Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
State Sovereignty and Private Security Companies
In recent years, specialized private companies have increasingly offered military and police services, dramatically changing the role of the state by ending a long-standing state monopoly in these areas. Such companies have precedents in mercenary units such as the Hessian forces that fought for the British during the US war for independence and the Pinkerton Company, founded in 1850 as a detective agency that later on provided armed guards and strike-breakers to industrial firms in the US. But the current developments are on a much larger scale. Beginning in the 1990s, private security companies grew rapidly, providing guards and police-type security services and eventually out-numbering police forces. At the same time, mercenary activities increasingly took a corporate form and companies of this type began to operate in Africa and elsewhere, led by former military officers and soldiers of fortune enjoying close ties to diplomatic and intelligence services of major countries. US operations in Iraq have drawn heavily on military and security companies, an important precedent. Unlike state military and police forces, these private companies operate beyond the realm of legal accountability and public oversight, and they enable states and industrial companies to engage in military operations, seize valuable natural resources, terrorize citizens and overthrow governments without public knowledge. Because they are available for hire, these companies are the ultimate neoliberal re-invention of the state, putting armed force at the direct service of those who can pay for it.
Also See GPF's Pages on:
Corporate Contracts in Iraq
Documents | Analysis | Articles | Archived Articles | Links Documents
Report of the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries (August 24, 2007)
According to this second report by the United Nations Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries, private security firms worldwide are engaging in new forms of mercenarism. The report concludes that while the use of private security guards by States in conflict zones is on the rise their, legal status is still unclear. States continue to grant immunity to these companies and their employees. The Group warns that States who employ private security services may therefore be responsible for human rights violations committed by the guards. Further, the Group is concerned that only 30 States have ratified the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. This report comes as a number of security companies in Iraq are accused of killing numerous civilians in unprovoked attacks.
Mercenary activities violate numerous aspects of international law and pose serious threats to peace and security. In response to growing concerns, the United Nations drafted the International Convention against Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries to define the meaning of a mercenary and clarify states' obligations in regulating mercenary activity. (Office of the High Commission on Human Rights)Analysis
Privatising Security: Law, Practice and Governance of Private Military Security Companies (March 2005)
In their extensive 184-page report, Fred Schreier and Marina Carpinari of the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces provide a broad overview of private military companies.War, Profits and Vacuums of Law: Privatized Military Firms and International Law (Spring 2004)
While mercenaries have operated since ancient times, the global private military industry has mushroomed over the past decades, largely without regulation or oversight. According to the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, regulation of private military firms is long overdue, and states must enact laws - whether domestic or international - to reign in the industry.The Business of War (December 15, 2003)
While several armies still rely on regular forces for combat operations, many already heavily depend on corporations for running various aspects of military business, from truck driving to intelligence analysis. (Peace & Conflict Monitor)UK House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Ninth Report (July 23, 2002)
The United Kingdom House of Commons issued a report which exclusively and comprehensively deals with private military companies (PMCs). The report addresses the legal void in which PMCs operate and outlines existing laws and regulations that can be applied.Humanitarian Action and Private Security Companies: Opening the Debate (March 2002)
This International Alert article takes a broad look at the growing use of private security companies by governments, NGOs, and intergovernmental bodies. Though it does not make policy recommendations, the report addresses issues that must be debated and decided upon as this trend continues.PMCs, Myths and Mercenaries: The Debate on Private Military Companies (February 2000)
Drawing a distinction between the “modern” private military company and the “classical” mercenary, this article argues that it is better to regulate companies than outlaw them completely. (Royal United Service Institute Journal)Mean Times: Humanitarian Action in Complex Political Emergencies – Stark Choices, Cruel Dilemmas (January 1999)
In this report, CARE International examines the link between complex humanitarian emergencies, NGOs, and private military companies. As governments and state militaries sometimes fail to respond to humanitarian crises, NGOs should increasingly look to private security companies while operating in dangerous areas, the report argues.“Trust me, I’m a Mercenary” – The Lethal Danger of Mercenaries in Africa (February 20, 1997)
In this short paper, Laurie Nathan of the University of Cape Town outlines the fundamental problems that mercenaries pose as well as ways in which they can be regulated and held accountable.Articles
2008 | 2007 | Archived Articles 2008
The Military-Industrial Complex (July 28, 2008)
