In the mid-1990s, after the failure of UN peacekeeping in Somalia and
Rwanda, and the successes of a Private Military Companies (PMC) in Angola and
Sierra made the idea of using PMC gained a traction.[1]
As we know, today, the UN has wave in peace operations. According to UN website
there are 16 UN peace operations around the world with 122 countries
contributing about 123.945 personnel.[2]
But unfortunately UN peacekeepers seems poorlu trained because restricted by
shortages in manpower and their equipment, especially in missions such as the
Central African Republic and South Sudan. Those make a question such as the
title above emerge. Does The World Really Need Private Military Companies be
used in United Nations Peace Operations?
Here, the writer wants to
define more about PMC. PMC is profit-driven organisations that sell military
services such as combat, intelligence, logistics and consulting.[3]
The writer argues that PMC should be used as a second best peacekeeping force,
when states are unwilling to promptly contribute enough troops. To prove the
writer’s arguement, this essay consist of the arguements for and against the
use of PMC. First, PMCs have a proven capacity to be used in UN peace
operations.[4]
Second, there are caveats to opponents’ criticisms of PMCs that make it
unconscionable to dismiss PMCs as a second best peacekeeping force.[5]
Third, there are clear benefits to using PMCs, particularly when states are
unwilling to promptly contribute enough troops of sufficient quality to staff
UN peace operations.[6]
The study case that can
show the benefit of PMC is in the post-Cold War. In that time, the peace
operations between UN peacekeepers and PMC had an overlap of function.[7]
After the Cold-War they became increasingly more involved in peace enforcement
operations such as peace building operations.[8]
UN peacekeepers had a task to train national military contingents, protect
infrastructure, deliver humanitarian aid, and prevent infiltrations by enemy
combatants, and in fact, PMC had a contribution including troop training,
military technical assistance, providing security and preventing infiltrations.[9]
All of those is evident that PMC has proven capacity to be used in UN peace
operations.
However, there are some
lack in PMC within UN Peace Operation. The problem is that there is no
consensus on how best to evaluate the success of peace operations, which makes
it difficult to evaluate PMCs’ track record. This is due to a lack of agreement
on the objectives of peace operations.
According to Taulbee,
there are three risks of PMC. First, some scholars argue that PMC is a modern
form of mercenarism, becasue , in fact, PMC are non state actors usurping and
interventioning the basic functions of the state.[10]
If we related it with the reality that PMC has a close ties with national
military institution, and PMC is used by Western governments as a foreign
policy proxies which kind of unholly alliance between mercenaries, democratic
politics, and corporate finance.[11]
The second risk is that the use of PMCs raises problems of accountability,
particularly since peace operations occur in failed or fragile states with weak
rule of law.[12]
In fact, PMC have often violated international humanitarian law and human
rights law. For example, in Iraq, there were reports of Blackwater personnel
attacking civilians and using unnecessary aggression.[13]
The problem is PMC operate outside criminal law regimes, unlike the state
forces. This means that even the worst cases of misconduct, such as torture
committed in Abu Ghraib prison, are rarely prosecuted and punished.[14]
The third risk is PMCs are driven by profit rather than the security of the
conflict zones in which they are deployed.[15]
Probably PMC will prolong and keep the conflicts happened as a means of
business.[16]
After elaborating the
against arguements of PMC. Here, the writer will tackle them in order to prove
that actually today the world still need PMC. As we realize that actually the
critics over PMC are reasonable. First, the idea that PMCs are usurping state
authority is misleading.[17]
As we know most IR scholars agree that state authority is being configured as
governments harness the forces of globalisation to address new challenges. So
that is why state military funcions are being transfered to PMC when they are
used in peace operations, and the legitimate use of force are in the process of
devolution.[18]
Other arguement is in fact Western and other governments are reluctant to
become entangled in peace operations that do not directly affect their
perceived strategic interests.
In certain circumstances, therefore, the choice is either
PMC peacekeeping or inaction, as occurred in Rwanda in 1994 and in Darfur in
2004.[54] Refusing to use PMCs, when they are the only forces capable and
willing to act in the face of mounting atrocities, seems unjustifiable. In sum,
there are caveats to opponents’ criticisms that make it unconscionable to
dismiss PMCs as a second best peacekeeping force. Sometimes, however, the
choice is either PMC peacekeeping or woefully inadequate peacekeeping, which
raises the for argument of this paper. There are clear benefits to using PMCs,
particularly when states are unwilling to promptly contribute enough troops of
sufficient quality to staff UN peace operations
All arguments are presented. The conclusion concedes that
the debate on privatised peacekeeping is complex. As an International Relations
student, here, I believe and suggest, nonetheless, that PMCs could potentially
be used as more than just a second best peacekeeping option if a strict oversight
framework is established.
[1] C. Spearin, “UN Peacekeeping
and the International Private Military and Security Industry”, International
Peacekeeping, 18(2), 2011, p. 196.
[2] UN Department of Peacekeeping
Operations, “Peacekeeping Fact Sheet”, UN Peacekeeping, 30 June 2015,
viewed on 25 December 2015,
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml.
[3] A. Leander, “The Power to
Construct International Security: On the Significance of Private Military
Companies”, Journal of International Studies, 33, 2005, p. 804; P. W.
Singer, “Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatised Military Industry and
its Ramifications for International Security”, International Security, 26(3),
2001/02, p. 186.
[4] O. Bures, “Private Military
Companies: A Second Best Peacekeeping Option?”, International Peacekeeping, 12(4),
2005, pp. 533-534; M. Patterson, “A Corporate Alternative to United Nations ad
hoc Military Deployments”, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 13(2),
2008, p. 215; S. Fitzsimmons, “Dogs of Peace: A Potential Role for Private
Military Companies in Peace Implementation”, Journal of Military and
Strategic Studies, 8(1), 2005, p. 534-539
[5] D. Brooks, “Messiahs or
Mercenaries? The Future of International Private Military Services”, International
Peacekeeping, 7(4), 2000, p. 135.
[8] J. Cilliers, “A Role for
Private Military Companies in Peacekeeping?”, Conflict,
Security and Development, 2(3), 2006, p. 147.
[10] V. Ghebali, “The United
Nations and the Dilemma of Outsourcing Peacekeeping Operations”, in Private Actors and Security Governance, A. Bryden and
M. Caparini (eds), LIT Verlag, Münster, 2006, p. 225.
[11] E. Aning, “Whither Africa’s
Security in the New Millennium: State- or Mercenary- Induced Stability?”, Global Society, 15(2), 2001, p. 167.
[13] Shooting in Iraq Tell FBI
their Stories”, CNN.com/World, 13 October
2007, viewed on 25 December 2015,
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/13/blackwater.witness/index.html.
[17] R. Abrahamsen and M.
Williams, “Securing the City: Private Security Companies and Non-State
Authority in Global Governance”, International
Relations, 21(2), 2007, pp. 238.
[18] Patterson, “A Corporate
Alternative”, p. 218.
No comments:
Post a Comment