Introduction
Private security firms have contributed to supplementing security for international organization across the world. This has been an important factor especially in conflict zones. This paper will explore the challenges surrounding the engagement of private security companies in “Privatization of war”. Further, it will examine how they impact on civilians and their position under “international humanitarian law”.
The paper will also highlight other reasons that affect privatization of war will also be examined for example contracting private security companies in conflict zones, Global arms trade and mercenaries involvement. The essay will further look into the impacts of private security companies on peace and stability. In conclusion, the essay will examine the concerns raised from the use of these private security companies.
The role of mercenaries
The traditional description of a mercenary is a person who engages in an armed conflict and he is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is driven by the need for self-gain.” Normally material benefit is promised by or supported a party to the conflict. In international law, to define a mercenary is set out in Another Protocol 1 to Article 47 of the Geneva Convention (Mandel, 2002, p.64).
Contrary to popular belief, Mercenaries have existed for a long period of time. Macedonians are an example of this in old Greek and they were used to fight Greek wars. The Hessian soldiers were British and they were used to fight in the American war for independence. However the famous idea of mercenaries comes from around 1960’s and 70’s, this is the period when mercenaries were used by the colonialists to stop liberation movements in Africa. These were no state formations trying to destabilize establishing newly independent states. These received widespread criticism as a threat to the state’s self-determination (Mandel, 2002, p.77).
In 1967, The UN approved its first resolution condemning the use of mercenaries. Other stiffer resolutions followed later and mercenaries became a criminal act within international “customary law” (Jäger and Kümmel, 2007, p.87). This universal revulsion of mercenary movements to the OAU Convention for Eliminating Mercenaries in Africa which came into effect in 1985 and the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries which was adopted by the UN in 1989 (Jäger & Kümmel, 2007, p.98). However, these conventions have been ineffective in cutting out mercenaries.
The 1990s saw the rise of mercenaries once again, although this time, mercenaries had taken another a different route – the traditional mercenary has been substituted by forming companies offering a wide range of military services. These new corporate entities are being used by states, rather than trying to destabilize the states (McCuen, 1992, p.233). Paradoxically, countries such as Angola who originally signed the OAU Convention are now seeking the services of these new private security companies.
This means the international community needs to come up with new ways to address these new types of mercenaries, besides the already set up mechanisms. International Control needs to be fixed in line with domestic measures (Jäger & Kümmel, 2007, p.112). Governments and multilateral institutions charged with the responsibility of performing the roles that are now being offered by private security companies, should look into the underlying reasons these companies have come up in the first place.
The demand for mercenaries has thrived because of a security gap left by two interrelated trends. First, UN has found it increasingly challenging to intervene in a growing number of intrastate (as opposed to interstate) conflicts after catastrophes witnessed in Somalia and Rwanda (McCuen, 1992, p.238).. Western powers have, to some extent been reluctant to send troops to these complex conflicts which they no longer have much strategic interest in than before.
Second, Africa has seen the falling apart and fragmentation of many states because of their inability to uphold security and control within their own borders. Armed conflict and violence has since replaced internal order, with systems between governments and their armies and citizens breaking down, these conflicts and violence have eroded protecting citizens (McCuen, 1992, p.245). Skilled military personnel have set up private security companies to supply the ready demand for security. In addition, transnational companies in the extractive industry, with mining operations in many war-torn African countries, have often been used to finance hiring these private security companies without practical assurances of security from their host governments (Stohl & Grillot, 2009, p.123).
Private security companies
Personnel employed by private security companies can be classified as mercenaries using the criteria discussed above. Majority of the private security companies argue they do not take part in actual conflict, join the armed forces of the country contracting their services and work with the partial knowledge, if not full authorization, of the governments of the countries in which they are based (Stohl & Grillot, 2009, p.133).
The boundaries which dictate a private security companies’ actions are particularly unclear. If they take part in hostilities, they are mercenaries unless they are assimilated into the armed forces of a party to the conflict. Private security companies are corporate in nature, registered companies, and are clear about their operations and intents as opposed to the mercenaries of the 1960s and 1970s (France, 2008, p.99).
They provide services to client governments ranging from providing advice about logistics and leadership, strategic military training and operational support if needed. Private security companies can have a critical impact on a conflict in which they work especially with the vast military package of services that they offer (France, 2008, p.104).
The impact of private security companies on peace and stability
Several literatures are available on the effects of private security companies on security, stability and peace. Most of the literature tries to unearth whether the private security companies’ existence annoy the problem or do provide a solution as most of them would argue. On one hand, private security companies offer an inexpensive and competent means of intervening in conflict situations compared to the conventional peacekeeping forces (Perl, 2004, p.89).
