Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Private military corporations, banning of
Section C. International relations
Private military corporations (PMCs) first came to global attention when Blackwater, a PMC to which the US military had contracted out many of its operations in Iraq, was involved in a 2007 incident in which its employees shot dead 17 Iraqi civilians in a roadside bombing incident. However, PMCs have been around for much longer, with many being heavily involved in African civil wars over resources in the 1990s.Their staff are often recruited from the ranks of former Special Forces soldiers, and so tend to be highly trained. However, there have also been significant questions about their accountability; Paul Bremer, the head of the American provisional administration in Iraq, signed ’Order 17’, which removed Iraqi authority over the employees of PMCs. However, more recently, the American government has ordered that they be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and has scaled back their use in foreign operations, but many problems undoubtedly remain. Private military corporations fulfil a range of functions, from protecting ships and oilfields in danger zones for large companies, to guarding embassies and prisons, to essentially replicating the functions of ordinary soldiers.
Pros
[1] It is wrong that military operations be conducted for profit. All armies must balance operational efficiency in achieving their objectives with the need to protect civilians and the reputation of their fighting force more broadly. While ministers and commanders can give orders, much of this is ultimately dependent on individual soldiers and the choices they make. Their motives best balance these concerns when they act out of a sense of honour, rather than being purely profit-driven, possibly even with incentive-based pay; all this makes soldiers more likely to take risks with civilian lives in order to achieve mission objectives.
[2] Private military corporations cannot be trusted on the battlefield because they lack accountability. They are not subject to courts-martial, and are often also able to avoid the legal systems of both their employing country and the country they are in. This means that their incentive structure is even more strongly geared towards self-protection at the expense of observing the rules which are essential for ethical conduct on the battlefield. There is thus a much greater risk of their attacking civilians and even committing crimes against humanity.
[3] Private military corporations and their employees are often not bound by national and international law, and are also far removed from the PR issues faced by military forces; this allows the nations employing them to get them to do things that would be unacceptable if done by national armies. For instance, whereas British soldiers are now subject to the European Convention on Human Rights, the same does not apply to PMCs. They were heavily involved in the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal in Iraq, as many operations there had been contracted out to PMCs.
[4] Many dangerous and evil governments are able to use PMCs for their nefarious purposes, even when their militaries are weak. This is because they will act for anyone, regardless of the morality of their cause.
Cons
[1] Incentives improve performance, and this is as true on the battlefield as anywhere else. If protection of civilians is an important objective, then governments can and will build these into the contracts that they sign with PMCs. Public outcry at mass civilian deaths — as happened in September 2007 when Blackwater killed 17 Iraqi civilians — will force governments to discontinue contracts with any firms that do not live up to ethical standards. This will then be reflected in the orders that the PMCs give their workers.
[2] Private military corporations do not lack accountability. Their accountability simply takes the form of pay-based incentives and the prospect of renewed contracts, rather than conventional military punishments. But even if they were less accountable than professional militaries, this would be compensated for by their increased professionalism; PMCs tend to draw from the highest ranks of former Special Forces, and so their staff are all highly trained and committed.
[3] Private military corporations did formerly exist in something of a legal black hole, but these gaps have now been closed. For instance, contractors are now subject to the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, and when operating in Iraq, the laws of the host country. Blackwater has been subject to numerous lawsuits and criminal charges for its actions in Iraq, and in 2010 paid out US$42 million to settle claims that it had acted illegally in smuggling weapons overseas.
[4] Dictators and warlords will always be able to hire mercenaries or recruit people with the promise of a commercial payoff, whether PMCs help them or not. Regardless, most PMCs which operate with Western governments will not also work with more dubious governments, because this might create conflicts of interest or expose them to bad press, and such work is much less lucrative than their core contracts.
Possible motions
This House would ban private military companies.
This House believes that governments should not hire mercenaries.
Related topics
Pacifism
Armaments, limitations on conventional
National service, (re)introduction of
Women fighting on the frontline
United Nations standing army