This documentary is important because it provides solid documentation and multiple perspectives on a central aspect of modern warfare: the privatization of military activity for capital gains transnationally. The film illustrated the rise of this type of warfare through interviews with the owners of private military and security companies (PMSC) and their employees, members of the Canadian military, academics, a PMSC lobbyist, and journalists, among others, to capture the moral and ethical issues of these private military solutions to intra and inter-state conflicts, and for the protection of multinational corporation (MNC) assets. While I learned more than I’d known before about the role of contemporary mercenaries in global conflicts and about the high revenue of the private military industry ($100 billion annually), I felt that the movie allowed the PMSC interviewees too much time to justify their professions, and did not spend enough time explaining the issue from a international human rights perspective.
The most interesting aspect of the film for me was the systemic reasons it provided for the rise of the private military industry and the strong international demand for its services. Such factors include: the rise of failed states during the decolonization era post-World War II and the power imbalances and extreme wealth divides it provided; the rise of Cold War containment policies and proxy wars flooding developing nations with weaponry and inconsistent military training; the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War flooding the market with trained soldiers looking for work; the neo-liberal market conditions during the rise of globalization (deregulating the global economy and creating MNCs seeking profit maximization in failed and developing states) creating conditions of high economic gain through the expansion of the private military industry; and the downsizing of the American military after the Vietnam War. This last factor, as well as America’s numerous geo-political military engagements around the world, have necessitated the hiring of PMSCs during the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Numerous senators and politicians also stood to earn significant amounts of money through holding stocks in various PMSC and reconstruction companies. Currently, this has resulted in the use of over 200 PMSCs in Iraq alone. Both the film and the skype interview with Allen Bell highlighted these underlying causes of the contemporary rise of the private military industry.
Even though the film provided a solid basis of why and when the privatization of war as we know it has occurred, I do not think it included enough about the ethics of such warfare. The lack of regulation in who is qualified and hired by private military companies, as well as in which groups the PMSCs agree to work with, is highly problematic. There are no public bodies holding PMSCs accountable for their actions, especially because they are often hired by governments in lieu of the states’ respective militaries. There are not bodies able to persecute the atrocities and rights’ violations PMSC cause, as most of them happen within failed states without functional judicial systems. The definition given by the UN:
1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict;
and (e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at: (i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or (ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty;
and (e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.
This definition is vague and provides ample space for loopholes to be found and exploited. No checks and balances are in place by an international body to ensure that big businesses are not utilizing PMSCs to ensure their self-interests at the expensive of local,national, or even global needs. I wish the film, and the talk with Allen Bell, provided more information about these complex issues of regulation of the use and administration of PMSCs. Personally, I do not believe war is ever ethical. I am a pacifist and believe in the potential for creative problem solving and structuralist paradigm shifts for issues of global, national, and local conflict. Thus, I cannot see the justifications members of the private military industry and members of national governments provide for the use of private militaries. There are not ethical frameworks for war, and the only benefit to state-controlled militaries over PMSCs is that checks and balances exist that can punish the crimes of armed groups and/or prevent them from extreme exploitation. I would be interested in further exploring the issue of PMSCs from a international human rights standpoint, and I wish Allen Bell and provided more explanation for the various cultural barriers in foreign countries that PMSCs meet while attempting to protect their “nouns.”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm