Private Military and Security Firms: the Clinton administration's longa manus in the Balkans, 1994-1998

Abstract

The present work investigates the use of private contractors by the Clinton administration and, more specifically, the recruitment of Military Professional Resources Inc. (MPRI) in the cases of Croatia in 1994 and Bosnia in 1995. The first chapter provides an overview of 21st century mercenarism and presents the theoretical framework for the analysis of Private Military and Security Firms. The chapter then provides an insight on what has been defined the breakdown of the Weberian monopoly of the State and introduces the events that made mercenarism emerge in the 21st century, namely those referred to the Afghan and Iraqi war theatres. The second chapter, after having presented President Clinton’s foreign policy, investigates the restructuring of the U.S. defense apparatus in the same years, and examines the objectives outlined in the National Security and Military Strategies released by the Clinton administration. The chapter then analyses the application of those objectives as well as the U.S. outsourcing in the specific case of the Balkan scenario. The third chapter is focused on MPRI contracts with the U.S. State Department and the Croatian government in 1994 to then show how the operational results of these first contracts affected Bosnian adherence to the Dayton Accords of 1995. By doing so, the research demonstrates that the privatization of warfare in the Balkans was what enabled the Clinton administration to avoid the deployment of the official U.S. Army in the region, to circumvent the impartiality of the IFOR operation, to avoid international criticism for having interfered with the internal affairs of Croatia and Bosnia, and to disrupt Iranian influence in Europe, thus allowing American policymakers to pursue their declared foreign policy objectives. In particular, the research demonstrates that, despite being a private subject, MPRI was in any case exposed to the influence of the U.S. government and was subject to a form of control by Washington – either through legal means or through other types of pressure –, which eventually made it a de facto foreign policy instrument in the hands of the Clinton administration.