After much research I can clearly see that the legalisation of private armies, provided that the proper legislation is in place, could by vital to many desirable company operations. It is also clear to me that this would not cause a security issue.
The definition of the word ‘armies’ according to the oxford dictionary is ‘An organized military force equipped for fighting on land’.
To be an army you do not need to have a large number of men or any specific weapons. In fact, you could form an army with a group of friends and a set of legally obtained guns. This means that if there was legislation allowing for private forces, but limiting their size there would be no threat to government forces or security. Even if there was no limit on the size, the chances that a private company could have more power than a national army is negligible. Even armies in developing countries are better funded than most companies could afford (the Indian Army for example cost $54 billion in 2017).
In some countries such as The Republic of Congo it is not very safe and there are many rogue armies blockading roads to earn extra income (the dire situation in Congo is show by the following article: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5224906). Many rare resources such coltan are found in places with a strong militant presence (mainly found in Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Namibia, Ghana, and Mozambique, as well as in the DRC).
In addition to this, some national armies, in countries such as Egypt, are privately hireable which may pose a threat to some of the companies not hiring the national army (most governments hide the rogue actions of their armies, however, here is an article showing how the government of Ivy Coast is bribing large parts of its army into retirement so that it can have better control of the force http://www.africanews.com/2017/12/11/ivory-coast-to-pay-rogue-soldiers-110m-to-retire//). This means that in large parts of the world companies need private armies to operate.
One reason a company may want a private army is to stop the theft of technology. If someone was trying to steal one’s technology one would need a quick response to counter the threat or deal with the consequences. According to the article https://www.fpri.org/article/2006/04/private-military-companies-and-the-future-of-war/ private security contractors often can react more quickly to events than the bureaucracy of national armies allows. For situations such as dealing with stolen technology the speed of a private army is most suitable.
Private armies will take on jobs which national armies will not due to the risk of suffering casualties. National armies are always under constant scrutiny from the media and general public. If a company is operating in a dangerous area, then there may be many operations for which a national army will not offer protection. Furthermore, private armies can hire internationally meaning that they can have many language and specialised skills which national armies may find hard to acquire. This may be vital to the success of a company. If one does not speak the right language how can you properly decide if a certain man is a threat? What if someone stole some computer technology and put it in a safe inside a truck. A private army might be equipped to break into a safe where as a national army is unlikely to have this ability.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Posted: