Pros of PMCs and PSCs
Several PMCs provide trained military personnel to supplement the clients’ force. Others may only offer training services while others provide risk assessment services in war prone areas. There are number significant contributions that privatization of the military and security sector has brought forth. The private security industry generates an estimated one billion dollars in revenue, impacting positively the economy of the state. The private security sector has generated over six thousand jobs making it one of the most significant employers in the states. Basically, the role of the government is to provide security to its citizens. It’s the mandate of the state to ensure that its citizens are secured, and the rule of law is maintained. The alternative available is embracing the private sector to provide the much-needed security and maintenance of the rule of law in the state. As such, the private security and military companies come in handy when such services are required. From the view above, if this system is adopted, the levels of security would increase. It is evident that the public police cannot be able to secure all places that exist in a city. Given that most of the governing bodies try as much to cut down on the costs incurred by recruiting more security personnel. Private police officers are also able to offer security to clients as well as their assets in accordance with the client’s requirements. (Joh, 2004)
Limitations
The changing trend to privatize security dates to September 2011 in an effort to beef up security against terrorist attacks. Consequently, the state monopoly in matters of security is being undermined as large sectors of security and military are being privatized. Machairas (2014), in the journal of Military science, examines the ethical ramifications associated with the rapid mushrooming of private security and military companies and probes the possibility of such companies being effectively regulated. It could be possible that in this sector of private security; some criminals may gang up to set up their own security firms. Some people with bad motives could also misuse the security surveillance devices for reasons other than provision of security. The accountability issue of private security enterprises has raised controversy. The significance of such organizations in conflicts in Africa and the implications of their activities in peace promotion in Africa remain questionable. The factor of accountability has received little debate and the question whether the United States considered such issue in deploying private security companies to execute the policy against narcotics remains unanswered (Spearin, 2003). There are no bodies that oversee the activities of private policing agencies. If at any time the security officers in the private security industry use excessive force, clients would incur heavy damages and may find it hard to get justice. As such, researchers, journalists, and scholars should be allowed some access so as to research the gaps or discrepancies that arise in the process of provision of private security. (Santner, 1997).
Operations in conflict zones
Private military and security companies have been implicated in dubious military actions that qualify to be termed as “mercenary” actions against civilians. For instance, consider Simon Mann, previously a British Army officer, a South African resident, and a hired mercenary. He was convicted in 2004 for taking part in the coup to overthrow the government of the oil-rich Equatorial Guinea. His overthrow endeavor was seen as a genuine adaptation of the 1974 novel “The Dogs of War” by Fredrick Forsyth, which chronicled the endeavors of an organization of European hired soldier troopers employed by a British industrialist to dismiss the regime of an anecdotal African nation. The traditional figure of a sovereign state is one that can control the monopoly of violence. In other words, states should be able to go to war by its own raised army and to control the training and maintenance of trained military personnel. However, that is not the case with the modern warfare, where states cannot go to war without the help of out-sourced mercenaries. With the mercenaries motivated by financial gain, questions have been raised on the credibility of the private contractors. In other occasions, private contractors have been to abandon military operations or boycotting missions when sent to hard target areas. The cost benefit of using private contractors in war has also not been determined. Scholars who evaluate the cost benefit have also cited the political influence when evaluating the cost; also, getting the right information from private military enterprises is elusive.
Implications
International and interstate private security companies are in the rise in the wake of current security challenges, as developed and developing countries are embracing and creating ready marketplace for such enterprises. States have increasingly resorted to private securities that are comfortable to play a role, which the government entities cannot handle themselves. Private security organizations play a significant role in supplementing security personnel to aid in provision and maintenance of security. There has been cooperation between the private security and the public security sectors in ensuring security of citizens. However, the extent of the collaboration and cooperation within the private and public sector is an issue that has raised eyebrows in the recent past.
Private military companies and private security companies have risen to supplement and replace traditional warfare modalities. The development private security and military entities has its significance in changing warfare; however, it also comes with limitations. Terrorism activities and political instability of developing countries has seen the establishment of private security and military enterprises to provide the much-needed skilled military personnel. Ethical conduct of the private military entities has been questioned. Such organizations are profit oriented and can go into depths to increase returns without consideration for human rights. Several extreme reactions from such entities have been cited with the question as to whether such activities were authorized or were because of military defiance. The question about the cost benefit of employing the use of private security remains elusive as it is hard to find the right sources for transparent cost evaluations to be conducted. There is an increasing trend to use private military entities and the future world may experience rapture into private military controlled states.
V/R
Corey Overcash
References
Daniels, P. R. (2015). Just War and Administrative Personnel in the Private Military Industry. Journal of Military Ethics, 14(2), 146-161. doi:10.1080/15027570.2015.1069536
Joh, Elizabeth E. (1973-). "The Paradox of Private Policing." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology vol. 95, no. 1, 2004, p. 49
Machairas, D. (2014). The Ethical Implications of the Use of Private Military Force: Regulatable or Irreconcilable? Journal of Military Ethics, 13(1), 49-69. doi:10.1080/15027570.2014.908645
Spearin, C. (2003). Accountable to whom? An assessment of international private security companies in South America. Civil Wars, 6(1), 1-26. doi:10.1080/13698240308402523
Santner, Eric L.( 1997). "My Own Private Germany." .
The Just War Tradition and the New Market for Private Force. (2016). Outsourcing War, 1-29. doi:10.7591/9781501703577-003