This one is a hard read, just because it is filled with bias against this industry. lol But if you can look beyond that junk and check out some of the details in the back of paper, they list some interesting stuff. Especially what companies the UN has used and currently uses, and how much money all of the UN programs have been spending on private security. Each year, it has been going up.
Now I agree with the authors that the UN should do everything in it’s power to hire quality companies that are vetted, and that these companies have appropriate rules and regulations guiding their use of force and whatnot. All of that is very important.
But I disagree with the authors view that companies are questionable in their ability to ‘help the U.N. promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights’. Especially when some of the military units that the UN has used has only hurt their image and their ability to promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights. It is disgraceful how poorly some of the military units that the UN has used in the past have acted–or not acted.
Either way, I believe private industry can and will do a far more superior job for the UN, and the UN will continue to contract the services of these companies. The amount of money they have spent on security has only increased from year to year, and the world is not getting any more safer. The UN does have a duty to responsibly contract these services–and god forbid, learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others. lol It is all about actually caring about getting a good value for the money given to them by donor nations, and exercising their right as the client to actually fire bad companies. Pure principal-agent problem stuff here.
Also, I think as ISO standards come onto the scene, this will only help the UN in determining qualified vendors. We have had 10 plus years of war time contracting, and these companies are pretty experienced in providing a service in poor and unstable environments throughout the world. These companies are willing and able to enter into these risky jobs and that says a lot as well. I think the UN would be dumb to not tap into this resource, and especially as money becomes tighter and the world continues to have conflict. –Matt
Dangerous Partnership – Private Military and Security Companies and the UN
( GPF Policy Papers, Articles and Statements )
GPF’s report on the use of Private Military and Security Companies by the United Nations is out! This investigative report reveals that the UN has dramatically increased its use of these companies in recent years, hiring them for a wide array of “security services” and giving them considerable influence over its security policies. It also reveals that the UN has no process to vet these companies and that UN leadership has been closing its eyes to company misconduct for more than twenty years. GPF calls on the UN to reform this out-of-control system and to critically examine whether these companies really make the UN safer, or whether they might achieve the opposite effect. You can read the executive summary and the full report.—————————————————————
UN criticized for using private security companies
July 11, 2012
By EDITH M. LEDERER
A non-profit organization that monitors the United Nations published a report Tuesday criticizing the U.N.’s growing use of private military and security companies.
The Global Policy Forum said the U.N.’s increasing use of these companies is “dangerous,” may increase rather than reduce threats and attacks on U.N. buildings and personnel, and suggests a system that is “unaccountable and out of control.”
According to the report, incomplete U.N. data shows a steady rise in the number of security contracts from 2006-2007, with the value increasing from $44 million in 2009 to $76 million in 2010, the latest data available.
The majority of contracts in 2010 – $30 million worth – were for activities by the U.N. Development Program followed by $18.5 million for U.N. peacekeeping operations and $12.2 million for U.N. refugee activities, it said.
The report said the overall value of contracts is likely to be considerably higher because data from some U.N. bodies, like the U.N. children’s agency UNICEF, is not included or incomplete.
U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said the United Nations believes it is appropriate to use armed private security contractors if the organization ensures “due diligence” in its operations.
“U.N. contracting policies have improved and we need to continue to improve them,” he said. “The distinct differences in the ways that private security contractors go about their work also must be borne in mind.”
Nesirky said the U.N. has been working on a system-wide policy for the use of armed private security companies and a draft policy was approved by security chiefs from all U.N. bodies at a meeting last month. It must still be approved by the U.N. system, he said.
The draft policy includes a process for assessing potential contractors and states that “such companies may only be used in circumstances where the provision of armed security by the host country, another member state, or United Nations resources are not possible or appropriate,” Nesirky said.
It also “emphasizes the need for strict protocols concerning the use of force,” outlines U.N. management and oversight responsibilities, and sets guidelines for U.N. personnel on when to use contractors, he said.
According to the report, “in the absence of guidelines and clear responsibility for security outsourcing, the U.N. has hired companies well-known for their misconduct, violence and financial irregularities – and hired them repeatedly.”
Lou Pingeot, the report’s author, told a news conference that while these companies have been criticized for their roles in Bosnia, the U.S. government’s rendition program, Afghanistan, Congo and Somalia she knew of no abuses in their work for the U.N.
She urged greater scrutiny of their work on the ground and called on the 193 U.N. member states to demand greater transparency on the number of contractors, their work and their effectiveness.
The report said the U.N. insists most companies are used for unarmed security services, but it said contractors are increasingly being used for risk assessment, security training and logistical support.
This effectively allows the companies to define the U.N.’s security strategy “and even its broader posture and reputation,” the report said.
It also called for a U.N. reassessment of its partnership with military and security companies to assess whose interests the contractors serve and whether they help the U.N. promote democracy, the rule of law and human rights.
Story here.