Global Conflict and Security - Dissertation Example

Global Conflict and Security: Do Private military/security companies have an impact on the role of states in international security? Introduction Zedeck (n. d) defined security as the ‘complex of interrelated threats associated with civil war, genocide and the displacement of populations’ and it is concerned with the protection, particularly from violence and the fear of violence, of a civilian population (Zedeck n. d, p. 98). Giving ample security and protection to the human life and wealth is one of the basic responsibilities of states. States normally accomplish this mission with the help of public bodies like military force, police force, intelligence and secret service agencies etc. These public bodies have their own legal system and they are free to do anything if the security of the public is in question But as per the recent trends many states are seeking the assistance of private military firms (PMF’s) for executing their missions on security matters (See the Appendix). Lilly (2000) has mentioned that companies such as Military Professional Resources Inc., Sandline International and Defense Systems Ltd have been hired by governments, private corporations and humanitarian agencies to provide — depending on the circumstances — a range of security and military services including: combat and operational support, military advice and training, arms procurement, logistical support, security services, intelligence gathering and crime prevention services (Lilly 2000, p.1). America was accused of taking help from the PMF’s in order to execute their missions in Abu Ghraib, Iraq. Singer (2005) has mentioned that mystery, myth, and conspiracy surround the PMF’s and their operations, leaving policymakers and the public in positions of dangerous ignorance (Singer, 2010) There are arguments in favour and against the operations of PMF’s. Critics believe that the PMF’s are mostly motivated by the profit making motto alone as they are purely private firms. They also believe that giving responsibility to PMF’s on security matters is not a wise thing as PMF’s can easily misuse their power and authority. On the other hand, supporters of PMF’s believe that it is essential to seek the services of PMF’s on security matters as the public bodies alone may not succeed fully in ensuring the security of the public. They argue that the increasing threats for peaceful life of the public from all the corners made it essential to seek the assistance of private firms also in dealing with security matters. This paper analyses both the arguments briefly in this paper. Arguments in favour of private military/security companies on the roles of states Lilly (2000) argued that private military companies have shown a willingness to intervene in many of the hostile environments of little strategic interest to the key global powers (Lilly 2000, p.2). Private companies are motivated by business interest and hence they will take up any challenges if they would be able to make profit out of it. Global powers will not interfere in some crisis situations if they perceive that they will get nothing out of interfering in such crisis. For example, poor African countries are always volatile to ethnic violence and political agitations. Capitalist countries or global powers may not interfere in such countries because of the lack of exploitation chances. At the same time UN cannot keep a blind eye towards such violence. It is the duty of the UN to interfere in global political crisis situations between different countries. Under such circumstances, UN can seek the assistance of PMF’s to keep peace in such regions or countries. Private firms are perceived as offering a more cost-effective way of providing services compared to the government controlled military forces (Lilly 2000, p.3). The government controlled military needs to cross many barriers before extending their services to the crisis hit area. For example, state controlled military need the green signal from the state political leadership, and the leaders of their military regime to interfere in crisis hit areas. States on the other hand need to look all the dimensions of the consequences of their military interferences in another country before taking a decision. For example, Indian peacekeeping forces tried to establish peace in Sri Lanka when Sri Lanka hit worst by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE). The outcome of this interference was the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by the LTTE suicide bombers. So before interfering in the internal matters of another country, the state military need to think twice. On the other hand, PMF’s don’t have such worries as they are purely operating on a commercial basis. Logistical support is one of the major areas of concern for the military operations another country. It is a complex task to ensure the safety of the movements of goods across a problem hit country. At the same time it is difficult for the military to give adequate protections to the logistics operations. Under such circumstances the services of private military firms are definitely a blessing for the military. Most of the state controlled militaries use the services of the private militaries for ensuring the safety of the goods travel when they operate in another country. “The firm Brown and Root, for example, is a major supplier to the American government and has won a contract for up to a billion dollars over five years with American NATO forces in Kosovo” (Lilly 2000, p.4). Although the world's most dominant military has become increasingly reliant