Xe, the US-based security firm formerly known as Blackwater, is under investigation by the US justice department, for trying to bribe Iraqi officials.
According to the New York Times, the attempted pay-offs were made in hope of securing contracts after a deadly shooting in 2007, which eventually led to the companys expulsion.
The US justice departments fraud section opened the inquiry late last year to determine whether Blackwater employees violated a federal law banning US corporations from paying bribes to foreign officials.The allegation is the latest fallout since the 2007 shooting in Baghdads Nisour Square, which involved Backwater security guards and left 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians dead.
via Al Jazeera English – Americas – Blackwater faces Iraq bribery probe.
The heat is really on Blackwater at the moment with the US justice department appealing a verdict that acquitted Blackwater soldiers accused of killing 17 unarmed Iraqi’s.
There is also a valid wider discussion about the ethics of private armies where profit is the main aim of their involvement. The investigation into bribery taking place to secure contracts is one outworking of that drive for profit.
Small scale security firms are one thing, large scale firms used to engage in war is another. Some have argued for the necessity of their inclusion in order to quickly bring violent situations where civilians are severely endangered, under control since national forces take longer to mobilize and may not have the capacity to combat opposing forces and where UN peace keepers are also hindered by politics.
It’s a tricky discussion.
Related posts:
“Small scale security firms are one thing, large scale firms used to engage in war is another”
This is an interesting point. Situations like this, recent economic events and the increasing influence of corporations (especially multinational ones) raise the question of what role businesses should be allowed to have.
IMHO there are two issues here. The first is the economic, political and legal framework that sets out profit as an explicit, unrivalled goal. The second is how we react to it.
It’s far easier to get up and arms about the first (as arguments about whether businesses should be able to be ‘too big to fail’ indicate) but it’s also harder to make any traction in such a vast environment with such deeply entrenched rules (as the lack of any real change resulting from said arguments indicates).
Perhaps as Christians (or even compassionate humanitarians) we should be focusing on the second issue. Do our actions demonstrate approval for or otherwise support the current system? Are we indirectly buying into a world-view that has economic growth as its ultimate goal, bearing in mind it is boosted by weapons manufacturing, crime, sickness, violence, divorce, crime, third world debt, and prescription drug use? Does our lifestyle reflect that capitalism as it currently stands rewards complete indifference towards suffering and pain? What are we doing to set ourselves apart?
I love it, Jono. That’s a great comment with great questions that carry an implicit challenge!