Shambles and disarray, without defence?

Discussions about private military companies are crucial to find a middle ground. With differing viewpoints and unrealistic expectations can the SDD truly address the greater issue?

Editorial board (The Jakarta Post) 

SDD 

● Tues, June 17, 2025

Private Military Corporation . (Fair Observer)

Allegedly, it is hard to agree in the Special Defense Dialogue (SDD), where rivalries and alliances are as easily forged as they are broken; it takes the esteemed ministers something else not to come to consensus on the definition of ‘terrorism’. 

Yet, there was a unanimous agreement on the abolition of Private Military Companies (PMCs). Mystifyingly, even countries like the US and UK.(other than Russia) expressed their support on the matter, despite being the world’s largest employers of PMCs. Does this decision mark the milestone of the day these superpowers stop relying on PMCs? 

The use of PMCs are diverse; used by corporations for provision of security (common in ASEAN), used by governments to specialise training for the military and to project their influence abroad. 

The distinctive aspect of PMCs is that they offer a way for operation beyond borders, without the diplomatic entanglements associated with deploying traditional armed forces. 

Within ASEAN, private and state-funded PMCs are a source of contention. There have been mixed reactions, with some countries readily accepting such troops, while others meet PMCs with skepticism and distrust. 

Currently, the military junta in Myanmar have been working with China on the utilisation of Chinese PMCs through establishing a joint security company to protect Chinese projects and personnel for the protection of the Myanmar-China Economic Corridor. With Chinese projects having been attacked by opposition forces, threatening Chinese nationals working at these plants.  

Yet, why are PMCs, the mode of “protection” of economic projects, so critically looked upon in the SDD? Some argue that there is little to prevent governmental influence within these corporations, increasing the fear of interference and sluggish corrosion of sovereignty (in the case of Myanmar and China).

The recent bomb blast in Stanovoy has caused increased discussion of the negative effects of PMCs. Preliminary investigations attributed attacks that led to the death of 40 Russian civilians to a Chinese-based PMC, ‘Frontier Services Group (FSG)’. This was understandably met with cries of outrage in Moscow. When brought up to the council, this event led to the agreement of the detrimental impacts of PMCs, stating a lack of regulation and borderline terrorism of PMC groups. 

This corresponds with the perception of PMCs in ASEAN countries such as Malaysia. There, PMCs are seen as “mercenary”. While they do not quite fit into the international political definition of mercenaries due to their status as “just companies”, Malaysia has been shown to urge for the label of “Terrorists” on these PMCs to be placed on them. 

On the other hand, Singapore calls for more legal frameworks and regulations on PMCs , using themselves as an example of strict PMC regulation. Unfortunately, Indonesia is an example where weak governance of PMCs has shown to be an important issue needed to be addressed,  with PMCs falling under administrative orders by Indonesia's police forces, instead of through governmental policies, resulting in a lack of oversight by the government.

The council showed a strong focus on regulation, with many discussions centered on approving what consists of terrorism and too much governmental influence. These discussions could help the council with development of frameworks and regulatory laws for PMCs later on. Further noted, while not yet at a consensus, overall agreement on what defines terrorism and over influence could help with quell usage of PMCs in the context of proxy-wars, Another prominent issue in the SDD. 

To be frank, the situation yesterday was dire, with overgeneralisations and hyperfixations. The moment of silence for Russia’s bomb blast victims was appalling (having been met with applause from a minister). The explosive disagreements between ministers of the same country. Is this what our politicians have come to? 

Nevertheless, two purported Draft Multilateral Agreements have been proposed and are waiting to be voted on. Indonesia only hopes for the council to agree on one thing; the continued future of people caught in the crossfire.