Feral Jundi

The convention does not want to eliminate the use of private companies at all…. -Shaista Shameem

Over a decade ago, Kofi Annan concluded that the world wasn’t ready for privatized peacekeeping. It’s still not. But that shouldn’t mean that we are oblivious to the very important role that many private military and security companies are playing at what I would call the second rank level, freeing up national troops to play key frontline roles. We see these kinds of companies, for example, providing security analysis and training, local private security companies are often key in providing site security and in some cases, convoy support services, and humanitarians operating under a UN security umbrella come into contact with these kinds of companies in a wide variety of theaters and playing a wide variety of functions. -James Cockayne 

     Ok, here is a quick run down of this policy forum, book promotion and gathering of some really smart folks.  The general idea that I am getting from this group is that PSC’s and PMC’s are a fact of life, and it is on the various countries that use them to back up some kind of way to regulate them, all with the idea that accountability should be built into the whole process to prevent human rights violations.  The UNWG (UN Working Group) along with other groups (IPOA, PASA, BAPSC, etc.) have been working hard on some kind of a standard that companies and countries can adhere to, how to regulate it and also exploring what these security contractors should do and not do out there.

    For the most part, the folks on this panel think it is just fine that PMC’s and PSC’s should do defensive tasks, like convoy protection, PSD or static security (note the quotes up top).  It’s just anything in the realm of offensive actions is what they are against and very wary of.

   Also, the Montreux Document (MD) is becoming quite the popular document throughout the world, and it is looking like the MD will be the standard to implement for any kind of regulatory commission.  So that is good–everyone agrees that the MD is something to rally around. I agree too.

   The problems that everyone is bumping into are how do you regulate the companies once we have standards in place?  Who will regulate it, and how do you provide teeth to that regulation?  And that is what the Beyond Market Forces book explores. I have yet to come to any conclusions on how that is to be done, and I would love to hear some ideas from the readers for that.  This book will be a great resource to help in that process.

   Further along with the discussion, the two points that piqued my interest was the mention of Executive Outcomes, and of protecting FOBs in Afghanistan with security contractors.

   For EO, they pretty much used that company as an example of how PSC’s and PMC’s used to be viewed, and how there is a more logical and rational conversation taking place now about the possible uses of companies in conflicts and peacekeeping.

     I will let Eeben be the judge if he is offended or not by any mention of his company by this group. I know he is pretty skeptical of anything they have had to say in regards to EO, and I don’t blame him. I noticed that Sierra Leone was mentioned, but nothing was mentioned of the success of EO there.  Or nothing about the conversation between the UN and EO during the Rawandan Genocide crisis.  I think that is the kind of questioning that I would have liked to have heard at this meeting.  Or even something about Responsibility to Protect, and what involvement PMC’s and PSC’s could and should have in the implementation of R2P?

    Now on to the ‘contracting security for FOB’s in Afghanistan’ conversation.  The whole point there was to identify somehow that defensive security on a FOB in Afghanistan would be a bridge to far for companies.  Really?  Obviously this group has not done it’s homework for some of the key historic defenses of facilities by contractors in Iraq?  Places like Najaf, with Blackwater guards on the rooftop of their facility, holding off and killing hundreds of Mahdi militiamen, come to mind as an example of such defensive activity.  Or the thousands of defensive actions of protecting a PSD or Convoy detail, when ambushed in Iraq or Afghanistan?  Does a company use harsh language to protect self or others, or do they actually get to fire their weapons to survive such a thing?

     My point is, is that contractors have been operating in this capacity for awhile now, and they have certainly saved lives and property because of their extreme violence of action.  Why is this somehow ‘illegitimate’ when it gets to that point, is beyond me.  Rubber bullets do not stop RPG’s.  Flares do not stop bullets.  Intimidation does not stop a committed enemy that wants to kill you.  It takes violence, to deal with violence, and to advocate anything less than that would hamstring a defenders ability to defend.  So to me, this position is idiotic and extremely irresponsible.

    You cannot have it both ways in my book.  If you are going to sign off on the idea that PMC’s and PSC’s are a good idea for defending people and property in war zones, then you need to go all the way with that support.  You cannot just say, ‘we support your defensive actions, all the way up until you make contact with the enemy’.  In other words, this group needs to profoundly state that contractors are legitimate throughout the entire scope of the defense. And during the defense, sometimes things are not pretty and perfect.

