Ribbons and Bows: The Political Package

“We can’t go on like this.”[1] Never one to shy away from platitudes, David Cameron may have inadvertently stumbled upon the very reason that voting in this general election has become more about the personality than the policy.

During the run up to the 2010 general election the majority of the electorate has already decided who they are going to vote for. This decision has been made a lot easier by political packaging. The struggle between the two major political parties in the UK has been less Herculean and more like a limp struggle between two inebriated IT specialists. Not exciting. Certainly not parabolic. Just political packaging. Each party attempts to win over the electorate with glossy campaign posters, relying heavily on the stereotypical image of their party. David Cameron’s right, we can’t go on like this.

But year on year we do go on like this. The same voters turn up and vote for the same party, determined to fight for democracy. Unfortunately, the reality falls far short of this ideal. The strong relationship they have built with their party suffers as they become increasingly disillusioned by the flaws beneath the thin veneer of political assuredness. Nothing much changes to improve “our number one priority”- the NHS.[2] Nothing much changes to eradicate the education budget cuts. Absolutely nothing changes in the bid to economically overtake our neighbours and reclaim our gilded throne where siteth the financially gifted (eth). Instead, the perception we have built up of Dave and Gordie has been destroyed by the reality of their inadequacy. However, at each general election we are sucked in again. Fooled by the way sparkly rhetoric seems to glide off the page and into our heads. Fooled by the promises of a “future fair for all”.[3] Fooled by our own inclination to vote for the political packaging.

As we begin to recover from the glare of the sun striking the promises of yesteryear a frightening thought spurs us into inaction. What happens when the party we vote for changes but its image stays the same? Last year another important general election occurred, this time in South Africa. The African National Congress maintained their political stronghold in the country, winning 65.90% of votes.[4] “The ANC's key objective is the creation of a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society.”[5] Yet, by placing the ANC in power for another term South Africans have condemned themselves to rule under a man accused of bribery, rape and corruption- Jacob Zuma. Because of what the electorate feels the ANC represents they vote, irrespective of how the party has changed under Zuma. A ray of hope for Black marginalised South Africans has been extinguished leaving only political packaging. A traditional Zulu man with a natural propensity to smile and a scummy residue of chauvinistic charm to conceal his incompetence. A package.

Sitting in our centrally heated houses, complaining about our free healthcare and subsidised education, it is easy to assume that this plight is another African problem engendered by corrupt leaders and rotting institutions. The future of democracy is affected by neither. Politicians will continue to be shrouded in a cloud of personal and political scandal. However, it is our duty to ensure that we vote with our heads and not our heart, that we make the informed decision and not the easy one, and that the people in power represent the future of our country. No country in the international community can afford to bury the corpse of democracy during a time where political and economic development is vital to our survival.

---

[1] http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/01/David_Cameron_We_cant_go_on_like_this.aspx

[2] http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/Andrew_Lansley_Our_NHS_our_number_one_priority.aspx

[3] http://www.labour.org.uk/future-fair-for-all

[4] http://www.elections.org.za/NPEPWStaticReports/NationalList_MPs.pdf

[5] http://www.anc.org.za/about/anc.html

To Serve and Protect: The Lisbon Treaty

The EU has been an ever expanding organism since its birth. What started as a loose trade alliance between a handful of countries based on the key industrial materials of the mid-twentieth century, coal and steal, eventually grew into an economic behemoth. A breadth of treaties and legislation apply uniformly across the continent bringing national economic players and institutions into closer alliance and partnership. Despite many successes, the external security the union is one area where the EU has failed to properly integrate and the 27 member states retain control over their own foreign relations and security matters. While the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) exists, it has to date been largely disorganised, ineffectual, and superficial in clout.

Internal security is another matter. Europol is the intelligence agency of the EU and began operating over a decade ago, in 1994. However, the idea for an integrated cross-border policing organisation was first promulgated in Europe as far back as before World War I.[1] The Europol office in The Hague, The Netherlands is a hub of information pooled by all twenty seven of the EU’s member states. The added benefit of the organisation is that it can conduct meta-analysis of data and information, identifying trends and understanding patterns, by looking at a wider picture than national police forces.