Author Chalmers Johnson argues that US presidents, particularly Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, put private corporate interests over government responsibility to its citizens. By transferring military and intelligence functions to private companies, these administrations hollowed out government oversight. For example, although Congress rejected funding for the Total Information Awareness Program, which would have granted the US government the ability to create personal data files on its citizens, the National Security Agency hired private contractors to compile the information instead. (CommonDreams)2007
The Top 100 Private Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan (November 20, 2007)
The Center for Public Integrity says US contracts with private security companies and construction firms has increased by 50 percent annually from US$11 billion in 2004 to US$25 billion in 2006. According to the Center, the recipients of contracts worth up to US$20 billion have only been identified by the US Defense and State Departments as “foreign contractors.” Commentators suggest this signals the lack of accountability and oversight of government contracts. Number one on the list, construction firm, KBR won over US$16 billion in contracts from 2004 and 2006, nine times greater than that awarded to number two, private security firm, DynCorp International. Click here for the Top 100 List.Blackwater’s Owner Has Spies for Hire (November 3, 2007)
The Prince Group that owns Blackwater, now offers intelligence to governments and businesses, through the company Total Intelligence Solutions. Both its chairman and chief executive are former high-level CIA officials who say that they can open doors because of their background and connections. The company’s entry into the world of spies and intelligence blurs the lines that earlier separated government and private business. (Washington Post)Blackwater Bodyguards Promised Immunity (October 29, 2007)
During a US State Department investigation into the deaths of numerous Iraqi civilians, Blackwater guards were granted immunity from criminal prosecution. Legal commentators suggest the “Garrity immunity” is usually reserved for police or law enforcement officers. News of the immunity angers the Iraqi government and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demands that Iraq be allowed to prosecute the contractors. (Associated Press)State Department Suspends Iraq Audit of DynCorp (October 23, 2007)
An audit of a US$1.2 billion contract with DynCorp International for the training of Iraqi police reveals that the State Department failed to oversee the contract and as a result its records and invoices do not account for most payments. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction suggests the US State Department suffers from “serious contract management issues” and is “vulnerable to waste and fraud.” Despite these problems, DynCorp is the rumored replacement of Blackwater USA as the security service for diplomats in Iraq. (Common Dreams)America's Own Unlawful Combatants? (October 15, 2007)
In the aftermath of the September 2007 Blackwater shootings, lawyers for the US State, Justice and Defense departments debate whether private security contractors fall under the same broad definition of “unlawful combatants” which the Bush administration uses to justify detentions in Guantanamo Bay. Legal commentators criticize the Bush administration for failing to clarify the legal status of contractors before putting them into military roles. (Los Angeles Times)House OKs Bill to Prosecute Contractors (October 4, 2007)
The US House of Representatives passed a bill in which all private contractors working in Iraq and other ‘combat zones’ will be subject to prosecution by US courts. In a statement, the White House criticizes the bill as having “intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities and operations.” Despite opposition from the White House, the legislation signals a shift away from the immunity enjoyed by US contractors for crimes committed in Iraq. (Associated Press)It All Makes Sense Now – Blackwater and the ICC (October 1, 2007)
In this article, the author speculates whether the US opposition to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was part of a long term plan to provide immunity to contractors working for or on behalf of the US in Iraq. The Hague Invasion Act was passed by the US Congress in 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq, and prohibits US courts from extraditing any person to the ICC. The author cites numerous atrocities committed by private security contractors working in Iraq including Blackwater USA, to demonstrate how these firms operate without any accountability to the ICC. (Tonic Blotter)Iraq to End Contractor 'Immunity' (September 25, 2007)
The Iraqi interior ministry drafts legislation responding to the shooting of 11 Iraqis by employees of the private security firm Blackwater. Commentators suggest the legislation includes provisions which will remove the immunity granted to contractors under the Coalition Provisional Authority laws. Under the draft, contractors will be monitored by Iraq’s interior ministry, they will be required to adhere to set guidelines and they will be subject to Iraqi law. The draft legislation signals the intention of the Iraq government to control contractors, who many Iraqis believe are “private armies acting with impunity on their soil.” (BBC)Iraqi Premier Says Blackwater Shootings Challenge His Nation’s Sovereignty (September 24, 2007)
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says the shootings of Iraqi civilians by the private security firm Blackwater presents a “serious challenge to the sovereignty of Iraq.” According to Iraqi authorities, the September 16, 2007 shooting of 11 civilians in Baghdad is one of seven incidents involving Blackwater. Despite initial calls by the Iraqi government for the removal of Blackwater, Maliki has since said he will allow the firm to stay until an investigation is completed and in order to avoid a “security vacuum in the capital.” (New York Times)US Rushes to Smooth Iraq's Anger Over Blackwater (September 18, 2007)
