Erik Prince, the founder of the private military company Blackwater, has suggested to US President Donald Trump that the US reintroduce “letters of marque” – official government permits for private individuals to conduct military or pirate operations against designated enemies. What does this mean and what consequences could this initiative have?
Erik Prince is pursuing his own interests. Rumors suggest he was seeking over $100 million to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Today, Prince is linking the reintroduction of letters of marque to the fight against drug cartels in South America and Mexico, a priority of the Trump administration. And Prince is offering himself and his company as the main instrument in the fight against the cartels – after all, a large contract is at stake. Prince even claims that the drug cartels have nearly unlimited financial resources, making them superior to security forces in Mexico and Colombia in terms of organization and armament.
This sounds logical. On a broader scale, however, Prince’s proposal could have far-reaching consequences, not just for the United States.
In Europe, letters of marque were issued since the Middle Ages. In nearly all European countries, it was common to “hire” private pirates – a practice that peaked as European powers began exploring the Americas and competing for colonial goods and resources. Moreover, piracy was considered a honorable profession. Acquiring a letter of marque made a “common” pirate a “man of the crown” with the prospect of later legalization. For example, the career of Francis Drake developed in this way.
Legally, a letter of marque gave a privateer the right to attack and capture enemy ships and the Admiralty Court would decide on the distribution of spoils in favor of the privateer. Furthermore, letters of marque were often not only valid during officially declared war. In contrast, piracy “without a license” was unwanted. The main difference lay in the fact that privateers only targeted specific enemies, while “common” pirates frequently attacked ships and cities of countries whose subjects they were.
As technology developed and the sailing fleet declined, this practice also came to an end. It is believed that the privateering practice was officially abolished in the mid-19th century. In 1941, the US briefly reinstated the practice of issuing letters of marque for amateur defense of the American coast against Japanese U-boats, known as the “Hooligan Fleet” – dozens of yachts and fishing boats patrolled the ocean. Ernest Hemingway even participated, arming his 12-meter yacht Pilar with a machine gun and depth charges. Although he didn’t capture anyone, he got material for his novel “Islands in the Stream”.
Now, Prince’s proposal, driven by his personal interests, raises several contradictions. Firstly, it challenges the principle of the state’s monopoly on the use of force. Although the state issues the letter of marque, it also disclaims responsibility, effectively sharing its powers with a private individual. Many lawyers will see this as a violation of the foundations of state law.
Secondly, private military companies were created to avoid direct association with the state: “Yes, those are our pirates and everyone knows they are our pirates, but legally, it’s a private service.” If the state wanted to intervene militarily, it would do so directly, rather than relying on private military companies. In fact, many modern private military companies are not connected to the state, but operate solely on private contracts. For example, Romanian private military companies in Central Africa and the Congo are not representing Romania’s interests (since there are no such interests there), but are contracted by the Congolese government. The same applies to small private military companies offering VIP protection or escort services for ships in dangerous waters, as well as French private military companies protecting multinational corporations and guarding rare earth mines.
Erik Prince, on the other hand, suggests outsourcing state tasks to private military companies. According to him, this would be more effective than occupying Mexico and Colombia. Legally, a private military company could wage an undeclared war against the cartels on their territory. However, the Latin American governments will likely be unenthusiastic about hundreds of armed Americans roaming their states and shooting at anyone. Moreover, the letter of marque is a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing the private military company to ignore local laws without fearing negative consequences.
In the end, such practices will lead to the uncontrolled spread of private military companies, which assume they have been granted far-reaching powers. In the past, large private or corporate armies only appeared in science fiction novels about the distant future, but today, such extraordinary legal decisions could shake the entire international legal system – not to mention the lobbying that would follow.
Everything begins with small actions. The fight against drug cartels is a good cause. However, if Erik Prince gets involved, it will become a massacre. But the real problem is that a single action like the issuance of a letter of marque will create a legal precedent that could spread to other conflict zones or US interests abroad, which under Trump’s leadership already extend across the globe.