2010 International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Publications: 2010 International Code Of Conduct For Private Security Service Providers
Comments Off on Publications: 2010 International Code Of Conduct For Private Security Service Providers
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Maritime Security: Anti-piracy Measures For Sale In Hamburg, Germany
A recent survey of 110 German shipping companies by PWC (formerly PriceWaterhouse Coopers) found that 12 used private security agencies in some capacity. Ruetten believes this is not nearly enough, and that too many companies rely on improvised defense measures like strapping mannequins to strategic positions on deck to make a ship look like it is being guarded.
I found this article over at Deutsche Welle. It gave a good run down of the German maritime security market and how they view PSC’s in the Gulf of Aden. The quote up top was really interesting, but as per usual, they have some folks here giving some very bad advice about the realities of the high seas.
Max Johns, spokesman for the Association of German Ship-owners is wrong on one of his points he brought up as well. The private security team he is referring to, was not armed and had no means of protecting themselves or the boat other than with the pathetic less than lethal crap they had. So his point that PSC’s are a bad idea because they are not dependable is wrong.
Unarmed PSC’s are a bad idea, and I am sure if these folks had a means to defend themselves and the crew, the outcome would have been far different. It is dorks like this spokesman who continue to promote this myth that less than lethal is an appropriate defense against pirates armed with RPG’s, PKM’s and AK 47’s. It is this same myth that creates this mindset that companies should just roll the dice, or pay the ransom if their vessel is taken. Meanwhile, every ransom paid just increases the size of the piracy problem. It is a simple equation–paying ransoms fuels piracy.
And those PSC companies that continue to tell shipping companies that being unarmed in those waters is a good idea, are equally to blame. It’s as if you are selling a company on the idea that you can magically protect them without using lethal force. Your strategies might work for some cases, but they will not cover the instances where a pirate force actually understands how to defeat your less than lethal measures (like using binoculars to tell if you have mannequins on the deck) and/or evasive maneuvers (ransom money allows investments in faster boats).
Just wait until pirates start coming aboard with cutting torches or shaped charges to open the doors of safe rooms or bridges/engineer rooms? Or when they start contracting captains and crews that know how to command these ships? The pirate is not dumb and they are learning and evolving as their industry is fueled by the profits gained by ransoms.
The point is, losing control of your ship is ‘losing control of your ship’. Having armed and competent security on a ship will at least give the crew and captain a fighting chance. Having a strong defense is also a crucial element in taking care of your people, which I would certainly hope a captain or the owner of a company would actually care about?
As for the German company IBS mentioned, I haven’t a clue as to who they are or what they are all about. If any of my German readers have anything to add, feel free to comment below. –Matt
Anti-piracy measures for sale in Hamburg
By Ben Knight
October 25, 2010
The hijacking of two ships over the weekend highlights the difficulties Western navies face combating piracy off the coast of Somalia. Many shipping lines are turning to private security firms for protection.
When it comes to global shipping, there is no avoiding the Gulf of Aden, which leads between the failed state of Somalia and Yemen – a nation security analysts describe as at-risk. These waters carry a significant share of the world’s wealth, including 11 percent of the world’s seaborne oil.
The 25,000 cargo ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden every year are tempting targets for heavily armed groups in Somalia, who claim overfishing by foreign vessels has robbed them of their livelihoods.
Earlier this year the International Maritime Bureau warned that attacks on merchant shipping are on the rise. European defense officials say Somali pirates are currently holding 20 ships and more than 400 crew for ransom off the Horn of Africa.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Industry Talk: UN Working Group Is Strangely Silent About The UN’s Use Of PSCs In Afghanistan
I wanted to do a quick criticism of the UNWG’s latest press release about US PSC’s in Afghanistan. Why would they criticize US oversight of PSC’s, and yet not take a critical look or even mention the UN’s use of PSC’s in Afghanistan?
UN experts call for stronger oversight of US private security contractors in Afghanistan and I would like to hear what the UN has as a means of accountability over a PSC like IDG Security? What if one of those guards committed a criminal act–what would the UN do with that individual? How about the vetting? Do they know that every guard is former Gurkha or has a clean background? How about the other contracted and sub-contracted companies the UN uses?
The other thing I was curious about is what happens to a contracted company the UN uses that violates their ‘code of conduct’ called the UN Global Compact? Do they prosecute the individuals in a UN tribunal, or do they just fire them and ‘hope’ that the home country is able to do something with them? Pfffft. Where’s the ‘teeth’, as they say?
It would seem to me that the UN is doing the exact same things as the US in terms of using PSC’s, but continues to only point fingers at others. I would classify that as ‘hypocritical’, don’t you think? By the way, if UNWG is curious at all, they should contact UN staff in Afghanistan and ask them about the ‘other’ companies they are using. Just so they can have all the information they need to make a report about the ‘UN’s use of PSC’s in war zones’.-Matt
————————————————————–
GENEVA (19 October 2010) – The UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries welcomed as “a step in the right direction” a recent report by the US Senate Committee on Armed Services into the role and oversight of US private security contractors in Afghanistan. “However, more should be done to address the problems raised in that inquiry,” said the Chairperson of the expert body, Alexander Nikitin. “In particular, there should be stronger oversight of US private security contractors in Afghanistan and elsewhere.”
“The findings of the US Senate report are consistent with those of the Working Group following its visit to Afghanistan* in April 2009,” said Mr. Nikitin, noting that the study shows the many problems raised by the absence of adequate oversight over the private military and security companies contracted by the US Government in Afghanistan.
“Because of the lack of effective vetting procedures, in particular, some of these companies employed individuals who may have been involved in human rights abuses in the past and continued to be involved in human rights violations while employed by these companies,” he said.
The Working Group noted during its visit to Afghanistan that former armed elements, whether considered to be warlords or anti-Government elements, were not effectively prevented from registering as employees of officially licensed private security companies.
Given the lack of systematic and effective vetting and training procedures, and the absence of adequate sanctions in case of violations, the UN expert body had recommended that Governments contracting private security companies in Afghanistan establish adequate oversight and accountability mechanisms.
Later that year, during the Group’s visit to the United States in July, it also recommended that the US Government establish a more vigorous vetting procedure before awarding contracts. “The problems faced in Afghanistan illustrate once again the importance of and the pressing need for a strong system of regulation and oversight of private military and security companies.” said Mr. Nikitin.
“The matters discussed in the US Senate report are too important to be left to self-regulation of companies,” the Group’s Chairperson stressed. “While voluntary codes of conduct for private contractors are welcome, they are not sufficient to ensure that States regulate and monitor the activities of the companies they contract to carry out State functions, and establish accountability mechanisms to address human rights violations.”
A draft text for a new convention on the regulation of private military and security companies was presented by the expert body to the Human Rights Council last month.The Council decided to establish an open-ended intergovernmental working group to consider the possibility of elaborating an international framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the activities of private military and security companies, taking into account the principles and provisions for a new legally binding instrument proposed by the Working Group on mercenaries.
“The self-regulatory codes of conduct of the security industry have failed in the past ten years to establish effective accountability,” said Mr. Nikitin. “In this regard, we hope that all States, including the United States where many private military and security companies are established, will seriously consider participating in the process initiated by the Human Rights Council aimed at setting up an international regulatory framework for private military and security companies.”
The 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 was established in 2005 by the Commission on Human Rights. It is composed of five independent experts serving in their personal capacities:, Mr. Alexander Nikitin (Chairperson-Rapporteur – Russian Federation), Ms. Amada Benavides de Pérez (Colombia), Mr. José Luis Gómez del Prado (Spain), Ms. Najat al-Hajjaji (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) and Ms. Faiza Patel (Pakistan).
Link to press release here.
——————————————————————
Participant Information
IDG Security Pte Ltd.
• Participant since 2008/03/06
• Status Active
• Country Singapore
• Organization Type SME
• Ownership Private Company
• Sector General Industrials
• Letter of Commitment UN_Global_compact_Feb_08.pdf
• Website http://www.idg-security.com
Next Communication on Progress
IDG Security Pte Ltd. is required to communicate on progress by 2011/03/06.
Link to UN Global Compact website here.
Comments Off on Industry Talk: UN Working Group Is Strangely Silent About The UN’s Use Of PSCs In Afghanistan
Monday, August 30, 2010
Industry Talk: PSC’s And Their Customers Make Contingency Plans In Afghanistan
Here are some of the commentaries being made by some of our coalition members and companies tasked with vital protection duties over in Afghanistan. There are four stories posted, with some commentary in one from Andy Bearpark of BAPSC and an interview that Doug Brooks of the IPOA did awhile back. Maybe we can collect some more commentary from some industry leaders, CEO’s, or even some customers? Until then, I will continue to fill the information void as best as I can. –Matt
Edit: 09/01/2010 – It looks like Blue Hackle’s license has just been revoked. Check it out here.
UK private security fears in Afghanistan
Garda scrabbles to stay in Afghanistan
Canadian Forces to review nine private security contracts on Afghan ban
Karzai’s Call to Expel Contractors Poses Big Logistical Hurdles
—————————————————————–
UK private security fears in Afghanistan
By Peter Jackson
17 August 2010
Private security guards are widely used to guard compounds and convoys
As UK private security contractors are given four months to stand down in Afghanistan, security experts have warned the consequences could be dire.
President Hamid Karzai’s decision to scrap the extensive private security industry operating in his country will come as no real surprise.
He vowed to curb its operations when he was sworn in as president last year, and has made no secret of the fact that he considers it a major source of instability.
But ask the British elements of the industry what effect the move may have, and warnings are quickly sounded.
They say commercial reconstruction projects would be at risk of delay – and workers of attack – as the exodus leaves them dangerously exposed.
Afghan police are simply not up to scratch when it comes to guarding foreign staff, they argue, and that could leave embassies and Nato supply convoys and bases vulnerable.
Comments Off on Industry Talk: PSC’s And Their Customers Make Contingency Plans In Afghanistan
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Afghanistan: The PSC’s Connected To Karzai’s Family And Close Associates
Government leaders are closely linked to ownership of some of the major Afghan-owned security companies, an investigation by The Killid Group has revealed.
President Hamed Karzai has openly accused the companies of thefts, murders, kidnappings and cooperating with the enemy.
The investigation indicates that over 5,000 armed men have been working with security groups belonging to the president’s family members or people close to him.
*****
This was a great post and I wanted to share this with ‘all my friends’. (Please feel free to pass this around) So if Crazy Karzai wants to ban PSC’s, then that would mean he…. would….. have…. to…… screw over at least 5,000 contractors of PSC’s that are personally connected to the family or friends. Or will his decree only apply to companies that are not connected to the family or friends? lol –Matt
——————————————————————
Top Leaders Tied to Security Companies
by Malyar Sadeq Azad
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Government leaders are closely linked to ownership of some of the major Afghan-owned security companies, an investigation by The Killid Group has revealed.
President Hamed Karzai has openly accused the companies of thefts, murders, kidnappings and cooperating with the enemy.
The investigation indicates that over 5,000 armed men have been working with security groups belonging to the president’s family members or people close to him.
We also learned that some members of the Northern Alliance, who initially started security companies, have moved into the logistics business – they pay security companies smaller sums to guard their convoys. Interviews with senior officials of six of the biggest companies confirm that the companies belong to such power-brokers.
President Karzai’s statements, we discovered, have had an impact on them – creating a rift between the owners. Some have stepped back and seemingly will end their activities; others have scoffed at the president’s remarks and believe he will be unable to shut down the firms.
Companies connected to President Karzai’s family and close associates
ASIA SECURITY GROUP
This company has belonged to the president’s cousin, Hashmat Karzai, son of Khalil Khan Karzai. Both brothers – Hashmat and Hekmat – are close to President Karzai.
Asia Security Group (ASG), based in Sherpur, Kabul, operates with hundreds of guards, and sources in the security business say it has contracts to escort the coalition forces’ supply convoys to the south.
Comments Off on Afghanistan: The PSC’s Connected To Karzai’s Family And Close Associates