In Singer’s article, he explains reasons why private
military firms are sometimes useful to a country in war. Before this, I have
always regarded PMFs as morally ambiguous companies that can be bought and have
no moral code and are only focused on the end result. After the article, my
belief hasn’t changed and my stance remains the same on PMFS. The fact is any
nation rich enough can seek the service of these firms to eliminate a threat.
It is an outsider to a conflict, taking a side due
to a contract without any background knowledge or care just only on outcome is
a terrible way of conducting a just war. Take the Iraq war for example; the
media had often made accusations about the conduct of PMFs in Iraq. During the
Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2003-2004, reports claimed that the contractors
hired were involved also the trophy video in 2005 showing these contractors
shooting Iraqi civilians.
It is clear these PMF are all money based operations
while their conduct can often create ethical debates of their provision.
Despite these reports, the United States government cannot hold them
responsible for their actions. Human rights violation such as the case in
Bosnia where scandal arose when contractors hired women for sexual favors and
behave in other illicit activities is an example of non accountability.
Accountability is important; if a firm is not accountable then it can get away
with so much. These PMFs are not often accountable to military justice code;
they are only subject to the laws of the market.
They often hire people without sufficient screening.
Insufficient screening to check a soldier’s character to see whether they are
fit to fight is often overlooked or not checked at all. Legal recourse are
often slim, as per the claims and ongoing investigations to the crimes
committed by some PMFs in Iraq since 2004. As the war in Iraq came to a close,
the U.S. States department planned to increase the number of firms. Even
though, this can help reduce the tendency toward conflict in some areas and
also increase the chances of peace. However, it will create what it is supposed
to prevent, due to their interests. They have little incentive to encourage a
resolution that motivated their hire in the first place. When it comes to military
responsibilities, the incentives of these firms to make profit and may not
always be in line with the client’s interests or those of the public good.
I think you bring up an interesting point when you state that only nations rich enough can afford to seek the service of private security companies, further adding to the asymmetry of military capability and political power already existent in the world. With a lack of stringent regulation by the public and the respective governments of the states that employ them, this asymmetry invites the potential for engaging in dishonorable conduct, wartime scandals and blatant disregard for human rights, such as in the case of Abu Ghraib. However, I do think that especially in today's world, corrupt and disgraceful conduct during war is becoming more easily publicized due to increasing transparency and thus there might be an incentive against committing such shameful acts. Nevertheless, I find that if the presence of PSCs is to be increased, new ethical and professional standards must be created, and cooperation with all levels of society must be enforced.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that before this week's readings I thought PSCs seem to be morally ambiguous companies that can be bought by the highest bidder and that only seek to satisfy a contract, and therefore morals are disregarded. While I still believe that this is partially true, I also have discovered many beneficial factors that PSCs could bring after reading Singer's writing. I believe that nowadays there is even risk of blatant disregard for human rights in the current American AVF system, the only difference is that American soldiers have laws that hold them accountable for their misconduct. I believe that if we establish stricter guidelines for PSCs regarding ethical standards, allowing them to be accountable for their actions, PSCs could work well with soldiers, or in some cases even better than our country's military could.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that a nation could benefit from only using private security companies? I wonder if it would be possible that a state could grow rapidly if it never had to worry about its own citizens in danger. Or is it possible that this whole system could collapse under itself?
ReplyDelete