The so-called Europol Council Decision, which came at the same time as the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, is much more direct than the reforms in the treaty proper. It made Europol and EU agency, rather than a body funded by member states. Our examination reveals steep increases in Europol’s implemented budget in recent years: €52 (2005), €52m (2006), €55m (2007), €65 (2008), €68m (2009), €80 (2010). [2] [3] [4] This is a significant change in the funding and organisational structure of the body. At the time of the decision a spokesman for Commission Vice-President Jacques Barrot said,

“This is a veritable transformation, not merely a cosmetic one. Europol will become a full EU body, with the tools to support law enforcement agencies in the Member States even more effectively. As a result, European police forces will cooperate more closely.”[5]

The Lisbon Treaty influenced the direction and advancement of Europol indirectly through the EU’s second internal security organisation Eurojust. A department of public prosecution, the agency fills a similar role to that of the district attorneys office in the US, and was established in 2002. The Lisbon Treaty expanded the list of crimes subject to judicial cooperation, by proxy expanding the mandate of Europol.[6]

The Telegraph journalist Philip Johnston points out that this is the vital step in expanding a system that “was designed in the first instance to deal with offences against the EU's financial interest.” Johnston stands opposed to the developments heralded by the Lisbon Treaty arguing that the fundamental difference in judicial system of the UK and Ireland (common law) to most of the rest of Europe (civil law) means that these advances are incompatible in principal and, secondly, are detrimental to sovereignty. [7]

However, some critics decry that the Lisbon treaty did not go far enough to coordinate policing and justice in the union. Hugo Brady, a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform, argues that having two organisations complicates operations and duplicates duties, causing confusion and distrust of the current system. These problems have not been properly addressed by the Lisbon treaty and Brady argues that it is essential that further moves should be made to merge the two organisations.[8]

The development of the law enforcement and judicial capabilities are sure to be a contentious issue in Europe going forward. For some the EU is going to far, and other’s it is not going far enough. The intricacies of the issue lie in the fact that the sprawling and interconnected nature of European legislation means that a development in a seemingly loosely related field may have unintended consequences that may expand or contract the capabilities of the justice and law enforcement bodies of the Union.

---

[1] http://www.slate.com/id/2135558/

[2] http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Budget/Budget2006.pdf

[3] http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Budget/Budget2007.pdf

[4] http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/Budget/Budget%20and%20Staff%20Establishment%20Plan%202010.pdf

[5] http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/610

[6] http://www.uaces.org/pdf/papers/0801/2008_Quaglia.pdf

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/7125259/The-very-moment-to-put-Europe-in-its-place.html

[8] http://centreforeuropeanreform.blogspot.com/2007/12/should-europol-and-eurojust-merge.html

Independence and Interdependence - Politics of the English Independence Party

I take a keen interest in the current debate on Scottish independence. At some point this year, Scottish people will vote in a referendum on whether Scottish devolution should continue in its current form, should be extended to full devolution, or should transmogrify into full independence: effectively ending a Union which has existed for over three hundred years. I’m fascinated by concepts of national identity- what it means to be Scottish in the 21st Century. The SNP is careful to avoid the negative connotations of nationalism- appeals to a sentimentalised, romanticised past, an identity based on ‘the other’; what we are not; and commensurate notions of ethnic purity. Therefore, notions of Scottish identity are complex and fluid. Scotland is a nation which was not only colonised but also participated in a global colonisation project. I am reminded of this every time I pass Buchanan Bus Station in Glasgow, named after one of our ‘Tobacco Lords’, who made his fortune in Jamaica from slave labour. Furthermore, I am also interested in English national identity: what it means to be English, the concept of Englishness and political debates over English independence. In this pursuit, I discovered the website of The English Independence Party (EIP).

The party is committed to furthering the welfare of the English and combating widespread institutionalised discrimination against the English. However, we recognise that where elected, we will also have to represent the interest of all who are lawfully living England. We will observe this obligation which is an essential part of a representative democracy. We regret that others have felt no need to represent our interests’ (1). Thus, immediately, Constantine makes an important distinction: there is a difference between ‘the English’ and those ‘who are lawfully living in England.His concession that, if elected, the party will ‘have to’ represent the interests of this lawfully abiding group is reminiscent of a bone being gradually twisted from a bulldog’s jaws; an English bulldog of course; not a British one.

