Mercenaries in T2K: Thoughts and Questions

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Just some thoughts

Gurkhas are Mercenaries

No, they're not.

https://www.gurkhabde.com/gurkhas-an...erm-mercenary/

Protocol 1 of 1977 (not yet ratified by the United Kingdom) Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions’ contains the only internationally agreed definition of a ‘mercenary’ This definition excludes anyone who “is a member of the Armed Forces of a party to the conflict”, thereby effectively excluding Gurkhas in the British and Indian Armies.

Should you ever encounter one I'd recommend you don't tell him he's a mercenary. I understand it's something that can cause quite a bit of offence.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

No, they're not.

Should you ever encounter one I'd recommend you don't tell him he's a mercenary. I understand it's something that can cause quite a bit of offence.

ok but

mercenary: noun, a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army: a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

and I have meet Gurkhas soldiers and broke bread with them in Afghanistan in 2003.

There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and Indian armies and The Gurkha Contingent (GC) of the Singapore Police Force in addition to The Gurkha Reserve Unit (GRU) which is a special guard and elite shock-troop force in the Sultanate of Brunei.

it should also be noted that according to the International Law and the Control of Mercenaries and Private Military Companies by Christopher Kinsey, (26 June 2008) The Gurkhas meet many of the criteria found in Article 47 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries.


"Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."

So draw your own conclusions

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

ok but

mercenary: noun, a soldier who is paid by a foreign country to fight in its army: a soldier who will fight for any group or country that hires him

and I have meet Gurkhas soldiers and broke bread with them in Afghanistan in 2003.

There are Gurkha military units in the Nepalese, British and Indian armies and The Gurkha Contingent (GC) of the Singapore Police Force in addition to The Gurkha Reserve Unit (GRU) which is a special guard and elite shock-troop force in the Sultanate of Brunei.

it should also be noted that according to the International Law and the Control of Mercenaries and Private Military Companies by Christopher Kinsey, (26 June 2008) The Gurkhas meet many of the criteria found in Article 47 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions regarding mercenaries.


"Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces."

So draw your own conclusions

Gurkhas are members of the armed forces of the United Kingdom (point e) and when deployed on active service ARE sent by a State which IS a party to the conflict (point f, assuming we're discussing operations where the British Army are / were deployed, e.g. Afghanistan, Falkland Islands, etc). They are NOT specially recruited locally or abroad specifically to fight in any conflict (point a) - some of them never leave garrison in the UK). And they get paid at standard British Army rates (point c) (sure, when on active service they'll get paid additional allowances, i.e. combat pay, but so will their British born counterparts).

Point b applies to every combatant in theatre, so is utterly pointless. Or rather, if you're going to try and use point b to make your point then you're going to have to call every single armed combatant in theatre a mercenary.

When it comes to the Indian Army I can't speak for point c, but comments about the lack of validity of points a, e, and f still apply.

I am drawing my own conclusions. Gurkhas are NOT mercenaries.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I am drawing my own conclusions. Gurkhas are NOT mercenaries.

cool

[Rainbow Six]

Actually, I should have read the full text of the relevant part of the Geneva Conventions before replying, not just the bullet points

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appli...2563cd00434156

1804 The various conditions enumerated sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) are cumulative, and should consequently all be met for the person concerned to qualify as a mercenary.

So all six conditions need to be met. So the original author's assertion that Gurkhas meet 'many' of the criteria is pointless. They need to meet them all. Which they don't (a, c, e, and f don't apply)

Some formations, most of which have been mentioned here, also get a specific namecheck as NOT being mercenaries

Sub-paragraph (a) -- Being especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict

1805 This condition excludes volunteers who enter service on a permanent or long-lasting basis in a foreign army, whether as a result of a purely individual enlistment (French foreign Legion, Spanish Tercio) or an arrangement concluded by their national authorities (for example, the Nepalese Ghurkhas in India, the Swiss Guards of the Vatican).