Private Security and the Law: International Use of Private Security in Support of U.S. Interests Abroad
Introduction

To support U.S. interests abroad more and more resources have been diverted to private security as American military have been scaled back in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. But is the international use of private security in support of U.S. interests abroad justifiable or lawful? Certainly it is both—but then why the controversy among certain groups? The controversy among some constitutionalists and conservative circles is that private security defense contractors take the place of the military and thus put distance between the American public and the continuation of wars abroad, which the public is under the mistaken belief have ended. As Jennifer Elsea notes, “the use of private security contractors (PSCs) to protect personnel and property in Iraq and Afghanistan has been a subject of debate in the press, in Congress, and in the international community” (2). The main issues, according to Elsea are, “transparency, accountability, and legal and symbolic issues” surrounding the use of PSCs abroad in place of American military (2). This paper will discuss these issues and evaluate their legitimacy.

Transparency

The issue of transparency is, first and foremost, one of the biggest. It was Erik Prince’s Blackwater private defense firm that came under fire in the wake of the WikiLeaks reporting. Glanz and Lehren pointed out that one of the WikiLeaks reports shed light on the fact that “on May 14, 2005, an American unit “OBSERVED A BLACKWATER PSD SHOOT UP A CIV VEHICLE,” killing a father and wounding his wife and daughter, a report said, referring to a Blackwater protective security detail.” That this kind of information was only made public due to a breach of American databases and the subsequent theft of that data and its publication by the secrets-exposing social media site WikiLeaks suggests how little transparency there actually is when it comes to the use of PSCs abroad.

The scandal and negative press that followed were so great that it prompted Erik Prince to start a new PSC entity, which was named Xe. This later underwent a name change, too, as different variations on the same sort of news continued to come out. Transparency in relation to the use of PSCs abroad has thus been a major issue—at least in connection with the wars in the Middle East.

The use of PSCs in other capacities, such as in the protection of public figures, ambassadors, or other people and places, has been far less problematic: the main issue with PSCs abroad is when they are put in militaristic roles and are tasked with combating an enemy that they may not be logistically situated or able to handle. The shooting up of civilian vehicles is just one example of how things can go wrong with PSCs in foreign countries when they are operating on their own, independently of any oversight or any type of body that would ordinarily do the overseeing.

For U.S. military oversees, there is a clear chain of command and a clear line of transparency, which means that soldiers can expect that they will be held accountable for any actions that violate ethical norms and standards. For PSCs, there is no clear chain of command as it is unknown just to whom the PSC is accountable—the government who contracts out the service? The public? Congress? Because there is no clear answer, there is no transparency, as there is no definite felt need on the part of those involved in contracting out PSCs to make sense of the issue. Prince, responding to issues about his company, stated: “While it would be inappropriate to comment on specific cases, we work closely with our government customers and cooperate fully in all investigations” (Glanz and Lehren). In other words, incidents happen and oversight and regulation are missing—because there is little to no standard for transparency in the use of PSCs supporting U.S. interests abroad.

Leander and Van Munster observed in their study of the use of PSCs in the Darfur region that the deputy director of the Human Rights Watch there was skeptical about PSCs and the lack of transparency they showed: the deputy director stated, “There is not a lot of transparency about these [private security] contracts, we don’t know how they get recruits or what kind of training they get […] Unlike a government agency, the private companies are not required to tell the public exactly what they do, often citing business confidentiality” (202). This type of situation is one that can cause tension between the local administrators in a foreign country, human rights advocates both abroad and at home, and the PSC firm itself—as well as the government that employs them. To address this matter so that all stakeholders are more comfortable, it would seem that more transparency in the PSC industry is required when those PSC firms are used to support U.S. interests abroad.

Accountability

Accountability follows on the heels of transparency. An organization is transparent because it wants to be held accountable. With PSCs abroad, the lack of transparency suggests to some critics that there is no desire on their part for them to be held accountable to anyone. The PSCs believe they are doing an important job in supporting American interests abroad because they are taking on work that the American military cannot do for whatever reason—political...…PSCs are located. If the locals become angry by the perceived symbolism of the PSC, they PSCs can find themselves in greater risk of being attacked by antagonistic parties. The recent vote in Iraq to expel the U.S. military serves as an indication of just how tense it can become between America and its security forces and the foreign countries wherein America’s interests are located.

As Franke and Von Boemcken point out, even today “we know very little about the motivations and occupational self-perceptions of individuals working for the private security industry” abroad (725) and that means there can be a great deal of misunderstanding between PSCs and the people in the lands where they are working for American interests. If Americans do not even know who these people working for PSCs are or what they represent, it is even more likely that foreigners do not understand them, their principles or what they stand for. What Franke and Von Boemcken show, however, is that in spite of the often predatory way in which PSCs are depicted in antagonistic media, most of the individuals who work for them consider themselves to be military professionals sworn to uphold the rule of law. Specifically, Franke and Von Boemcken stated that “contrary to media-dominating images of ruthless, money-grabbing mercenaries, respondents in our sample displayed attitudes comparable to those of military professionals, adhering to high levels of professionalism and ethical conduct and motivated largely by altruistic factors” (725). Thus, to correct the wrong impression or false symbolism that some may have of PSCs working abroad in support of American interests, the media depiction should change and provide a more realistic representation of PSCs as ethically-minded, altruistic, and professional.

Conclusion

The role of private security contractors working abroad in support of U.S. interests is fairly misunderstood because so little is actually known about who they are and what they do. There is a shroud of mystery that hangs over the industry. A lack of transparency, accountability and stories about scandals all contribute to an air of mistrust and the emergence of a symbol of “guns for hire,” mercenaries of the U.S. government filling in for American military, and so on. The reality, however, is that PSCs operate a gray zone, legally speaking. It is a relatively new sector and there are no real regulatory bodies there to provide oversight. Still, those who are in the PSC tend to come from the military and have been trained according to the principles and ethical system of the military. Thus, it should not be surprising to find that they themselves respect the same rule of law that Americans do.

Works Cited

Elsea, Jennifer. “Private…