NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently read a great book called 'Blackwater: Rise of the world's most powerful mercenary army'. It revealed a great deal of detail toward the secretive and little-known world of Private Military Contracting. Privatisation itself is a hot issua, but I think the use of paid contractors to kill and invade nations for the sake of profit is horribly immoral. Also, PMCs are technically immune from UN resolutions. That is why I have filed a resolution outlawing their use in campaigns (though I have noted they ARE needed for non-campaign roles, eg. guarding a diplomat). I appreciate your opinions, and totally understand if you disapprove of this resolution (especially if your nation is having economic trouble ;) )

Thanks! WVP

Er. You would be better off posting your proposal here, and then having it vetted before submitting it. Also, remember to do a TG campagin.

Private Military Contracting
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Windows Vista Premium

Description: A resolution designed to deal with the increasing privatisation within the public resource sector.

*RECOGNIZING Privatisation to be a nessercarry step toward reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency through the addition of the incentive of profit.

*NOTING that many capitalist-oriented states public resources are controlled by the private sector through government contracts including Public Transport, Energy and Finance.

*CONCERNED that assets including the military are entering the public sector through the use of outsourcing defense concerns to Private Military Companies (PMCs).

*RECCOMENDING that the private sector be reduced to non-controlling roles within the government and military forces.

THROUGH these concerns and beliefs this resolution will limit government contractual outsourcing to non-defensive forces. For example, a contract to a PMC to guard an embassy would be acceptable, whilst outsourcing an offensive campaign to a PMC would not be acceptable under this resolution.
This resolution is in the interests of moral decency, as it prevents entrepenurial businessmen making profits from the deaths and wars of men. Military campaigns must be subject to resolutions concerning war and conventions concerning the rules (such as rights of POWs and Civilian non-combatants).

The use of Private Contractors in active campaigns can skew these resolutions and create havoc within the theatre, especially within occupation of territory through irresponsible and indisciplined acts.
THEREFORE this resolution would rule the use of PMCs in Military campaigns unlawful and illegal under this resolution

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 103 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon Feb 18 2008

Jury-rigging a proposal INTO a cateogry isn't...er...good. It is much better as Global Disarament.

Oh, and, erm, many countries may in fact be PMCs all together. And, well, wouldn't it be better to just state that ANY PMC operating in an NSUN nation must follow all NSUN laws? Make them follow UN resolutions, and they should be 'moral' enough. The reason is that, while we find the practice of invading nations for profit as a wholly immoral action, well, (1) many non-PMC nations do so, and (2) we know of many people in standing militaries that actually PAY for people to be in the military, in other words, these troops are serving for profit too, and we personally feel that the world should consider a full-out ban on paying for people to join the military (but not right now, of course, the world isn't ready yet).

I'll come back later, though, I do sympathize with the goal.
---Dr. Bob

Er. You would be better off posting your proposal here, and then having it vetted before submitting it. Also, remember to do a TG campagin.
Sorry, I don't know what a TG campaign is. I'm no noob, but I don't have great experience with making UN resolutions.

Jury-rigging a proposal INTO a cateogry isn't...er...good. It is much better as Global Disarament.
I put moral decency as, while using PMCs may be cheaper for a government I consider their use immoral as they often disregard human rights laws due to their immunity from criminal prosecution. I don't really see what this has to do with disarmament.

Oh, and, erm, many countries may in fact be PMCs all together.
Really? Well, my resolution concerns the 'outsourcing to PMCs' so I think that point is moot.

And, well, wouldn't it be better to just state that ANY PMC operating in an NSUN nation must follow all NSUN laws? Make them follow UN resolutions, and they should be 'moral' enough.[quote]

[quote=SilentScope Embassy;13454360]The reason is that, while we find the practice of invading nations for profit as a wholly immoral action, well, (1) many non-PMC nations do so,

A good point, though those non-PMCs are governed by resolutions (such as the real-life Geneva Convention, which does not concern PMCs. I feel that this point overrules your second (2).

However, I still think we need to pay people in the military, because otherwise they will not be able to support themselves. I don't like war, but unfortunately we have not yet reached utopia so a paid force of soldiers will be nessercarry for the forseeable future.

Thankyou for your criticism.

yeah.... illegal wrong category, so dont bother to do a telegram campaign.....

also, this would be extremely difficult to accomplish... the US has almost as man 'contractors' as soldiers in iraq. now, i agree that PMCs are insane, because normal rules of war dont apply. to accomplish the same goal, try writing a proposal to define PMCs in a nations army, and rule that any personell paid by a government are part of their army and subject to the rules of war. that way they are effectively neutralized with that advantage. they arent cheaper than regular soldiers to gaurd diplomats of embassies, and ive never heard of rules of war being broken defending an embassy (wait..... what was that movie about a guy breaking the rules of war defending an embassy in yemen?).

sorry i kinda ramble here.

Sorry, I don't know what a TG campaign is. I'm no noob, but I don't have great experience with making UN resolutions.

It's okay. A TG campagin is basically TGing all the regional delegates that you got a proposal up for approval and asking for them to approve it. Here's a thread (http://z15.invisionfree.com/Reclamation/index.php?showtopic=61) that explains how it works. You usually need to do a campagin in order to get a proposal to quorom. (The forum's dead, as in nobody's there, but the topic is still good)

I put moral decency as, while using PMCs may be cheaper for a government I consider their use immoral as they often disregard human rights laws due to their immunity from criminal prosecution. I don't really see what this has to do with disarmament.

Well, I see it as disarmament because you are reducing the military, but I can see your point. It does, in a way, restrict a person's freedom to be a merc, after all.

Really? Well, my resolution concerns the 'outsourcing to PMCs' so I think that point is moot.

Okay.

A good point, though those non-PMCs are governed by resolutions (such as the real-life Geneva Convention, which does not concern PMCs. I feel that this point overrules your second (2).

Well, you have to realize that the NSUN has no Geneva Convention at all. It has laws about POWs...and against tortue and interrogation, but nothing at all.

Do realize that you can choose to pass a law stating a PMC has to follow the same laws as states do, in the NSUN (not in the real world). You don't have to, though, and I do see loopholes by which a PMC might establish themselves in a third country and avoid regulation, so a ban may be necessary.

If you need any help in drafting, just talk to me. Anyway, good luck.
---Dr. Bob

OOC: I've got some notes for a 'Regulation of Mercenaries' proposal, that would probably cover this point, somewhere: I'll take a look in my files later today, or early next week, and post them here in case they're any use to you.