In August 2018, three Russian journalists were killed in an attack as they drove through the Central African Republic, where they were attempting to interview Wagner, a private military company (PMC) that was believed to be providing facility security at a mine in the country. Wagner, a private military company (PMC) that is believed to have been involved in guarding facilities at the mine in the country. Wagner has close ties with the Russian government (it is said to be under the control of the Russian government).suspicionalso), its activities are veiled. The Central African Republic ispolitical instabilityAlthough it has been announced that the attack was for the purpose of robbery, there are still some suspicious points surrounding the killings. The editor-in-chief of the news organization for which the three slain men worked said that their murders may have had something to do with the content of their reporting.Doubtful.The following is a list of the most common problems with the

Wagner sent former Russian soldiers as a support unit for Ukrainian rebels, and later in Syria and Sudan, as well as in Central Africa.activityWagner is just one of a growing number of private military companies around the world. Nevertheless, Wagner is only one of a growing number of private military companies around the world. Some private military companies operate in the shadows, while many others have expanded their sphere of activity and operate with impunity. Some operate on land, such as in conflict zones; others operate at sea, such as in the fight against piracy; and still others operate in the air, such as in reconnaissance. This article explores such private military companies and their activities.

The Donetsk airport destroyed in the Ukrainian conflict (Photo: Mstyslav Chernov [ [ CC BY-SA 4.0 ])

Business, War, Private Military Companies

In any era, anywhere in the world, the connection between making money and war is deep. In the first place, most wars are fought over wealth and resources. In no small number of cases, governments and rebel groups engaged in armed conflicts collaborate with their own companies to advance the conflict. Warlords (*1), who play a leading role in many armed conflicts, also take advantage of unstable conditions in areas that are not well controlled by governments to control resources and economic activities. Furthermore, the arms trade is also a huge business, as it is necessary to produce large quantities of weapons and deliver them to the battlefield through a global network in order to wage war.

As for military forces, they have always been accompanied by a business aspect. It is recorded that more than 10,000 foreign mercenaries participated in the wars of ancient Egypt, and even in Europe and Asia during the Middle Ages, troops composed of mercenaries were a major force. In many cases, it was not the sovereign governments that were at the forefront of colonization, but corporations, which themselves had their own military forces for the slave trade, plundering and occupation of resources and land.

In its modern form, the private military company began to emerge in the West after World War II as a corporate entity providing military-related services, and it mushroomed in the post-Cold War period as direct military intervention by the United States and the Soviet Union declined around the world. Executive Outcomes Incorporated, a company made up of veterans of the partially disbanded South African military (Executive Outcomes: EO) and Sandline International, a company founded by British military veterans (Sandline International) were particularly prominent. They were commissioned by the governments of Angola, Sierra Leone, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea, as well as by major oil and mining companies. In Angola and Sierra Leone, in particular, EOs, while cooperating with government forces, have successfully repelled or expelled rebel forces using their own troops, combat helicopters, and infantry fighting vehicles.

A private military company employee teaches an Afghan soldier how to use a mortar (Photo: U.S. Army photo, Capt. Jarrod Morris [Public domain])

However, it was in the United States that the number of private military companies increased the most. When the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, many U.S. military operations were outsourced to private companies. During World War II, about 10% of the U.S. military workforce consisted of employees of subcontractors outside the national military, but by the time of the 2003 war in Iraq, that number had risen to as much as 50%!They were jumping up and down.As of 2016, he has been deployed to Afghanistan as a subcontractor for the U.S. military.Number of civiliansis about three times that of U.S. forces and about twice that in Iraq. of the same conflict.Number of deathsshows that subcontracted civilians outnumber U.S. military personnel. DynCorp, Inc.DynCorpYa or Akademi Sha (Academi(*2) and other major U.S.-based private military companies employ more than 10,000 people and generate revenues in the billions of U.S. dollars. These companies have operated in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other conflict zones and areas of political instability, including Colombia, Yemen, Somalia, and South Sudan.

