Private Military Contractors, or PMCs, are a growing phenomenon. Often referred to as mercenaries, they provide military services to interested parties for a fee, Blackwater Security being the most familiar organisation of this type. My interest in these organisations was piqued recently while I watched the documentary Shadow Company, a 2006 documentary. The majority of the film focuses on the role played by FMC’s in the current
In an article titled “Deeper Objections To The Privatisation Of Military Force”,[1] in the Journal of Political Philosophy, James Pattison tackles the moral and ethical concerns of being, or hiring, a PMC. He lays down some fundamental anxieties to choosing PMC as a career. These anxieties are raised due to the moral duty individuals have to act from the proper motives. He determines that:
(i): Motives matter in moral judgement.
(ii): It is problematic if individuals are motivated by financial gain in the context of military force, given that military force harms others.
(iii): Private contractors are more likely to be motivated by financial gain than regular soldiers due to the higher wages offered by PMCs.
Pattison then turns to the issue of the governments who legitimize these organisations by outsourcing their military services.
The first moral hurdle faced is communal. Pattison argues that the communal identity, does have some, if not absolute, moral value. The fact that states often employ PMCs, which in turn often employ non-nationals, the effect is a disintegration of communal bonds that would prosper if the community were organised around a common cause, i.e. defending the state. Further, he notes that this is particularly disconcerting because” the use of private force can also lead to the violation of communal identity and autonomy by propping up an unpopular government and by assisting a state to intervene in another state’s affairs.”
The second moral hurdle that Pattison identifies is that employing PMCs can jeopardise the state’s ability both to fight and to wage just wars. The logic is that regular army’s demand personal sacrifice based on allegiance to the state. Because of this allegiance, soldiers are expected to accept sacrifice, or near certain death missions in the defence of the state. Conversely, the private contractor can refuse risky missions because they may not survive to enjoy the financial benefit. The example of D-day is used to promote the idea that PMCs would likely forfeit such missions, and thus sabotage the chances of winning a just-war, jus ad bellum.
Pattison’s article provides a decent primer on the ethical concerns surrounding the industry. However, I believe that a further layer can be added: the broadcast of PMC activities as entertainment. The moral legitimacy of this type of entertainment sits on unsteady ground. While the appeal to PMCs is undoubtedly to promote their organisations actions, and deflect negative connotations associated with their operations, these mercenaries are profiting off the perceived entertainment value of militarism for profit. Thus the profit-seeking motivation is doubly exposed. The success of the documentary format of Shadow Company has spawned a more recent copycat in the form of a television programme on the History Channel, shamelessly titled Shadow Force. Shadow Force follows a small band of mercenaries as they ply their trade on the African continent, in
The promoting of violence as public entertainment has always been controversial and if the type of TV shows described above becomes popular, it can be expected that the moral and ethical implications will be brought to the fore. Pattison, for one, has a depth of knowledge in this field and is well placed to progress new insights.
[1] http://www.jamespattison.co.uk/papers/J%20Pattison%20(200X)%20Deeper%20Objections%20to%20the%20Privatisation%20of%20Military%20Force.doc
No comments:
Post a Comment