The Private Military Company (Which I will refer to as PMCs) such as Black Water have caused a lot of controversy when there has been evidence suggesting they bribed the Iraqi government to covered up some atrocities committed by them to the Iraqi population. This hasn't been the first time Black Water has been criticized for their actions, there are controversial stories surrounding their actions in South Africa around ten years ago.The problem is that PMCs are given high levels of confidentiality because they are usually recruited by the Intelligence offices. So the question is: How ethical is the use of PMCs in modern warfare?
Every country in the world has their own standing military, though some are more advanced and disciplined than others, and it's impossible for a country to disband their public armies because of security concerns that surround them. A state's monopoly over it's own security is a vital part of a nation state's identity. Though some may disagree, most will say that a public army is not considered immoral. So why do we not say the same for PMCs?And this poses an ethical dilemma: Is it immoral to privatize and make a profit off of a Private military when it is not considered immoral to have a public army?
Let's consider both sides to this topic.
On the side that claims Private Military Companies are morally ethical, they argue that they are loyal to a nation and most of their employees are "Patriots" much like American soldiers. The founder of Black Water has stated that he doesn't see the PMCs as mercenary companies, he believes the soldiers are Americans who are fighting for an American agenda.
But on the other side, many criticize these military companies as "Hired Guns" and believe these companies are bribing the best American soldiers with Higher salaries. They also believe that these PMCs do not love their country because they fight international conflicts and often fight for high paying bidders and operate with confidentiality with no consequences for their actions.
This debate could go on for a long time, however there are many ethical questions raised from this topic. I personally believe that these conflicts are rising from the capitalistic nature of the world and everything that a government requires that has a high expense, there will come a company that finds a mean to monetize this.
I believe that the only method to make Private Military Companies is to pass laws that will prohibit their powers to make them more accountable for their actions. This maybe because I personally think PMCs are immoral, mostly because I believe that if there is the unfortunate case of war it should be fought by people who love their country who aren't fighting for a profit or a Capitalistic agenda, though that can be considered hypocritical since a Capitalistic agenda is no more justified than a Nationalistic one.WOKs concerning PMCs
The primarily used WOK when debating the issue of PMCs seems to use language and emotion. Language is used one side to bad mouth PMCs by calling them terms that sound almost derogatory in nature, words I have mentioned before such as "Mercenaries" and "Hired-Guns" are used often to gain the sympathy of others, which is a method that uses emotions to associate them with greedy companies and wars. However, on the side that defends PMCs, they prefer the words "Patriots" that is welcomed by other patriots.
Ethics behind finances
PMCs main interest are a financial one, and though it is easy to argue that public armies are also fighting for a financial purposes because many wars are fought for economic purposes, however on an individual level soldiers in PMCs have higher wages for serving for a shorter period of time. In fact many soldiers from public armies leave to join these companies, and this raises another ethical question: Do soldiers risking their lives to protect others deserve higher pay? For this ethical question, we'll be exempting the question of whether soldiers are protecting others because that is a topic on its own.
Active soldiers are one of the most physically demanding and threatening jobs in the world, and considering the risk it is hard to deny the soldiers the right to choose higher wages because that will be taking away their freedom to choose their occupation and deny them strong financial support.
Another thing governments are not able to do is make PMCs limited or even go as far to outlaw them because they are cheaper to maintain than Public armies and they provide jobs for thousands of people. The question of removing an immoral business that creates economic benefits for others is a serious question many have to consider.
Finally it's impossible to stop these businesses to exist, and though many would like the companies to have at least some transparencies, the ethical dilemma of removing a business for bad practices is still removing jobs. Every large business is exploiting a group in some way or another: Monopolies are able to buy out smaller businesses and raise prices for consumers, food companies lead to slaughtering animals, and clothes and shoe companies have workshops in Asia. Those who advocate for an increasingly global and capitalistic society should always know that this will inevitably lead to certain groups being exploited. Though no one would argue that's a good thing, no one could really argue that exploitation and corruption is a problem exclusive to PMCs.
Conclusion
Though PMCs are a rather dangerous and exploiting business, this is what will continue to happen: Wars are without a doubt inevitable and it will come to a point where Public army maintenance expenses will be too much for countries to burden. And wars can not be prevented and this new system of businesses will most likely not disappear. And though emotionally, many will say these companies are bullying nations it does not seem much worse than a business nor army. Perhaps many associate the PMCs to be the worst of both these organizations.
There needs to be more research put into this topic and much like most topics concerning ethics there is no clear yes-or-no answer.
Source 1
