Deploying armed personnel to the MH17 crash site is not a good idea

http://michellemarieantellg.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/blackroses/

How did we get ourselves into this predicament?

I am certain this is the feeling that some of the Malaysian leaders in their security council are asking themselves as they mull over their most immediate concern of securing the crash site of MH17.

Tomorrow will mark the 10^th day since the Malaysian carrier met its end in the skies above a conflict zone where not a single person onboard the flight was a stakeholder to the parties in the conflict. Securing the crash site is vital in order to continue retrieving remnant body parts of passengers; to prevent looters and tampering of the crash site; to be able to carry out investigations into the cause of the plane crash; and to ensure the safety of investigators on site. These seemingly simple tasks have just gotten more difficult with the presence of armed rebels who have declared control over the site.

The Malaysians have won my respect with the successful negotiations with the separatist rebels that resulted in the handing over of the black boxes and the first round retrieval of the bodies. Such a negotiation exercise is unbelievably complicated with so many variables to consider. Things can go very wrong. The fact that it was concluded so quickly in such a short time without prior media knowledge shows the decisiveness, courage and resolve of those involved in the negotiations.

However, all is not well. The safety of investigators cannot be guaranteed with the presence of ill-disciplined, armed men who belong to the organization that are potential suspects to the crime. Body parts are still lying in the field. The longer the situation drags on, the greater the opportunity for the geopolitical mess between all parties to deteriorate. The Aussies are proposing a joint coalition force of armed Aussies, Dutch and Malaysian police and military personnel to secure the crash site.

 “They must be nuts,” says Joerg Forbig, senior program officer for central and eastern Europe, German Marshall Fund – a think tank based in Berlin (26 July 2014, Sydney Morning Herald).

Indeed, this idea of involving armed representatives from countries aligned with the west is highly risky and possibly unwise. Unless the governments involved have access to information that we do not know, such a decision can lead to unwanted outcomes with global impact. Why is this such a bad idea?

1) Raw emotions – The Dutch, Malaysians and Aussies lost the most number of people on the flight. The cover story is that regular police officers and token military personnel are sent there. In reality, the personnel sent there are usually highly trained individuals from the various special forces units. These are Type A personalities who are highly patriotic and devoted to their cause to protect their people. They will not be too impressed with the rebels and might be tempted to act out of revenge.

2) Opportunity to create blame – Should the rebels seek the upper hand in preparation for subsequent rounds of negotiation, they can easily create an incident that will make them look like the victim, especially if the coalition force is armed. For instance, a rebel could deliberately fire a rifle into the sky to antagonize the coalition. Instinctively, a coalition member fires back but hits a civilian passerby, a child, instead. This creates distraction from the key issue at hand – the investigation of the crash site; and gives the rebels the upper hand.

3) Aggressive perception – Imagine for a moment, if you observed a convoy of trucks coming your way. They stop to unload soldiers and police officers who are armed with rifles. Get the picture? It certainly is intimidating, even if all of them flashed smiles at you. The argument is for self-defence purposes - that if they are armed, you have to be armed, if not more armed. This does not portray neutrality in an already volatile situation. This shows aggression, something that is not necessary.

With the inability to access the information that is privy to the respective governments, we will have no idea about how the decision making process was carried out. However, I would like to offer a few suggestions – nothing earth shattering, but certainly worth considering:

1) Involve a United Nations peacekeeping force – Arms should not be used but observers should wear body armour. The Russians must contribute influential personnel and a sizable number to this team.

2) Get assistance from a neutral country – This is not an easy option but a possible one where a country that is deemed co-operative with Russia and the west can send personnel to secure the crash site. Whether they are armed or not depends on the type of agreement negotiated.  

3) Get privately contracted security personnel – This is not the most ideal option when it comes to cost. However it does reduce the potential geopolitical repercussions should things go wrong (if a paid security contractor is killed accidentally, it is not perceived as inflammatory as when a Dutch or Aussie soldier gets killed). The nationality of the mercenary does matter. As far as possible, they should be obtained from Asia or South America so as to portray neutrality. The gurkhas are a fine example of someone who should be hired for this role. From a business point of view, I am for arming mercenaries as this is a case of protecting one’s ‘business concern’ (it’s sad but true, money does trump common sense). Pistols for self defence might be ideal in this case as it defers to the AK-47 assault rifles the rebels are using.

I am reminded of how countries are warned of future security threats that we will face in the near future. Threats are expected to be irregular, catastrophic and disruptive. The MH17 crash in a conflict zone can fall into the category of an irregular threat. Countries are placing strong emphasis on funding, recruiting and training their military or para-military special forces to deal with the many unknowns that the world will encounter.

I am hopeful that this situation will be resolved soon. Practically speaking, this looks like it will be a long drawn affair that will be heavily politicised, with the threat of missteps from all sides.