In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. [1]
-Eisenhower Sec 1 Background 1.1 Case
Descri ption On the 31
st of March
2004, various media channels across the world displayed disturbing images of a
crowd of Iraqi s celebrating the death of two American citizens. The incident
which took place in Fallujah, showed two dead bodies hanging from a bridge
after being beaten and burned. The crowds, which consisted of men and children
shouted: This is Fallujah who asked you to come here? (ABC News,
2011). At first, the narrative projected by the media described
the dead as non-combatants that did not belong to an army. This gave the
impression that the attack was unprovoked and reinforced the western rhetoric
of violent irrational Arabs.[2]
However, less attention was given to the fact that these individuals were
private military contractors employed by Blackwater.[3]
Perhaps, their deaths illustrated the realities of a modern nexus of privatised
warfare, which demands critical thinking and the need to reframe our narrative
of foreign policy and the war in the Middle East. 1.2 Introduction This paper will firstly examine
the rise of the private military industry and give a brief account of the
context in which this industry has evolved, especially within relation to the changing
nature of the state and our perception of state legitimacy. Other contributing
themes such as capitalism and neoliberalism will be explored, particularly in
connection to the wider networks and interests of various stakeholders involved.
Examples of firms such as Blackwater and Halliburton will be given to demonstrate
how lucrative and influential this industry is in shaping politics in Iraq. The
paper will then question whether private military security companies (PMSC s)
are positive and supportive to the consolidation of peace and security in Iraq,
or whether such a presence poses a threat to stability. Sec 2 Context and
Emergence 2.1 The Changing Nature of the State With the collapse of the Soviet un ion and the destruction of
the Berlin Wall in 1989, the landscape of Europe shifted drastically.
Perceptions of international security, structures of power and self-determination
were redefined. Along with this, military and security functions that were
previously known to be an intrinsic state function, shifted to the private
sector, meaning that more and more states began utilizing contractors to carry
out the use of force. This led to a massive growth of the military
economy, which entrusted private companies with tasks that had traditionally
been preserved for the state. In other words, the sovereign state would no
longer have the monopoly over the use of force (Weber, 1919). Through its
various branches such as the police and the army, the state once enjoyed the
exclusive right to control, suppress, exert and maintain security within and
without (Elias, 1997). But,
with the reduction of the size of national armies and the emergence of a modern
globalised world economy, a gap in the market emerged (Singer, 2008:
49) which the military
and security industry took full advantage of. Hence, it can be argued that since
the end of the Cold War, states have lost the monopoly of organized violence
and now lack territorial control and the capacity to enforce rules (Rotberg,
2003) as they once used to. Many
sceptics of the private military industry would argue that companies have benefitted
hugely from the insecurity and fear, which has spread due to events such as 9/11
in the current context of fighting the global war on terror. From a market point of view, the
end of the Cold War also brought with it an intensified and widespread demand
for specific military expertise. Previously, only major superpowers had the
capability to satisfy such skills. But as new conflicts developed and were largely
driven by ethnic violence and struggles for independence, new suppliers of such
expertise emerged. Hence, outsourcing became a practice, which spread across
various industries as the forces of capitalism and the demands for efficiency
took over. Postal services and transport industries are just some examples of
how various channels of privatization were established. This has led to an increasing contribution of private
actors in formerly public policy areas.[4] For example, in more recent years, even companies
such as Samsung have made contributions to the military field with the
engineering of weapons (SGR-A1)[5]
and tanks. Erik Prince, the founder of
Blackwater uses the example of widespread outsourcing to claim that what
Blackwater is doing for national security is what Fed Ex[6]
did for the postal service. In other words, Fed Ex did many of the same
services the postal service did, but better, cheaper, and faster. In other
words, through innovation the private sector can do much more effectively
(Hemingway, 2006). Although privatization is often portrayed as a panacea
for the costly and corrupt performance of public administrations, major concerns
rise over the monopoly of violence, which suggest that a new force is
controlling the state.2.2 PMSC s: Key
Stakeholders and Interests Private firms are
attracted to warfare not to serve the national interest, but for financial gain.