     To defend yourself in a war zone often requires killing someone in order to survive or protect a principle.  Hell, there might even be an accident, and civilians might be killed or hurt in that process.  The enemy might even set it up so that civilians could be killed during an attack on contractors, just so they can create a Nisour Square propaganda type campaign.  Either way, the group has to keep in mind the realities of war zone protection services, and build into the regulation of such a thing, mechanisms that recognize these complexities.

    So that is where I took issue with the conversation here, and obviously this group has not taken the time to bring in folks that have actually lived and breathed these kinds of contracts out there. It is called ‘shared reality’ folks, and ‘people will support what they help to create’. You bring in some meat eaters that have actually been out there in the war, and they will help you to develop a product that everyone could support.

     In defense of Doug Brooks, he did bring in some shared reality and tried to correct some of the misperceptions, but it would have been better to actually have some basic security contractors who have worked a few gigs in the war, and put them in the audience or on the panel.  Or how about some video conferencing, and bring in guys like Eeben or Jake or Tim into the fold and have a really comprehensive discussion about such things? Advertise with the forums and various associations, and reach out to those that will be most impacted by these regulations– the security contractor.  I could point you guys to several forums and Facebook groups that are extremely active.

   Finally, and for a really interesting tidbit that one of the panelists mentioned. Shaista Shameem mentioned a positive side of security companies in Afghanistan.  That a market for security, has created the formation of companies as opposed to warlords creating militias.  And by creating this market in Afghanistan, the government of Afghanistan has an opportunity of reeling in these warlords turned business owners.  In other words, if a company wants to do business as a security provider for government contracts, they must answer to the government in some way, shape, or form.

     That gives the government more control over groups that were once only managed and controlled by warlords.  And if the Afghan government was signed on to the Montreaux Document or to some kind of international regulatory body that monitors the actions of PSC’s and PMC’s, and there was some way to hold Afghanistan and the companies accountable, then that is a far better position to be in for preventing human rights violations in the war.

    Most importantly, it is a mechanism to which the state could have more control or even a monopoly on the application of the use of force, by having a international system that backs them up in monitoring and regulating these companies in their country.  How to get them on board though is the tricky part, and that is a big part of this book as well.

   This takes us back to the teeth of regulation and who will provide it?  Would all countries accept the powers of that regulatory body?  That to me is the 60,000 dollar question.  This book called Beyond Market Forces gives some ideas on what direction to go with that, and I really hope we come to a consensus as to what to go with.  Somewhere out there is the best model, or models of operation, and we have to ‘build that snowmobile’ to get it done.

    The pay off of such a thing, is that the industry could actually say ‘look, we are regulated, there is an enforcement system in place, and we are an honorable and respectable service industry that abides by a standard agreed to by all’.  Once we get to that level, then we have achieved a great step towards being a legitimate industry. An industry that could be a place of consistent and honorable employment for professional security contractors throughout the world, and an industry that can stand to protect and save many lives throughout the world.  (God forbid if the world actually got to a point of respecting this industry) We will get there, just as long as we continue to apply Kaizen, customer service and satisfaction, and outstanding leadership at all levels. (pure Jundism baby)

   Also, let me clarify another position of mine in regards to this industry.  I do not like war, and to me, it is a disgusting and energy wasting activity. Nor do I advocate creating war just for the sake of employment of security contractors or stimulating the defense industry.  But I do recognize that war will not go away any time soon, that there is a need for protective services in these war zones, and that there are those of us willing to offer those services for a price.  We are sheep dogs, in the words of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, and there are many sheep dogs out there, willing to step up and make a difference in these war zones. The motive is not evil, nor is it unethical, it is just guys who have the desire, the skill and experience, to protect the things worth protecting in really bad places.

    Oh, and you get what you pay for–if you want the best, you have to pay for the best, and that is the way the world works.  For those who think otherwise, just replace security contractor with doctor.  Do you want your life in the hands of the cheapest doctor, or the most competent doctor whose services are expensive because they are in such high demand?  How much is your care worth, and better yet, how much is your life worth in a war zone?  Something to think about, next time a discussion about how much security contractors cost comes up.