on PMFs (the Pentagon has entered into more than 3,000 such contracts over the last decade), the industry and its clientele are not just American. Private military companies have operated in more than 50 nations, on every continent but Antarctica. For example, European militaries, which lack the means to transport and support their forces overseas, are now greatly dependent on PMFs for such functions. To get to Afghanistan, European troops relied on a Ukrainian firm that, under a contract worth more than $100 million, ferried them there in former Soviet jets. And the British military, following in the Pentagon's footsteps, has begun to contract out its logistics to Halliburton (Singer, 2010) Humanitarian agencies also seek the assistance of the private military firms when they operate in a country. Humanitarian agencies normally engage in assisting people who struggle in crisis hit areas. But the antisocial elements will try to defeat their effort by attacking their camps and goods movements. Lilly (2000) mentioned many cases in which humanitarian agencies use the services of private military agencies to protect personnel and property near duty stations in situations where law and order have broken down, rather than where armed conflict exists (Lilly 2000, p.6). So far we have discussed the utility of private military forces in assisting state controlled military in maintaining peace and ensuring security of the public. But the operations of private military forces are not free from controversies. There are many incidents in which private military forces misused their authority in countries wherever they operated. Arguments against private military/security companies on the roles of states Zedeck (n. d) has argued that lack of transparency; democratic oversight and accountability in the operations of the private military forces (Zedeck n. d). Private military forces and their operations are not accountable for the public agencies of the government. They obey the instructions from their superiors and these superiors often oversee their responsibilities as a business function rather than a service function. Civilian populations have lack of trust in the operations of private military forces as they have many incidents among them which showed the business mentality of the PMF’s. Moreover, the employees of the PMF’s usually function without adequate training and they usually give least value to the human right issues. Lilly, (n. d) has mentioned that the impact of private security groups on human rights is complex (Lilly, n. d, p.23) In its 2006 annual report, Amnesty International USA noted that civilians working for private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are alleged to have committed serious incidents of abuse, including assault, torture and sexual abuse. In 2006, employees of three private security contractors in Angola – Alfa-5, Teleservice and K&P Mineira – employed by five diamond companies (headquartered in Angola, Brazil, Israel and the US) to guard their operations against illegal miners, were accused of killings, beatings, sexual abuse and torture, as well as using forced labor as a form of punishment. In some cases victims were beaten with shovels, clubs and machetes, and even forced to carry out homosexual acts (Zedeck n. d, p. 100). Privatization seems to be the order of the current world. We can see the lack of state’s intervention in most of our social and political life. Globalization has given momentum to the privatization process and the governments are washing their hands from their basic responsibilities by giving the responsibility to the private people. At the same time these private people measures everything on the basis of market value and they are motivated by profit making alone. They have no commitment to the public life since they operate mostly in overseas countries. Governments are using the services of private people in issues where they cannot interfere directly. It is witnessed in the Abu Ghraib incident in Iraq. BBC (2009) reported that Abu Ghraib became notorious for the abuse of detainees by US forces in 2004 (BBC 2009). Moreover, Maogoto and Sheehy (n. d) reported that it was the use of PMC (Private Military Company) personnel by California Analysis Center Incorporated (“CACI”) in interrogations that resulted in the most widely publicized incident of misconduct of the many reported PMC misdeeds—the Abu Ghraib prisoner scandal (Maogoto and Sheehy n. d, p.101). Abu Ghraib jail incident is a clear example in which how an administration can make use/misuse of private military companies in achieving objectives which they directly doesn’t want to do. (The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos, 2006) The above photograph is the least severe photographs published on internet about the Abu Ghraib jail incident. More serious and heart breaking photographs in which the prisoners tortured physically and sexually can be seen on internet (Please follow the link http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444). This incident has raised many questions about the international law related to the operations of private military forces. Even the state owned militaries are working under certain international laws. But the private military companies are not adhering to any laws and they are operating freely as per the wills of their controlling authorities. Singer (2010) has reported that Iraq is one of the single largest U.S. military commitments in more than a decade; it is also the marketplace for the largest deployment of PMFs and personnel ever. Around 60 firms currently employ more than 20,000 private personnel there to carry out military functions roughly the same number as are provided by all of the United States' coalition partners combined (Singer, 2010). United States is facing severe pressure from international communities for the intervention in Iraq and also for the massacres conducted there. The protests against the intervention of US forces in Iraq are not only from the external world, but even from US itself. Many US military personnel died in the encounters with the Iraqi fundamental groups and it is difficult for the US administration to justify their interventions in Iraq. So they are now relying heavily on the PMF’s in order to escape from the blame and also to reduce the casualties to the American forces. At the same time these private military forces are not guided by any moral or ethical principles in their operations and they are exploiting the innocent people heavily. There are insufficient controls over who can work for these PMF’s and for whom these firms can work (Singer, 2010). As mentioned earlier, no international laws seem to be applicable in the case of PMF’s as it is a new entrant in the military scenario. Singer, (2010) has mentioned that at the personal and the corporate level, there is a striking absence of regulation, oversight, and enforcement in the operations of PMF’s (Singer, 2010). It is necessary to formulate laws regarding the operations of these private military companies in order to save the innocent people from torture. These private companies are often acting as the curtain for the massacres conducted by the state controlled militaries. The incentives of a private company do not always align with its clients' interests—or the public good (Singer, 2010). It is not necessary that a private company operate always for social services or charity purposes. The word Private is strongly aligned to profit making and exploitation. There are not many private firms in this world which are working for the benefits of the society rather than their own benefits. Today’s governments can accomplish public ends through private means. In other words, PMF’s allow governments to carry out actions that would not otherwise be possible, such as those that would not gain legislative or public approval (Singer, 2010). It is impossible for a government to sponsor terrorism directly in other countries. At the same time governments can sponsor terrorism in other countries with the help of private networks. For example, India is a country in which the Pak sponsored terrorism is always happens. Even in the recent Indian parliament attacks and the Mumbai attacks, many people see the hands of the Pak government even though publicly everybody accuses Lashkar E Taiba and Al Quida. It is difficult for Pakistan to conduct a military mission directly in India whereas it is easy for them to seek the help of private military forces like the Lashkar E Taiba, indian Mujahideens etc for executing their missions. Thus it is evident that private military companoes can be misused even by the states. Conclusions It is a fact that private military forces are assisting admirably the state military forces and the human right agencies in conducting their operation in crisis hit areas. PMF’s are working admirably in providing security to the logistics operations of the military and the human right agencies. At the same time PMF’s and their operations are not free from controversies. There are many incidents in which the PMF’s exploited and tortured the innocent people. Moreover there many stories in which the PMF’s harassed the innocent people sexually. It is essential to regulate the operations of private military firms or companies. Currently these firms are operating freely and no international law seems to be applicable to them which enable them to conduct their missions freely. States use these private firms for executing their hidden agendas. If operated properly, under the strict guidance of international law, private military forces can be made useful to the security of the public. Private military forces and their operations must be made accountable and controlled by the state which seeks the assistance of them. References 1. BBC (2009), Riot at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8251163.stm 2. Lilly D, (n. d), The Privatization of Security and Peace Building, Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://reliefweb.int/rw/lib.nsf/db900sid/LGEL-5F9JUE/$file/intalert-privatisation-sep02.pdf?openelement 3. Lilly D, (2000) The Privatization of Peacekeeping: Prospects and Realities, in Disarmament Forum, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, No. 3, 2000. Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://www.international-alert.org/pdf/privofpk.pdf 4. Maogoto Jackson Nyamuya and Sheehy Benedict (n. d), PRIVATE MILITARY COMPANIES & INTERNATIONAL LAW: BUILDING NEW LADDERS OF LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY & RESPONSIBILITY, Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://cojcr.org/vol11no1/99-132.pdf 5. Singer P W (2010), Outsourcing War, Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0301usdepartmentofdefense_singer.aspx 6. The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos, (2006), Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444 7. Zedeck R (n. d), Private military/security companies, human security, and state building in Africa, African Security Review 16.4 Institute for Security Studies, Retrieved on 11 April 2010 from http://www.se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/101649/...9AD9.../Chapter1.pdf Appendix (Lilly D, n. d, p.11) Read More