The privatisation of war
That's what the UN thinks might be happening, and it does not like it at all with Jose Del Prado, Chairman of the working group on the use of mercenaries, putting it thus:
"Since the Working Group’s first report, it had called the Assembly’s attention to the impunity with which the military and private security companies operated, which violated human rights. In zones of armed or post-conflict, the outsourcing of military functions and the supplying of military and security services by transnational companies would lead to the privatization of war. The monopoly on the use of force by the State had been at the basis of national sovereignty for centuries".
As a sidebar, it notes the following, "The visits to various countries had allowed the Working Group to study the emerging manifestations and trends among mercenaries. Those indicated bad working conditions for the mercenaries, including working excess hours, mistreatment and isolation". Erm, I would not have expected a unionised workforce with coffee breaks and so forth, frankly.
Anyway, I would think that a full scale privatisation of warfare would end up with there being less of it, and it being a good deal less expensive in terms of both life and limb and of money, and the experience of the last period of private warfare - 15th century Italy - would seem to bear this out:
"...the rich burghers and merchants of medieval Italy were too busy making money and enjoying life to undertake the hardships and dangers of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike folk, they dismissed these mercenaries immediately after their services could be dispensed with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time, soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively harmless profession. The generals of that period manoeuvred against each other, often with consummate skill, but when one had won the advantage, his opponent generally either retreated or surrendered. It was a recognised rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered resistance. Immunity could always he purchased by paying a ransom.... As one natural consequence, no town ever resisted, it being obvious that a government too weak to defend its citizens had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had little to fear from the dangers of war which were the concern only of professional soldiers." Veale, quoted by Rothbard in 'The Anatomy of the State'.
"Since the Working Group’s first report, it had called the Assembly’s attention to the impunity with which the military and private security companies operated, which violated human rights. In zones of armed or post-conflict, the outsourcing of military functions and the supplying of military and security services by transnational companies would lead to the privatization of war. The monopoly on the use of force by the State had been at the basis of national sovereignty for centuries".
As a sidebar, it notes the following, "The visits to various countries had allowed the Working Group to study the emerging manifestations and trends among mercenaries. Those indicated bad working conditions for the mercenaries, including working excess hours, mistreatment and isolation". Erm, I would not have expected a unionised workforce with coffee breaks and so forth, frankly.
Anyway, I would think that a full scale privatisation of warfare would end up with there being less of it, and it being a good deal less expensive in terms of both life and limb and of money, and the experience of the last period of private warfare - 15th century Italy - would seem to bear this out:
"...the rich burghers and merchants of medieval Italy were too busy making money and enjoying life to undertake the hardships and dangers of soldiering themselves. So they adopted the practice of hiring mercenaries to do their fighting for them, and, being thrifty, businesslike folk, they dismissed these mercenaries immediately after their services could be dispensed with. Wars were, therefore, fought by armies hired for each campaign. . . . For the first time, soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively harmless profession. The generals of that period manoeuvred against each other, often with consummate skill, but when one had won the advantage, his opponent generally either retreated or surrendered. It was a recognised rule that a town could only be sacked if it offered resistance. Immunity could always he purchased by paying a ransom.... As one natural consequence, no town ever resisted, it being obvious that a government too weak to defend its citizens had forfeited their allegiance. Civilians had little to fear from the dangers of war which were the concern only of professional soldiers." Veale, quoted by Rothbard in 'The Anatomy of the State'.
Labels: matters military, United Nations
This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 08, 2007 at 1:14 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Yeah but, like, all privatisation is baaaad, m'kay?
The one thing the state is actually good at is killing people.
Unfortunately most of the complainants will think that the state is good and private war would be far far worse because private companies don't have this mysterious quality of the state which keeps the state 'good'.
» Post a Comment