    To me, security contractors are a necessity, much like soldiers or police are a necessity.  I firmly believe that security contractors can fill in the gaps that soldiers or police are unable to fill, do to whatever reason or emergency. We have seen examples in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even in the US with Hurricane Katrina.  If there is a manpower shortage, and security is essential, then security contractors are the resource to turn to.

   What is really cool is that the conversation here is actually leaning towards a meaningful discussion about what we can or cannot do, and not towards some irrational discussion that all PSC’s and PMC’s are bad and should not be used.  So with that said, us sheep dogs are protecting our flocks, while patiently waiting and watching this process with cautious optimism.  –Matt

—————————————————————–

Beyond Market Forces: Regulating Private Military and Security Companies

Tuesday, July 28

Trygve Lie Center for Peace, Security & Development

International Peace Institute

 

777 United Nations Plaza, 12th Floor (corner of 44th St and 1st

Avenue)

WARREN HOGE: Good afternoon. I am Warren Hoge, the Vice

President and Director of External Relations at IPI, and I

want to welcome you to this policy forum on “Regulating Private Military and Security Companies”.

These companies never seem to be far from the headlines.

Many of you would have seen in recent weeks the controversy

over the question of whether the United States Congress should bar contractors from taking part in interrogations. Some

of them, like Blackwater, have prompted public reproach

for their alleged involvement in human rights abuses and

violations of international humanitarian law around the world.

But with many governments and private clients overstretched,

private military and security companies are also an

increasingly frequent sight, protecting diplomats and

humanitarians and even occasionally providing support services to

the United Nations and other international organizations.

The question that arises is a simple one. How can and should the conduct of these companies be governed? Should we rely on states to control them, given that they often operate in places where governmental capacity is weak? Or should we rely  on market forces?

It is our distinct pleasure today to welcome in the audience a

number of senior diplomats as well as representatives from the United Nations, academia, and civil society to discuss the

important question of how these companies might best be

regulated. We are also very pleased to welcome the members of – and let me take a deep breath here – the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on the Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise

of the Right of Peoples to Self-determination, hereafter

referred to simply as the ‘Working Group’.

Our panelists today include the current

Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group, Ms. Shaista

Shameem, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Fiji. She served as the Director and later Chairperson of the

Fiji Human Rights Commission over a 10-year period until this past April. She will be joined on the panel by

Ambassador Peter Maurer of Switzerland, well known to many

of you, and a member of IPI’s Advisory Council. The

final speaker will be IPI’s Senior Associate, James

Cockayne, who is the lead author of a new IPI

2 volume Beyond Market Forces: Regulating the Global

Security Industry, which we are launching today and which you

will find copies of on the credenzas on the side.

James has advised me that we don’t have quite as many copies as we have guests, but the entire thing is downloadable from our website www.ipinst.org.

All three of our speakers bring substantial expertise to this

difficult and controversial topic. As Ambassador Maurer will

explain in more detail, the Swiss government has been at the

forefront of efforts in the last four or five years to

ensure the application of existing principles of humanitarian and human rights law to the activities of private

military and security companies. Working with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss government led a process of consultation over the last few years that resulted in the adoption last September of the Montreux Document by

17 states. Among them, the United States, Great Britain,

Iraq, Afghanistan, China, France, South Africa, and Sierra Leone.

Copies of the Montreux Document are on your chair.

The Working Group that Ms. Shameem chairs has a mandate from the

United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva to consider this

very question of how these companies might best be regulated,

particularly at the international level. As Ms. Shameem will

explain in more detail, the Working Group is currently developing

a draft international convention on this topic.

And finally, our own James Cockayne has played an

important role in encouraging policy development on these

issues over recent years. James was one of two NGO

advisers working with the Swiss government since 2006 to develop

the Montreux Document, and today, we launch this major research

study he has led here over the last year. It includes 30 case

studies of efforts to regulate other global industries and draws

lessons for the regulation of this industry. I would encourage

you to have a quick look at the back jacket where you

will find some remarkable testimonials to the book’s value.

We are looking forward to a fruitful exchange on this timely

matter, which by the way, is on the record, and I would like to

ask in Mr. Peter Maurer to lead off the discussion followed by

Shaista Shameem and then James. Peter?

Read the Rest of the Transcript and download book here.