The Rise of the PMC, End of the State

I could not help myself from linking everything private security/military related in the readings to things I have read in fictional literature. It made me wonder if the writers of the novels I read were actually students of international relations. I digress.

Abrahamsen and Williams brought up some really interesting points that I wanted to hone non. They really captured the scale of the growth of private security. The fact that private security outnumbers police forces by 2:1 in the UK, 3:1 in the US, and the entire military is outnumbered in India speaks volumes about how different the system has become. Their argument, that security is increasingly beyond the state, has resonated with me. I don't think it's as doom and gloom as they predict, that those states that have delegated the "monopoly" on violence have contributed to their own demise. I think that is very true for weaker states where private military and security companies continue to grow stronger day to day,  but I don't think it means the end of states.

There's a Tom Clancy novel (not written by him, but in his name) called HAWX and it covers a topic very much like this. The gist of it is that in the near future most governments contract most of their military and security needs out to private companies. Eventually the interests of those companies diverge from those of the state and the novel climaxes with one of the largest PMCs almost successfully staging a coup against the government of the United States (thankfully stopped by some scrappy former F-16 pilots). What I enjoyed about the book and why I find it so interesting in the context of these readings is that as states delegate more and more of their authority it leads me to question: what happens when private companies, with their own interests, decide that they are in charge? It seems farfetched that a private company could ever usurp challenge the United States, but smaller, weaker states? Failed or failing states? What happens if a PMC becomes the "legitimate" owner of a state? I don't see it as likely, but I definitely see it as possible.

Violence as a commodity

I have found the concept of the monopolization of violence to be very intriguing throughout the last couple weeks. A question that remains in my mind, and that has come up in class, can states truly hold a monopolization on violence? Is violence a commodity to be held through competition? My answer: definitely. But I don’t think states always hold the commodity in abundance over organizations that have or might rise to challenge their authority.

The concept that professor Shirk brought up in class, by Charles Tilly, poses an interesting theory. That state making itself has, at times, developed from organized crime, suggesting that maybe it doesn’t matter who holds the monopoly to power, it matters who is strategic enough to use it in a way that will advance their interests. Violence in many criminal or militant groups spreads as individuals attach themselves to an idea that turns into an ambition. We’ve seen it from groups who start from contemporary triggers, such as ISIS and we can also see it in groups that have maintained ideas and norms throughout time such as the views of some tribes within some African states that, to this day remain prominent in their culture. There are even those states where politicians compete as members of a certain tribe. The latter is an example of violence that wasn't triggered by contemporary circumstances but instead the conflict has transformed across years. Where once there was violence  between tribes, some who used it to their advantage remained on top and are today forming and leading political parties in democratic societies. 

Authority derived from violence, it would seem, is not so much a matter of who holds the authority but how they use it to strategically place themselves in the world.

Human Beings Continue to be Self-Interested

As we begin the second week on public authority and the control of violence, I can't help but notice that each module reaffirms the theory that we are all self-interested. The existence of transnational organized crime, and even just the existence of organized crime, proves this point. Transnational criminal organizations exist to benefit the individuals and organizations that commit the crimes. Those who participate are solely looking to achieve and sustain wealth, by using fragile states to achieve this.

States may claim to be autonomous, while giving up a fraction of its sovereignty by either participating in transnational criminal organizations, or by relinquishing authority to a private security company. Individuals, however, will eventually revert back to their nature as self-interested beings. This is especially clear with the emergence of organized crime. Individuals that take part in organized crime, and even transnational criminal organizations, are seeking to increase their wealth and authority to ensure that they are at or near the top of the food chain. They take actions without looking at the possible risks to their home or host state, or the pain and abuse that they either directly or indirectly inflict on people not identifying with the criminal action. An example of this is the trafficking of women and children, where those who carryout the kidnapping, transporting, or even central command, do not take into account the harm, and sometimes even death, they are inflicting on these groups of people. Instead, they show their basic human nature for advancing oneself at any cost.

As I have argued in past posts, the shift back to Hobbes' state of nature is inevitable, because at the center or every individual, no matter how much they claim to care about the progress of all people, humans are inevitably self-interested beings. Some think that we have created a system to assist in state development and global integration, but what we have really created is a system that all but ensures the growth of criminal activity. The expansion in transnational crime should not be seen as an example of an increased international network of states, but rather as a reversion back to the state of nature.

https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/07/human-beings-continue-to-be-self.html