If companies that provide general security during peacetime are included, the size of the group grows even larger. Some companies operating in conflict zones also provide general security, and together they are called Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs). Among these companies, especially those based in the United KingdomG4SG4S operates in 125 countries worldwide and is a private company.Number of employees(625,000), making it the second largest in the world. It also conducts military activities, but mainly as a security service. Other companies whose main activity is military may also operate in countries where there is no conflict. For example, Blackwater (now Academi) provided security in New Orleans, USA, after Hurricane Katrina, as well as radar security for Japan's missile defensecommitThe first time I saw a new company, I was surprised to learn that the company was not a member of the same group.

Employees of a private military company in charge of escorting U.S. State Department officials in Iraq (Photo: Jamesdale10 [ CC BY-2.0 ])

Suspicious or dangerous activities

The activities of private military companies are largelythreeThe first is the "provision of military power," which includes front-line activities, such as combat-related activities, security, and reconnaissance by airplanes and drones. The second is "provision of logistical support," which includes transportation, logistics, and other support services. The third is "consulting," which includes education, training, analysis, and advisory services for the national armed forces and others. The first, "provision of military power," is particularly problematic.

One major problem is that private military companies are profit-seeking organizations. If they were not expected to make a profit, they would not be deployed in the first place. While they may be seen as an extension of the national military when they are subcontracted by the larger armies of developed countries, when they are contracted by the governments of poor countries, the costs of private military companies are tied to the country's natural resources and may be paid for by a share of mine sales or other means. In some cases, even if outsourced by the government, the profit margin is higher than the safety of the people.Priority given to securing natural resourcesIn some cases, the main focus of activities is the reclaiming of mines and the security of their facilities, rather than the suppression of rebel groups or long-term security restoration-related activities. In some cases, the work is outsourced not by the local government but by foreign companies involved in mining and petroleum, which are often involved in the illegal exploitation of mineral resources by these companies.supportIt is also possible to do so.

Since the pursuit of profit is the goal, problems also arise with regard to human resources. Unlike national militaries, private military companies do not require employees to be of any nationality, but their salaries vary depending on nationality and background. Veterans from developed countries may have received a high level of training and cannot be hired without a high salary. On the other hand, personnel from poor countries can be hired at a lower salary. This is a true manifestation of the global disparity problem. For example, the British company Aegis, which was commissioned to provide security for U.S. military facilities in Iraq (Aegis) (*3) actions were noticed in 2016. Initially, due to high commission fees from the U.S. military, the company primarily hired veterans from developed countries, but as commission fees decreased, it began hiring veterans from Nepal and other countries at lower salaries, and eventually began recruiting personnel from Africa, where they could be hired even more cheaply. In seeking people with experience in military operations, it was discovered that traumatized former boy soldiers from Sierra Leone were among them,question (e.g. on a test)The first time this happened was in 1983, when the company was founded.

Children play near a school destroyed in the Sierra Leone conflict (Photo by Laura Lartigue [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

Who they are commissioned by and for what purpose is also being questioned. Many private military companies claim to be commissioned by legitimate governments and to operate according to the laws of those governments. However, there are also cases where they are illegally commissioned by rebel groups or companies in the dark. For example, in 2004 a group of mercenaries launched an attempted coup against the government of Equatorial Guinea, and the son of former British Prime Minister Thatcher was convicted for his involvement, and his own involvement wasbe suspectedThere have also been times when the government has been entrusted with the responsibility of the government. Even if the commission is internationally recognized as a governmental commission, it is difficult to determine what responsibility should be imposed when the commission is complicit in the oppression of the people, war crimes, or human rights violations.

For example,Saudi Arabiaand a coalition led by the United Arab Emirates is intervening.Yemen Conflict (1992-1998)In the United States, there have been numerous acts that could be considered war crimes and human rights violations.recordThe United Arab Emirates, a key member of that coalition, relies heavily on private military companies. The United Arab Emirates, a key member of that coalition, relies heavily on private military companies. Both American Academi and DynCorp have a history of being commissioned, and the UAE government has extensive experience in conflictColombiaand other Latin American mercenaries directly.Hiring.The United Arab Emirates also hires veterans of foreign armed forces on an individual basis. In addition, the United Arab Emirates sometimes hires veterans of foreign armed forces on an individual basis. For example, the country'sHead of Helicopter Unitis a former U.S. military veteran, more than 40 Somali refugees were killed in 2017 when a helicopter fired multiple times at a ship that was headed for a port in Yemen. Although the United Arab Emirates denies it, the act was committed by the country's helicoptervery likelyThe following is a list of the most common problems with the

Furthermore, among private military companies, whether they have a clear chain of command, rules of engagement, and other rules, as well as thorough training and education on human rights and war crimes, can be a major issue. In Iraq, there have been multiple reports of killings by Blackwater employees, most notably in 2007, when 17 people were killed when the company's employees opened fire on civilians while escorting a U.S. embassy vehicle.incidentis conspicuous.