Constantine subsequently clarifies the difference between ‘The English’ and ‘all who are lawfully living in England’. It seems that there are two types of Englishness in his England- ‘civic Englishness’ (2) and ‘ethnic Englishness’ (3). ‘Civic Englishness’, for the EIP, is ‘determined simply by an association with England, perhaps by residence or birth. Anyone, regardless of ethnicity, can assume this identity’ (4) whereas, ‘ethnic Englishness’ is ‘founded on a sense of community and a way-of-life. We English are an ethnic group and a nation. We are a group of people sharing ancestral roots, a history, a language and a sense of belonging together. We are of English origin, descent and heritage’ (5)

So, what is to become of the ‘civic English’ in the prospective dystopian England of the EIP? Will they be tolerated, exterminated, or will a system of apartheid be introduced? At this point, Constantine clambers aboard his white charger and belches his pre battle address to his troops- ‘They did not ask our permission when they systematically took from us our ability to live freely in our own land, and we shall not ask their permission as we set about taking back that freedom’ (6)

Anyone with an ounce of intellect would find EIP policies repellent. However, in times of economic crisis, we look to rid ourselves of ‘the other’ and synthesise a sense of identity based on who we are not. Those who are vulnerable and downtrodden are pushed into the arms of parties like the EIP and BNP. Western economic dominance was founded on the exploitation of the resources of indigenous cultures and the enslavement of their inhabitants. Furthermore, the perpetual economic enslavement of developing and third world economies is an integral and inherent component of our current system. Yet, when the corruption of that system is exposed by the current financial crisis, we do not examine our own complicity: we feel the pinch in our pockets and look for someone to blame, marginalise, demonise, and exterminate. In the words of Joe Strummer, ‘if Adolf Hitler flew in today, they’d send a limousine anyway’.

References 1-6: http://www.englishindependenceparty.org/index.php

Time for the UK to Reform the Official Secrets Act?

In the UK, the moniker The Official Secrets Act does not actually refer to a single, stagnant document but rather it is an evolving and expanding body of legislation that has built up from the late 19th century. The first incarnation came into law in 1889, but was refined in 1911, reflecting the paranoia in Britain that German spies were operating in the UK and were carrying out clandestine intelligence gathering.[1]

The possibility of war with Germany was seen as a very real threat at this time. The novel “The Riddle of the Sands” by Erskine Childers was a very popular book and was widely read in the early years of the 20th century. It was published just at the turn of the century in 1903 and is regarded as one of the first examples of a novel with espionage as its primary theme. The main protagonist and his companion stumble across a German plot to invade the British Isles by sea.

The primary concern for Britain was that the unification of Germany, about three decades earlier, had led to German imperial ambitions. The colonial empire had began amassing a number of territories including what is present day Namibia, Cameroon, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, and Rwanda, among others. These far flung dominions required an expansion of naval capabilities that threatened British dominance in the high seas. Thus there was a natural, if exaggerated, atmosphere of distrust in Britain towards Germany.

Since 1889, sections of the act have been repealed and replaced many times, with the most recent changes being applied in the Official Secrets Act 1989.[2] However, the primary purpose of the act, to prohibit the external passage of information obtained while in the employ of the Crown, has not changed in over the century since the act’s initial conception.

However, there is reason to believe that the legislation is inadequately equipped to the threats of the modern day, such as terrorism. For instance, the Canadian equivalent of the act, which was adopted in Canada almost verbatim in 1890, was replaced in December 2001 with the Security of Information Act which is part of the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act.[3] This new act expands the scope by acknowledging the threat posed by “new players (other than the governments of traditional states) [which] include governments-in-waiting, governments in exile and other foreign powers, as well as terrorist groups”.

Reform of the act in Britain has not been expedient since the 9/11 or 7/7 terrorist attacks. However this may have more to do with protecting the government’s policy actions rather than a simple neglect of important legislative reform. In a press release on the 26th of January, 2010, Liberal Democrat’s leader Nick Clegg implicitly made this case, stating:

“The number one responsibility of civil servants must be to the people of Britain, not self serving Ministers. That is why my party would amend the Official Secrets Act to restore the public interest defence for whistleblowers that was originally removed by the Conservatives. If that protection had been in place when the fateful decision was taken to invade Iraq Tony Blair and Gordon Brown might have been more openly challenged by officials who harboured real doubts about the war. But without cast iron protection for whistleblowers, it was too easy for this government to bully and cajole the civil service into remaining silent about one of the greatest errors of any government in the post war period.”[4]

Perhaps with the interest surrounding the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry, and the public scrutiny of the David Kelly affair, a new resilience will emerge to reform the outmoded act. Also, perhaps, if the much touted election reform referendum is passed next year and brings about a proportionally representative system á la Duverger's law[5], the LibDems will have a greater pulpit from which to proliferate their message on the much needed revision of the act.