Iraq’s Interior Ministry has cancelled the license of the controversial US private security firm Blackwater after eight Iraqis were killed by employees of the firm. According to one US diplomat, the incident calls to attention the lack of control over security forces in Iraq who are operating unsupervised with “diplomatic immunity.” The unprecedented ban caused concern in Washington as the US relies heavily on Blackwater, and other private firms, to provide security for diplomats and convoys. While no US security contractor has been prosecuted in US or Iraqi courts for any crime, legal commentators believe this ban may signal an opportunity for the Iraqi government to review Paul Bremers 2003 laws granting immunity to US contractors. (Los Angeles Times)A Very Private War (August 1, 2007)
“What happens here today, stays here today” describes the attitude of some 48,000 employees of private military or mercenary firms working in Iraq. While private military firms take advantage of the billions of dollars in contracts offered by the US government, crimes committed in Iraq by employees of these firms have gone unpunished. Recent reports of civilian killings and violent incidents involving contractors of a US based mercenary firm, Blackwater highlight the lack of democratic control in the privatization of war. (Guardian)UN on the Offensive Against Iraq Mercenaries (July 13, 2007)
The UN Working Group on the “use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination” visited Chile to investigate private Chilean security companies. These companies, which recruit former soldiers and send them to Iraq as mercenaries, have been charged with “human right abuses, illegal association, possession of explosives and unauthorized use of army weaponry.” Chile has not yet signed the “International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries,” approved by the UN General Assembly in 1989, but it has stated that it will sign and ratify the treaty by the end of 2007. (Inter Press Service)Private Security Contractors in Iraq: Background, Legal Status, and Other Issues (July 11, 2007)
The US uses private security contractors in Iraq to provide security services for individuals, nonmilitary convoys and to train Iraqi police and the military. Information on the costs of the contracts and the background and training of the contractors is not made public by the US military. In this report, the Congressional Research Service analyzes concerns in Congress about the accountability and transparency of security contracts. The report stresses the need for clarification on the legal status of private companies and their employees as a number of contractors are implicated in violent incidents in Iraq.US Is Fighting a Contractor War (June 21, 2007)
The outsourcing of services that the US Army would normally undertake has considerably hiked up the cost of the war in Iraq. Billions of dollars in contracts have gone to underperforming private firms driven by “profits and personal safety considerations.” As contractors seek to gain from the devastation in Iraq and at the expense of civilian wellbeing, the privatization of the Iraq conflict continues to grow “exponentially” and with little accountability. (Cleveland Plain Dealer)Making a Killing: America’s Private Army and the Business of War (March 25, 2007)
The US is privatizing the Iraq War and private military contractors constitute the second largest forces in the country. According to the Government Accountability Project, 48,000 of these contractors work as mercenaries, approximately six times the number of British troops in Iraq. Yet, they operate with no legal constraints as they have immunity under Iraqi law and, further, neither US nor international law applies to them. The private soldiers serve US political interests as their deaths are not included in the death toll. (Fault Lines)'Mercenaries' to Fill Iraq Troop Gap (February 25, 2007)
This Scotsman article reveals that the UK government is privatizing the Iraq War, replacing the soldiers who have been withdrawing with “mercenaries.” Since the beginning of the occupation, the British government has already paid £160million to private security companies and these firms could expect more lucrative work during the “post-occupation phase.” Pressure groups have continually warned that the British government has failed to control the activities of these companies, allowing mercenaries to operate completely outside the law.UN Mission Probes Private Security Groups (February 7, 2007)
This Inter Press Service article details a mission to Peru conducted by a UN working group to investigate security firms that recruit mercenaries and violate human rights. The author argues that large corporations increasingly hire current or former police officers and military personnel to intimidate activists attempting to protect the environment or the rights of local populations from the actions of corporations.Our Mercenaries in Iraq (January 25, 2007)
Private military companies constitute the second largest forces in Iraq after US troops, with about 48,000 private soldiers. Yet, they are working with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints. This Los Angeles Times article discusses the meaning of privatizing the national war machine and warns of the risk of the rising power of the “military-industrial complex” for democracy.
Archived Articles
Links
BICC Linklist to Private Military Security Companies
The Bonn International Center for Conversion has composed an extensive list of links to various issues on private military and security companies.PrivateMilitary.Org
PrivateMilitary.org offers an internet portal to the world of private military industry, including links to academic papers and other resources.International Peace Operations Association
More and more, private military companies try to shy away from the prejudices surrounding them. The International Peace Operations Association considers itself a service organisation for those interested in utilizing the private sector for international peace operations.