A Blackwater helicopter conducting bombing reconnaissance in Iraq (Photo by U.S. Air Force, Master Sgt. Michael E. Best [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)

For such cases, in the case of war crimes, the International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court) may be able to bring the case to the court. It may also be possible to try the case in the country where the incident occurred or in the judicial system of the private military company employee or other mercenary's country of origin. Indeed, in the Blackwater Inc. case mentioned above, four people were convicted in the United States. Even without such a case, the extent to which the participation of private military companies in the front line itself is permissible is also being questioned. Prohibiting the recruitment and use of "mercenaries" for combat operations, etc.resolutionwas adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1989, but security and escorts weregray zoneIt remains as a Even if recognized as legitimate activities by legitimate organizations, the existence and activities of private military companies must be strictly regulated and monitored.

Savior of peace activism?

In 2015, Nigeria's fight against the insurgent group Boko Haram led the private military companySTTEP(*4) for cooperation. Boko Haram was notorious as a group that pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in its war against the government, causing child kidnappings and terrorist incidents. While other countries showed no willingness to intervene, the Nigerian government, with the help of STTEP, was able to achieve significant success against Boko Haram in a relatively short period of time.damageThe company was able to give the

This is by no means a peace operation, and as noted above, many issues and problems remain over private military companies. However, it cannot be denied that in this case, private military companies played an effective role in restoring government control and security. While private military companies certainly pursue profit, the state also pursues national interests that could be considered analogous. No matter how serious the humanitarian problems in other countries may be, if they are not recognized as being of value in the national interest, the state is unlikely to act. Moreover, even if it is recognized as important in the national interest, the political cost of the deaths of soldiers in their own country is so great that the government, instead of a national military force, may be "self-responsible" for thebe put awayOften outsourced to private military companies.

Therefore, the use of private military companies in UN peacekeeping forces (PKO), which have difficulty in acquiring human resources, is also a good idea.discussionThe United Nations and its related agencies have already begun to use private military companies to provide facility security, escorts, and training. The United Nations and its related agencies have already turned over facility security, escort, and training to private military companies.requestbut participation in PKOs has yet to be seen. Currently, developed countries provide funds for PKOs, but little in the way of troops; most of the soldiers participating in PKOs are composed of so-called developing countries, and the troops provided are often not adequately trained. In addition, with respect to any country, there is little incentive to participate in PKOs to the fullest extent, and under such circumstances, the mobilization of employees of private military companies as PKO soldiers is promoted with caution and with conditionsvoiceare appearing.

It may not be long before private military companies, often accused of being the villains of international politics, are commissioned into peacekeeping operations and contribute to the restoration of peace.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres inspects a PKO in the Central African Republic (Photo: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe [ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 ])

Writer: Virgil Hawkins

1 A warlord is an armed group that pursues private interests. They are born in areas where the government is not capable of governing and become the effective rulers of the area. Unlike rebel groups, they do not seek to overthrow the government and avoid conflict with government forces. By monopolizing the security environment in the areas they occupy and operate in, they also gain control over economic activities and profit.

2 Academi was founded in 1997 by Erik Prince, a U.S. Army veteran, as Blackwater, but after numerous scandals, it was reborn in 2009 as Xe Services, and in 2010 became the current In 2010, it became the current Academi Corporation.

3 Aegis was acquired by Canada's GardaWorld in 2015.

4 STTEP (Specialized Tasks, Training, Equipment and Protection) is run by South African veteran Eben Barlow, founder of Executive Outcomes (1989-1998), the original private military company. The company is run by Eben Barlow, a retired South African military veteran and founder of Executive Outcomes, Inc.