In 2003 alone, Blackwater, DynCorp and other private military companies turned
over more than $100 million (Mlinarcik, 2006). Although many of these companies
do claim to be working in the national interest, individuals working for these
companies are not restricted to employment within a single firm. This has
resulted in many contractors moving between firms and even working for foreign
states in order to maximize their own profit. Within the international level, there has also been an
increase in the protection of property in a number of unstable states. In many
countries, the number of private security personnel is greater than the number
of active state police. (Nicolas, 2011) This
illustrates how the market exclusively drives both the industry and those
individuals who work for it, again challenging the sovereignty of the
Westphalian state. With the global war on terror continuously posing a threat to our world
and psyche, countries such as the United States (U.S) have shown a strong
commitment to the privatisation of war. The Commission
on Wartime Contracting in Iraq has estimated that that in 2006, $60b had been used for
security, governance, and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. In addition to this, Blackwater
has received contracts from governments, which have totalled to over $1bn, with
most coming from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (Klein, 2007). This means
that companies such as Halliburton and Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC) profit hugely. In 2007, SAIC and Halliburton had annual revenues of
$8.9bn and $15.2bn.[7] More recently an analysis by Financial
Times in 2013 confirmed the extent to which the U.S. profited from contractors
securing business worth at least $72bn between the top ten firms. None has
benefited more than KBR[8], the controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded
at least $39.5bn in federal contracts related to the Iraq war over the past
decade. Such
a presence led many to name the Iraq war the first
privatized war where entities floating on the stock market would have a major
say in how war would be prosecuted (The Economist, 2003). It is also interesting to notice that the private military industry was
one of the only industries that profiteered greatly from the 9/11 terrorist
attacks where prices PMSC s listed on the stock market jumped up by roughly 50%
in value.
6 But what is
perhaps more concerning for the state is the erosion of traditional sovereignty
and the fact that private corporations are now becoming more and more
responsible for state actions. Although PMSC s are
a relatively modern phenomenon, governments and international
organizations are all increasingly recognising them as legitimate actors
that can have a positive impact on international security (Kinsey, 2006). This
is why over recent years PMSC activities have become more and more an integral
part of humanitarian interventions, peacekeeping missions and state-building
projects such as security sector reform (Shearer, 1998). This challenges our view of where real power lies and how
influential the forces of neoliberalism and capitalism have been in reshaping
the discourse of power. It also raises the question as to what type of future
is emerging with regards to state autonomy and the influence multinational
conglomerates. 2.3 Iraq
as an illustration of PMSC activity Since the removal of Saddam
Hussein, the U.S. occupation has transported with it thousands of contractors
from a wide range of PMSC s operating in a variety of sectors. The Congressional Budget Office report (CBO)
released in August 2008 estimated that as of in early 2008 there were at least
190,000 private contractors or subcontractors working on U.S.-funded projects
in Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Hence,
like any successful business, the diversification of projects has created more
networks and new forms of organisation, which are related to further interests
such as oil and construction. It also demonstrates how regionally involved
PMSC s actually are, and raises the question of how successful they can be in
transforming the socio-political dynamics in these countries. More specifically in the case of Iraq, companies such as Blackwater have
carried out a wide range of tasks, which include, the protection of corporate
enclaves, U.S. facilities, and the Green Zone in Baghdad. Along with this they
also guard key individuals and escort convoys. The U.S. complex at Camp Doha in
Kuwait, served as the launch pad for the invasion and was built, operated and
guarded by private contractors. During the invasion, PMSCs maintained and
loaded many of the most sophisticated U.S. weapons systems, such as B-2 stealth
bombers and Apache helicopters (Singer, 2005). Sec
3 Different Perceptions
Having highlighted some of the main
interests and activities of PMSC s in Iraq, this essay will now analyse the
arguments of whether their presence is a force for good or bad. D(
There have been
a number of cases where PMSC s have violated human rights whilst working in
Iraq. On 16 September 2007, at Al-Nisour Square in Baghdad, Blackwater
contractors protecting a United States Department convoy opened fire killing 17
civilians using security company helicopters firing into the streets of Baghdad.
Blackwater claimed that its personnel came under attack by armed enemies and
fired back in self-defence. Iraqi authorities and witnesses claim the security
personnel opened fire unprovoked.
A month later, in October 2007,
the United States House of Representatives released a report indicating that
Blackwater employees had been involved in at least 196 fire fights in Iraq
since 2005 (an average of 1.4 shootings per week). In 84% of those cases, the
report stated, Blackwater employees opened fire first, despite contract
stipulations to make use of force only in self-defence (Gomez del Prado, 2008).