---

[1] http://www.jstor.org/pss/1409984

[2] http://pso.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/pso8100/documents-and-forms/Guide%20to%20OSA1.pdf

[3] http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/nwsrm/bckgrndrs/bckgrndr12-eng.asp

[4] http://www.libdems.org.uk/press_releases_detail.aspx?title=Nick_Clegg_calls_for_whistleblower_protection_to_be_restored&pPK=7956255e-ff96-4bbe-9b3a-fbafd82113e1

[5] http://ideas.repec.org/p/clt/sswopa/688.html

Documentary Photography’s Influence on Public Policy

Photography is an important tool used to shape public policy and perception and to effect social change. Photography became an important emerging medium, in the mid 19th century, stretching back as far as before the American Civil War. It is difficult to speculate how much the evocative photography of that era influenced public opinion on the war. However, the war is significant in being one of the first major events where documentary photography showed its potential as a mass medium for the dissemination of visual information. Previously prints and lithographs were the primary method by which images were shared and spread. Alternatively, photography offered a reality and truth that could not be matched by the earlier technology.

It would not be long before documentary photography was adopted by governmental institutions to carry out their work and showcase their findings/achievements. The United States Geological Survey, or USGS, was one such government agency which used documentary photography in their work. In the late 19th century they surveyed the western United States which became a useful reference for law and policy makers in the east who had never been to the frontier lands, but who were expected to create a just federal code. Later in the United States, Joeseph Riis pushed the case for urban social policy reform with his printed collection of images of inner-city ghetto and tenement dwellers. During the Great Depression, Dorothea Lange was famously charged with the task of documenting the life of dustbowl, or ‘Oakie’, farmers and sharecroppers, by a New-Deal agency. The harrowing images, while of great archival importance, were undoubtedly unique and unsurpassed propaganda for New Deal advocates. Peter Stoz has compiled a fascinating article in the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare entitled “Documentary Photography in American Social Welfare: 1897-1943”, which analyses the policy implications of some of the projects noted above, and some more.[1]

Cause and reform advocacy are quintessential, if not defining aspects of documentary photography, thus inextricably linking the practice with the political domain and the policy-making process. Themes of injustice and immorality are overarching in the medium and scholars continue to study the effect of documentary photography on the policy process. In the Journal of Women’s Health Caroline Wang discusses a photographic therapy strategy. [2] While informing and educating the collective conscious of broad society of the health struggles of women is listed as one of its three primary goals, it is telling that the programme classifies its third primary goals as the specific targeting of public policy makers. Thus public policy outcomes are not relied upon as side-effects of the documentary process, but rather as specific aims.

However, caution is a strategy that should be employed by policy makers when confronted with documentary photography. It is noted that the photographer may manipulate the image by documenting certain scenes, or developing relationships with subjects and “runs the risk of producing a result socially opprobrious and pornographic”.[3] Objectivity is a trait that the creator must bring to the practice and which must be recognised by the audience before any lessons for public policy can be extracted.

---

[1] http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jrlsasw35&div=21&id=&page=

[2] http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.1999.8.185

[3] http://www.donigancumming.com/dcpdf/DCe_1984_Graham.pdf

Global Warming Rhetoric: Sceptics and Deniers

The political ‘debate’ on climate change is, to my mind, a misnomer. The narrow minded ostracization of the opposing group (those who question climate change or man’s influence on recent climate change) has made claims of a rigorous scientific discussion simply farcical. The point is forced that, “the science is in”,[1] end of story.

Sweeping generalizations and pettiness prevail in the climate change discussion. Instead of using the moniker ‘sceptic’, which would indicate a degree of underlying rationality and judgement on behalf of the objector, more and more I notice the term climate change denier or denialist. Furthermore the terms detractors and contrarians are also employed. These are loaded phrases that are engaged for the purposes of negative association and bigotry.

The rise in use of the term denier is particularly worrying. Associatively, the term denier has most historical and political resonance with Holocaust denial. By using the same term to refer to those whose opinion is that climate change is either not happening, or is a phenomenon unaltered by mankind’s activities, a conscious parallel is being drawn with anti-Semitic historical revisionists. I find this analogy particularly distasteful. In time the discourse on climate change has been jostled down a particularly narrow path where detractors are subliminally bullied and snidely ridiculed.

The role of any true scientist is to be objective and sceptical. Blind acceptance is the exact opposite of science. However, universities are offered huge research funds by governments to study climate change, thus providing scientists incentives to produce satisfactory complementary results and ensure a steady stream of funds. It would be fairly rational to suggest that the diagnostics are likely to be biased due to human self interest considerations. The recent Climategate fiasco has highlighted the fact that objectivity in the scientific community is sadly lacking.

