Privatization of Security: A Strategy for Peace or War?
In: Thinking About War and Peace: Past, Present, and FutureSearch for other papers by Andres Macias in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
The chapter analyses the use of private security and military companies (PSMC) as tools to intervene in conflict-affected scenarios. It begins by exploring the main reasons behind the tendency to rely on private security providers and the impact they have on conflict areas. The main objective of the analysis is to determine whether their active presence counts as a strategy to ensure peace-making and promote peacebuilding or, on the contrary, represents a source of further conflict and more instability. It argues that although the privatization of security entails political and economic advantages for states, there are still various disadvantages that make the use of PSMCs a mechanism that enables armed conflict and impedes the promotion of peace. The analysis shows the exponential growth of PSMCs in the aftermath of the Cold War. These companies have been employed to return order and stability in conflict zones, to assist peacekeeping operations, and to support the provision of humanitarian assistance. However, their real contribution to peacemaking and peacebuilding is questionable. In many cases PSMCs get involved in peacekeeping operations to help fulfill unfinished duties as a result of a shortage of troops and a weak political support, but they are not designed for long-term peacebuilding strategies. Their increasing presence in the field undermines the state’s relative monopoly of the use of violence, compromising the transparent elaboration of public security policies and hindering the possibility to strengthen international coalitions that aim at preserving peace in and among states. It is in this sense that PSMCs are better characterized as facilitators of war rather than promoters of peace