Blackwater has also
been accused of fabricating documents to acquire unauthorized weapons,
defrauding the U.S. government, and its staff using steroids and cocaine (Gomez
del Prado, 2008).
But one of
the most notorious cases of human rights violations came from CACI International
and L-3 Services (formerly Titan Corporation) who were involved in torturing
Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Prisoners of Abu Gharaib claimed
they were subjected to rape and threats of rape and other forms of sexual assault,
electric shocks, repeated beatings, including beatings with chains, boots and
other objects, prolonged hanging from limbs, forced nudity, hooding, isolated
detention, being urinated on and otherwise humiliated, and being prevented from
praying and otherwise abiding by their religious practices (Gomez del Prado,
2008).
PMSCs,
particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, have been operating in grey areas without
any control or lines of command threatening the lives and security of the
civilian population. The lack of accountability for human right violations that
Blackwater have committed, has been partly due to the difficulties in the
applying domestic laws to PMSC s working in foreign countries as well the
challenges in carrying out investigations in failed states . When involved in crimes or human
rights violations, these private security guards have not been brought before a
court of justice or treated in the same way that normal civilians would be. The
employees of two PMSCs who were involved in human rights abuses in the prison
of Abu Ghraib in 2003 have never been subject to external investigations nor
legally sanctioned, despite assurances given by the Government of the United
States of America. Hence
we can see that the privatisation of war becomes a key interest to those bodies
that wish to circumvent political constraints on the use of force (Engler,
2010).
3.4
The use of
PMSC as a new instrument of foreign policy, particularly of the U.S., may be
due to a number of factors. The first and most obvious one is to avoid
responsibility for acts, which have been committed on foreign soil by PMSC s.
They also are considered to be cost efficient and strengthen the lack of human
resources in the armed forces. The use of PMSC as a foreign policy tool,
however, not only raises a number of dangers but also indicates that the state
is abdicating to the private sector an essential responsibility.
This essay has demonstrated how, PMSC s in their search for
profit, often neglect the socio-political issues on the ground in the countries
in which they operate.
They also
fail to consider the fact that, just their presence alone has an impact on the
morale and sovereignty of Iraq.
This may have disastrous consequences such as the 2004 Fallujah incident
mentioned at the beginning, which many commentators claim was a turning point
in the occupation.
Examples of human rights violations have also been mentioned such
as the case of Abu Gharaib, which illustrates the lack of control the state has
on the actions of PMSC employees. This also links to the analysis of how state
legitimacy has been undermined
05/02, London, Chatman House.
The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 42-67.
Global Governance and the New Wars: The
Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books. 23-54
Contractors reap $138bn for Iraq War. Available: http://www.ft.com/cmc/s/7f435f04-8c05-11e2-b001-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2r2GKUQtE
. Last accessed January 10.
Warriors
for Hire. Blackwater USA and the Rise of Private Military Contractors.
British Contractor Beaten in Iraq Over
Alleged Insult to Islam. Available: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/13/world/meast/iraq-uk-contractor-attacked/.
Last accessed January 10.
New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global
Era. Cambridge: Polity Press. 39-65 lt;o:p>
Corporate Soldiers and International
Security: The Rise of Private Military
Impact on Human Rights of Private Military and Security
Companies . Available: http://www.globalresearch.ca/impact-on-human-rights-of-private-military-and-security-companies-activities/10523.
Last accessed December 14.
.st Edition. 54-89
,
42(5): 605 622.
. 133 153.The Privatization of Warfare, Violence and Private
Military and Security Companies, A Factual and Legal Approach to Human Rights
Abuses by PMSC`s in Iraq. Available: http://www.arabnonviolence.org/uploads/Llibre_Nova_digital(2).pdf.
Last accessed December 19.
Small
Arms Survey. Available: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2011/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2011-Chapter-04-EN.pdf.
Last accessed December 19.
10-Year Iraq War Timeline. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/10-year-iraq-war-timeline/story?id=18758663.
Last accessed January 19.
Private Armies and Military Intervention.
Adelphi Papers 316. London: Oxford University Press/International Institute for
Strategic Studies., 13(1): 80 84.. 29 31.
Outsourcing
War. Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60627/p-w-singer/outsourcing-war.
Last accessed December 19.
Special
Operations Forces a Strategic Resource: Public and Private Divides. London:
Parameters. 57-70.
Political
Writings. London: Cambridge University Press. 100-145
This resource was uploaded by: Haasan
Other articles by this author
