Is the privatisation of public security a viable alternative to multilateral conflict management? This study suggests that there are legitimate roles for private military contractors (PMCs) and private security companies (PSCs). However, these companies have often exacerbated conflicts, facilitated human rights abuses and hampered the consolidation of African states. Rather than promoting PSCs and PMCs, the international community should empower UN and the institutions of conflict resolution that are being put in place by African countries themselves.
During the 1990s, the nexus between natural resources and civil wars in Africa became more visible. Natural resources are exploited to acquire arms and military personnel. Then, the acquired military equipment and professional soldiers are used to wage war. The wide spectrum of non-state actors involved in civil wars build the networks that nurture the connection between wars and the illegal exploitation of natural resources.
Internal actors, states and non-state armed groups rely on external actors to be able to wage their wars. These actors, or mercenaries, also changed during the 1990s although their activities remained linked to the exploitation of natural resources.
The presence of PSCs and PMCs contributes to the militarisation of society. In addition, they facilitate arms proliferation, influence the balance of military power and exacerbate tensions among protagonists. PSCs and PMCs have an impact on the state-building process of many African countries.
- The interests of PMCs and PSCs, do not always coincide with the state’s need for survival and consolidation, since the process of consolidation includes control over resources, wealth and legitimate violence.
- The variety of activities undertaken by PMCs and PSCs have helped fuel the privatisation of political violence which undermines the re-establishment of the state monopoly on legitimate violence.
- Although the privatisation of security is said to help defend civilians from violence, PMCs and PSCs often provide security only for the rulers to appropriate natural resources.
- PSCs are used to protect foreign workers as if there were no need to form a national army, national security service or police force capable of defending the state and providing protection for its residents.
- State security is often limited to mining operations and the security of the elite in power.
- The military capability of private companies is said to help can create stability and coerce a negotiated settlement. However, PMCs are not the only military forces. Their activities are only part of the complex context of the conflict management process.
It is difficult to believe the claim by the ‘new’ corporate companies that they want to assist and help legitimate governments. Their interest in African countries involves money, resources and business.
- The private nature of PMCs and PSCs and the fact that their very existence is based on financial calculations are in contradiction to multilateral efforts to resolve conflict. They do not contribute to the re-establishment of the power of the state.
- The transfer of public security to the private sector is at best the manifestation of the failure of common security and at worst the avant-garde of attempts at corporate recolonisation.