Interestingly, The Guardian ran piece in March 2009 titled, “Climate Change Deniers: Failsafe Tips on How to Spot Them”.[2] Again association-ism was the order of the day. The piece compared climate change sceptics to Creationists, choosing not to disguise the recurring theme of false equivalence. Ironically, one of the tactics employed by so-called deniers is “...cherry-picking the data. Creationists classically would quote scientists out of context to suggest they disagreed with evolution. Global warming denialists similarly engage in this tactic... But these instances are too numerous and tedious to go into in depth”.[3]

Perhaps the author of that article would like to revise his words in the light of Climategate. More likely however, is that this ugly discourse will continue. While I am not particularly convinced by either side of the argument, I have had to do much independent investigation to educate myself on the research suppressed and ignored in the popular media, shouted-down and ridiculed by climate change upholders. The Age of Enlightenment, which began in the early seventeenth century established reason and logic as the primary sources of authority in science, politics, and all aspects of society. Unfortunately, I fear that if the intolerance of today’s climate change debate (which runs counter to enlightenment think) continues in this manner, a dark age of scientific and broad societal progression may be dawning.

---

[1] http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/ipcc-science-climate-change

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier

[3] Ibid.

Unpatriotic Consumerism

Guiding, or manipulating, national consumerism is a tricky public policy issue. After 9/11, when Bush made a speech telling Americans to combat terrorism by shopping, he came under much national criticism. Some angry citizens, led by A Dr. Philips from Sonoma State University, even formed a group called “We're Not Buyin’ It”. The group organized a week long shopping boycott to convey their disagreement with Bush’s call for patriotic consumerism.[1] The issue of patriotic consumerism was brought to the fore of the political agenda again this week.

Ireland was subject to national public sector strike this week (Tuesday, 24 Nov., 2009). Over a quarter of a million public servants protest Government plans to reduce their net income in the upcoming budget. Their dissatisfaction with what they see as the governments targeting of their sector, over the private sector, led to the strike. As the public sector have already been subject to a pension levy earlier this year, they argue that, in the interest of fairness, and as a patriotic gesture, the private sector should be subject to similar cuts and taxes as the private sector has had to swallow.

This is a rational and forceful argument; however, the strike on Tuesday was bloodied with a distasteful stain of hypocrisy as the striking public sector workers crossed the border into (cheaper) Northern Ireland to shop for the day. Reuters reported that traffic jams on the roads leading into N. Ireland brought traffic to a standstill, on what would usually be a regular Tuesday afternoon. Traders in the North confirmed that the day was a bonanza, with sales similar to pre-Christmas peaks.[2]

Shoppers crossing from the Republic to the North to do their shopping have been an increasing trend over the last eighteen months due to the weak nature of Sterling. The fact that the public sector used their day of strike action to shop across the border, and effectually take much needed tax revenues out of the government coffers, (of a state that is haemorrhaging millions of euro weekly), reeked of hierocracy. Not only do these shoppers have a hugely negative impact on the national and local economies, but doing so on a day of strike was particularly distasteful as the tax revenues pay these peoples’ own salaries. Callers to Irish radio stations called these actions insulting, hypocritical, vulgar. As and Irish Times commentator surmises, its “not just an economic issue - it is also fast becoming an emotional one.”[3]

The government want the people to be patriotic and to shop in the Republic, giving them tax revenue. However, the handling of the financial crisis has eroded confidence in the government and asking the people to make sacrifices, while those seen as government cronies (the banking and construction sector) are seen to get handouts, has generated a very bitter sentiment among the Irish population.

In free democratic societies, it seems that there is evidence that people resent being told how to spend their money. However, for this observer, when actions such as these are selfish and self-interested, and are likely to be long term detrimental to the prosperity of society, their actions cannot be comfortably justified. The unpatriotic consumers seem to feel that they are hitting back at a government they feel has failed them, but what are they really achieving? It would seem to be further unemployment, cutbacks, and national debt. Perhaps the question that should be asked is how governments can effectively convince their populations that what they are asking of them is in their own best interest. Trust must be established before a state can dictate to “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country”.

---

[1] http://www.wearenotbuyingit.org/

[2] http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hiP0AeefKbzbXQH20cm1gbLb_dWQ

[3] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2008/1209/1228571686505.html

Current Ethical Commentary on Private Military Contractors

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 Iraq conflict, the more interesting aspects of the film were the scenes where the contributors considered the moral implications of the emergence of this industry.

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 Liberia, Kenya, and the Congo.

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