Q&A: Private Military Contractors
What are private military and security contractors (PMSCs)?
There is some disagreement among industry, NGOs and academics about how to best describe the numerous publicly traded and privately held companies that currently fulfill many of the functions that were once considered inherent to the military and government. Some call these companies mercenaries; the industry shuns that term as too pejorative, preferring “private military company” or “private security company.” Because the companies work for the U.S. government and military through contracts, they are often referred to as “contractors.”
While PMSCs perform many different functions, from logistical support to training of militaries and police forces, Amnesty International is most concerned by PMSCs operating in capacities that enable them to use force against combatants or civilians in a manner that violates international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. These include contractors who carry weapons when protecting personnel, sites, and convoys, interrogate and translate for interrogators in detention facilities, and assist in rendering people to countries known to use torture.
The use of PMSCs is growing. According to Brookings Institute analyst Peter Singer, the ratio of military personnel to contractors was 50:1 in the 1991 Gulf War, and 10:1 in conflicts in 2003. Today, contractors working for the U.S. government and military outnumber U.S. troops in Iraq.
Why has the use of PMSCs increased?
Various reasons have been offered as to why the U.S. and other governments are increasingly privatizing military operations. One is that it is cheaper to hire contractors for specific time periods than to maintain a larger standing army. However, particularly in light of contractor fraud scandals, alleged cost savings are doubtful.
Another common justification is that contractors have the ability to temporarily, flexibly, and quickly dispatch. But, with this ease of dispatch, others argue, comes an enabling of the executive branch to more easily engage in conflicts, by avoiding Congressional and public approval and scrutiny of the deployment of, and often the death of, U.S. troops. And since companies pay their employees multiples of what the Army does, there is increased incentive to work for a PMSC than to enlist in the Army.
Amnesty International does not take a position on whether or not the U.S. government and military should rely on PMSCs, but believes that whatever the reason for the proliferation of PMSCs, numerous contractors are operating under a murky legal and contracting system with few built-in accountability mechanisms and with virtually no demonstrated intent from the administration to hold human rights abusers accountable.
Amnesty is working to ensure that human rights standards are included in all U.S. government and military contracts, require public reporting when contractors use force, and ensure that companies screen employees and train them on international humanitarian law. Finally, it is essential that allegations of abuses are promptly investigated and perpetrators are brought to justice.
Is there adequate oversight and accountability of PMSCs?
Coalition Provisional Authority agreements, which were adopted by the interim Iraqi government, stated that U.S. contractors may not be tried in Iraqi courts. Recently, U.S. legislation was passed that allows contractors to be tried for crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the military’s internal justice system, but this law has so far gone untested.
However, there are several laws which could be used to prosecute contractors for criminal acts in U.S. civilian courts, such as the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Statute, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, and the U.S.A. Patriot Act (see www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/2006/provisions.html for details). Additionally, every country has the right and duty, under international law, to prosecute war crimes, wherever they occur.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has guidelines on the use of contractors accompanying the forces. But even under these guidelines, the DOD must still rely on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute the cases of wrongdoing it refers. After the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison facility became known, one contractor was indicted for abusing an Afghan detainee. Shortly thereafter, then-Attorney General Ashcroft directed the remaining 19 cases to a “Detainee Abuse Task Force” in the Eastern District of Virginia, where, approximately three years later, not a single indictment of a contractor has been brought.
The companies and their trade associations, such as the International Peace Operations Association (IPOA), point to the companies’ need to maintain their reputations and compete for government contracts as enough incentive to ethically perform the duties of their contracts. However, according to the Center for Public Integrity, only 40% of contracts relating to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts were awarded on a competitive basis. (See “Windfalls of War” at www.publicintegrity.org/wow.) In fact, the ties between companies and U.S. government officials are often very close, with people moving back and forth between the two sectors – a practice often called “the revolving door.”
The industry also likes to point to IPOA’s code of conduct as an exemplar of companies’ ability to self-regulate. Yet, the current version of the code includes only very broad statements, without evidence that its principles are understood or implemented by employees or contractors. Also, like any voluntary code of conduct, companies can choose to abide by or ignore the standards, and the only real enforcement mechanism available to a trade association, should a company breach those standards, is to remove the company from the association.
Amnesty believes the ultimate responsibility and ability to ensure that companies uphold human rights standards, and are brought to justice if they don’t, lies with state actors.
Is Amnesty International opposed to the U.S. Government’s use of PMSCs?
Amnesty International does not take a position on the use of contractors per se. Our obligation is to do all we can to ensure that human rights are protected by all parties in conflict situations – government representatives, civilians acting on behalf of governments, and armed groups opposing governments. We are pressing for human rights protections to be incorporated into the contracting system and for the government to promptly investigate and prosecute credible allegations of misconduct and crime.
To learn more about corporate accountability and the “war on terror”, visit www.amnestyusa.org/business, or email us at corpaction@aiusa.org.