Because of their business nature, their services are quick and without delay. On the other hand, for these private security companies to stop a conflict, they can only use of force. This forceful approach to conflict resolution goes against the spirit and theory of peaceful conflict resolution – a theory that is embraced by several organizations and institutions in the international community.
International Alert, an organization working internationally towards peaceful conflict resolution, and the many other organizations working in the same field, view the activities of private security companies as going against their efforts to ensure a fair and peaceful transformation of violent conflicts. International Alert, and other organizations, seeks to address the fundamental social and political causes of conflict by identifying the capacity of people to resolve their own conflicts (Perl, 2004, p.99).
Global arms trade
It is essentially important to explore the global arms market to understand armed conflict in connection to privatization of war. Much of the world’s attention is directed towards the spread of the weapons of mass destruction some of which are nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (Avant, 2005, p.132). On the contrary, it is the ordinary “small” arms, such as fighter aircraft, AK-47s, land mines, and tanks, which are liable for most of casualties in the world’s conflicts. These small arms are reportedly responsibly for most of the casualties in war torn areas each year.
Arms trade poses ethical challenges because supplying these weapons for a conflict is closely linked to being involved in the conflict and opposes the support for non democratic oppressing regimes (Avant, 2005, p.138). The firms involved are viewed as gaining profit from conflict, authoritarianism and death occurs when they do not supply arms. On this light, global arms trade plays a major role in aggravating conflicts that exist. Conversely, exporting weapons to countries with probable objective for instance, a war lord, militia or rebels to overthrow an established administration seems as retaliation to in the conflict.
The section above summarizes a much larger and continuing discussion about the merits and drawbacks of private security companies with conflict resolution. Away from this debate, there is a real need for communities to start the process of making policies to address the rise of private security companies. These companies have displaced many of the roles traditionally seen as the role of individual states (Avant, 2005, p.156).
Legitimacy
There are serious questions being asked about the legitimacy of private security companies which engage in the security matters of foreign states. Private security companies have always been given contracts by governments. However, sovereign states are obliged not to abandon or transfer their responsibility to their citizens to secure internal order and security. Private security companies claim that they have cautious screening methods to make sure they only work with legitimate and internationally recognized governments (Roy, 2003, p.146).
However, these private security companies are present in those countries first because, the legitimacy of the government in place is in question or the government may not be recognized as legitimate by most of the given society. So, the private security companies should not be used to pick the legitimate side of the conflict. According the UN charter, the activities undertaken by private security companies are contrary to the recognized rights of sovereign states to nonintervention (Roy, 2003, p.156).
Accountability
Many problems occur when those engaged in war are not soldiers of the state, but soldiers of fortune. Being corporate entities, private security companies are only accountable to their clients and shareholders. While national forces, on the other hand, have to adhere to internal checks and balances, domestic laws regulating their activities, parliamentary scrutiny, public opinion and numerous aspects of international law (Roy, 2003, p.179).
Human Rights
In engaging private security companies in conflict zones there have been many reports of human rights being violation. Many observers have expressed concerns about the financial motivation of mercenaries as a reason that contributes to human rights abuses in conflicts (Roy, 2003, p.199). In a legal sense, it is unrealistic that private security company personnel, as non-nationals, can assimilate fully into their host country’s armed forces as they only need to act within the legal constraints of the contracts they sign.
Arms proliferation
Private security companies offer services that include the brokering of arms deals between the government hiring their services and suppliers known to them. They may harbor the potential to supply arms illegally and are likely to procure them from countries which are a cheap source or lack strict export controls. In this way, private security companies avoid the export controls of the country in which they are based (Mandel, 2002, p.178). This can lead to smuggling and misuse of arms by human rights abusers in conflict situations.
Conclusion
Privatization of war plays a major role in conflict zones as has been obvious throughout the essay. The essay tackled the reasons surrounding it and effects of privatization of war. Since controlling the activities of private security companies has proved to be hard or there are inadequate laws to deal with the issue, the existence of private security companies has resulted in increase of arms therefore aggravated violent conflicts.
References List
Avant, D. D. (2005). The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
France, J. (2008). Mercenaries and Paid Men: The Mercenary Identity In The Middle Ages: Proceedings Of A Conference Held At University Of Wales, Swansea, 7th-9th July. Leiden: BRILL.
Jäger, T., and Kümmel, G. (2007). Private Military and Security Companies: Chances, Problems, Pitfalls and Prospect. Rotterdam: VS Verlag.
Mandel, R. (2002). Armies without States: The Privatization of Security. New York: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
McCuen, G. E. (1992). The Global Arms Trade, G.E. New Jersey: McCuen Publications.
Perl, R. F. (2004). ‘State Crime: The North Korean Drug Trade’. Global Crime. New York: Routledge.
Roy, A. (2003). War Talk. Massachusetts: South End Press.
Stohl, R., and Grillot, S. (2009). The International Arms Trade. Indiana: Polity publishers.