non-Labour left, is apparently going to join them in another futile attempt to discredit Labour’s leader.
Oh dear, now Mike is sounding like a certain Labour MP who used to rant about the non-Labour left.
None of them have the interests of Labour at heart. It is an old problem for Labour, when the outside left links with the far right to drag Labour down. The right at least know that their only real opposition as a government is Labour; who would know what the others’ motive is.
Never mind that Chris Trotter actually campaigned for Labour in 2008. I saw him wearing a Labour rosette. But now it seems that the “non-Labour left” are akin to Judean People’s Front.

On sale in Mt Albert

April 30th, 2009 at 3:30 pm by David Farrar


Courtesy of Whale Oil.

Incidentally question time in Parliament yesterday revealed that Shearer has actually written four articles advocating for private military forces. They are:

  1. Dial an Army
  2. Outsourcing War
  3. Private Armies and Military Intervention
  4. Privatising Protection

Don’t you just love the titles? Also by coincidence one of the chapter titles in Outsourcing War was “Give War a Chance”, which is also the title of the famous P J O’Rourke book. I am off to hear the great man speak tonight.

David Shearer on Mercenaries

April 28th, 2009 at 4:30 pm by David Farrar

Phil Goff has been shifting Labour more towards the centre, with the departure of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. He is attacking National for not sticking with tax cuts, he let Clayton Cosgrove attack over Maori prison units and he is refusing to back Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Plus Labour are backing most of the RMA changes and voted to repeal the EFA.

But the extent to which Goff wants to pull Labour away from the left astonishes even me. As we all know, David Shearer is his hand picked candidate for Mt Albert – his former school friend and Ministerial advisor.

Now David shares none of the antipathy most of his Labour colleagues do towards the private sector. Most of them don’t want the private sector involved in corrections, work accident insurance, health or education. They say it has no role in core state functions. Us on the right are more relaxed and support private sector involvement if it is efficient and delivers good outcomes.

Anyway, while searching for Shearer’s Lincoln university thesis on Maori values and environmental decision-making (as had heard it was interesting) we came across a couple of articles David Shearer had written for foreign policy journals. And what are they on?

“Outsourcing War” and “Privatising Protection”

Let us first look at what he says in “Outsourcing War” published by “Foreign Policy” in 1998:

The principal obstacle to regulating private military companies has been the tendency to brand them as “mercenaries” of the kind witnessed in Africa 30 years ago,rather than to recognize them as multinational entrepreneurs eager to solidify their legitimacy

Legitimate multinational entreprenurs instead of mercenaries. Now that is music to my ears. Not quite so sure how aligned that is to current Labour Party activists and MPs.

Shearer goes on to recommend:

Consequently, regulation can be best achieved through constructive engagement.

I agree – far better than banning them. But Shearer has an even better idea:

The prospect that private military companies might gain some degree of legitimacy within the international community begs the question as to whether these firms could take on UN peacekeeping functions and improve on UN effort.

An excellent idea. I am sure the new UNDP Administator would whole heartedly agree that UN peace keeping forces should be replaced by Executive Outcomes and Sandline. I do hope someone asks her her view.

There is no denying that they are cheaper than UN operations. EO cost Sierra Leone’s governmen$t35 million for the 22 months it was there, versus a planned UN operation budgeted at $47 million for eight months.

And is it any more moral for the UN to be using Fijian peacekeepers than private mercenary armies?

Military companies may in fact offer new possibilities for building peace that, while not universal in applicability, can hasten the end to a war and limit loss of life. Moreover there is no evidence that private-sector intervention will erode the state.

Despite the commercial motives of military companies, their interventions, if anything, have strengthened the ability of governments to control their territory.

I think Rodney should grab David Shearer for ACT. I want this man to be our Defence Minister.

The full article is here – shearer-outsourcing-war. I’ll blog the second article tomorrow.