Omar Mateen Kept On By G4S, In UN Global Compact, Any UNSC Statement?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS, June 12 -- The killer in Orlando, Omar Mateen, worked since 2007 at private military contractor G4S. A co-worker there is quoted that it was “quite apparent that the guy had anger issues and was very unstable” -- but G4S kept him on.
G4S is a member of the UN Global Compact, and when Inner City Press asked the UN why this mercenary firm was a member, the response was the business is “not illegal.” How about, irresponsible?
Ban Ki-moon issued a short canned statement, but as of 10 pm, the UN Security Council had not. Many countries had, and one wondered if the UNSC would. It'd be up to the United States. Watch this site.
The UN Global Compact allows companies to claim
affiliation with the United Nations as long as their practices are
not illegal -- and even then, the Global
Compact put on its board of
directors a South Korean businessman convicted of fraud with the SK
Group, Chey Tae-won.
On
March 15, Inner
City Press asked UN spokesman Martin Nesirky if Secretary General Ban
Ki-moon has any problem with his Global
Compact allowing the company
G4S to join, despite it being a private military contractors which
has even “supplied
security technology to seven Israeli prisons and
two remand prisons located in Israel and on the occupied West Bank.”
Nesirky's
response
was to say that Ban has confidence in long time Global Compact
director Georg Kell.
But G4S
reportedly faced prosecution for the death of an Angolan deportee in
the UK - click here
for that.
Subsequently,
Kell's
and the Compact's spokesman Matthias Stausberg sent Inner City
Press a previously put out response to criticism of the Compact by
the UN's own Joint Inspection Unit. Inner City Press replied:
At
the
noon briefing I asked about the Global Compact accepting private
military contractor G4S into the Compact, despite protests about its
involvement in, for example, prisons in the Occupied Palestinian
Territories. This is what I am requesting a Secretariat response on,
for example
this link.
Please
advise,
thank in advance.
Stausberg
asked
for more time to respond -- therefore this couldn't be included in
the initial
story -- and subsequently on this point wrote to Inner
City Press that “the provision of private security services is
not an illegal activity. We therefore saw no reason to deny G4S
participation in the UN Global Compact.”
In fairness,
Stausberg's full response, praising and defending G4S, is set forth
below. While he raises a question about the term “mercenaries,”
we note that private military contractors, and even forms of
mercenaries, are not illegal either.
Here
is the
question: should the only standard
applied by and to the UN Global Compact be
whether an activity is “legal”? Manufacturing weapons is legal,
as is the production of pornography.
Would
the UN
Global Compact allow pornographers and weapons merchants to join?
Apparently yes.
In any event,
as to G4S, note
that
Scotland
Yard is considering bringing a corporate manslaughter charge [under
the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007] against
the world's largest private security firm over the death of an
Angolan deportee.
Detectives investigating the death of Jimmy
Mubenga, who collapsed while being deported on a commercial flight
from Heathrow, have interviewed whistleblowers from G4S, the company
hired by the government to deport foreign nationals.
They are
considering whether the company could be held responsible for his
death under rarely used legislation that came into force three years
ago.
Now what will the UN and Global
Compact do? Watch this site.
Stausberg
wrote:
Subject:
Press
Q at noon re Global Compact accepting private military
contractor G4S into the Compact
From: Matthias Stausberg [at]
un.org
To: Matthew Lee [at] InnerCityPress.org
Cc: Kristen Coco
[at] un.org, Farhan Haq [at] un.org, Martin Nesirky [at] un.org,
Ursula Wynhoven [at] un.org
Hi
Matthew,
here are some answers for you:
Since
you use the
term "mercenary", can you please clarify (and provide
sources) which current G4S activities you believe would qualify
under commonly accepted definitions of the term mercenary (e.g., as
in the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use,
Financing and Training of Mercenaries)?
2.
The provision of private security services is not an
illegal
activity. We therefore saw no reason to deny G4S participation in the
UN Global Compact.
3.
Regarding the specific provision of security technology to various
clients in Israel and the Occupied Territories, please note the
recent announcement by G4S that it will cease providing certain
services and technologies through its Israeli subsidiary.
(http://english.themarker.com/danish-company-halts-equipment-supply-to-west-bank-in-wake-of-public-protest-1.349239)
4.
Please note also that G4S is a signatory to the International Code of
Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC), which was
launched in November 2010 as a voluntary initiative to improve
industry standards and ensuring respect for human rights and
humanitarian law by private security service providers. While the
ICoC is not intended to replace national regulation and state
control, it marks a critical effort to clarify the role of non-state
actors in this arena.
Final
note: even
regarding the announcement of getting out of the West Bank, note that
G4S' predecessor Group 4 Falck made a similar claim in 2002 which was
subsequently disproved. But the question raised is not limited to G4S
but to whether the only standard applied by and to the UN Global
Compact
should be whether an activity is “legal”? Under Ban Ki-moon, the UN descended into taking sponsorship money for its slavery memorial from Macau based businessman Ng Lap Seng, then evicting the Press which reported on it. Watch this site.
, 
