Feral Jundi

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Lebanon: Turmoil No Clear-cut Gain For Security Firms…Yet

A loser is someone is someone — individual or group — who cannot build snowmobiles when facing uncertainty and unpredictable change;
Whereas,
A winner is someone — individual or group — who can build snowmobiles, and employ them in an appropriate fashion, when facing uncertainty and unpredictable change.-Col. John Boyd

There are a couple of factors going on in Lebanon that are driving the security market there. One is the situation in Syria and the other is a massive gas field off of the coast.

With Syria, you see a lot of spill over across the borders that include refugees or combatants. As Syria continues to fall and morph into a massive jihadist playground, it’s neighbors will suffer. This surge of militant fighters streaming into Syria all have agendas and all are looking to cause chaos amongst their various enemies in the region. Sunni versus Shia, devout islamists versus infidels, etc..  Lebanon, will be impacted, and security in all of it’s forms is what the people will demand and seek if the state cannot provide it. Here is a quote about this reality.

The A to Z Group, a security company offering guard services and cash transfer protection to corporate clients and Lebanese public institutions, hired an additional 100 people about six months ago to meet demand, bringing its total staff to 250 people, General Manager George Ghorayeb told The Daily Star.
“We cover all of Lebanon and I’ve noticed that clients everywhere are afraid of the situation. The biggest demand is for residential and corporate guards,” he said. “There has been a big increase in buildings requesting services because they are scared.”
Elie Georgiou, the executive manager of PRO.SEC, a Lebanese firm that employs 800 people and offers physical security and close protection services, said business remained stable between 2012 and 2013, but there had been an increase in job seekers.

As for energy, the Levant Basin gas fields and rush of Cyprus and Israel to get in there and tap into it, is causing Lebanon to rethink it’s views on those fields. It wants in on that gold rush. (article posted below)

Competing claims by Israel and Lebanon to about 215,000 acres of potentially mineral-rich maritime territory and increasing instability caused by the Syrian civil war could also complicate the effort.
Lebanon began to tap its onshore oil resources in the 1960s, but the long civil war stopped all development. While the government has known about the resources lying off the Mediterranean coast for decades, the focus did not shift there until 2000. Political infighting, a major war with Israel and long stretches without a government have hampered decision-making since then.
Officials swung into action only recently, after Israel and Cyprus began developing their natural gas reserves in earnest. The Petroleum Administration, responsible for negotiating oil and gas contracts, was supposed to be appointed early last year, but squabbling over representation for the country’s different religious sects delayed the process by months. Ultimately, the six seats were given to men from each of Lebanon’s six largest religious groups.

So with that said, if Lebanon wants to do business with those companies that can extract this resource, it will have to get it’s house in order politically, and provide for the security needs of these companies. Enter the PMSC’s.

The first article I posted below delves into the potential for private security and gives a glimpse into the market of force in Lebanon and here is a quote that grabbed my interest.

This might be poised to change since many of the international firms that thrived off Western military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan are diversifying operations and looking to new markets, Olver of Kroll said.
“The security industry in general is in crisis, so a lot of international companies are looking for the next big thing or to diversify into the next little five or six things,” Olver said. “A lot of the international oil and gas companies have set up one-man offices in Lebanon since the oil and gas tender round is about to start and a lot of security guys are looking to that sector. They see that the oil companies they already service in Libya are looking at Lebanon, so a lot of them have positioned themselves to be able to provide services in Lebanon.”

Interesting stuff and we will see how it goes?  Although the question remains, is turmoil good or bad for the security industry there?

I would say that security contracts pre-Arab Spring were of one type and quantity, but now that the market has changed, that security companies are probably having to adapt to the ‘new’ security requirements that have materialized as an outcome of the Arab Spring. Those companies that can evolve and innovate to meet those new security requirements will stand to survive the changing market.  Adapt/evolve/innovate–or die. Or how Boyd would put it, winners are those that can ‘build snowmobiles’. –Matt

 

 

Turmoil no clear-cut gain for security firms
August 19, 2013
By Lysandra Ohrstrom
As outbreaks of violence across the country become increasingly routine, one would expect Lebanon’s private security companies to thrive. But the global trends that have reshaped the international private security industry over the past few years and heightened risk aversion on the part of governments and corporations have complicated what would otherwise be a straightforward economic success story. Michael Olver, the director of Kroll’s Middle East business intelligence unit, said Lebanese firms were likely to see sustained or increasing demand for services from their existing stalwart clients like embassies, which typically boost their spending on security when the situation deteriorates in order to maintain operations.
At the same time, they will probably see a reduction in the number of multinational corporate clients, he said.
“Large international private sector firms are already evaluating the risk-return balance for having large offices in Lebanon and are going to be re-evaluating the need for a continued large-scale presence,” he told the Daily Star.
Kroll, which provides personal protection to high-level executive clients visiting Lebanon in addition to its business advisory and fraud investigation services, has already seen GCC nationals scale back travel to the country due the bans many Gulf countries have imposed.

(more…)

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Industry Talk: Security Firms Threaten To Leave Afghanistan If Karzai Violates Tax Exemption

Now wouldn’t that be funny?  Every security company just packs up and leaves?….wow. But honestly, it is not funny because what Karzai is doing is having a severe impact on the quality and stability of security services in Afghanistan. If the coalition values those services, it would behoove them to apply the necessary pressure on greedy Karzai to end this ridiculous taxation plan.

The other concern here is that if Afghanistan plays this game of imposing taxes on companies providing services to diplomats and such, what about security companies operating elsewhere in the world providing such services?  Tax exemption for companies providing services to the US government has been a staple of foreign relations throughout the world. To standby and allow Afghanistan to tax these companies like this, sets a horrible precedence that will surely impact operations elsewhere in the world. If you lose this fight, the costs of doing business will skyrocket and contracts will have to be re-adjusted to deal with this new reality.

This is a fight worth fighting, and Karzai needs to be put in his place. Perhaps taxing his consulates overseas, or freezing some Karzai family assets in overseas accounts would be one way to send a message that this is uncool? If greed is what fuels him, then greed is his weakness. –Matt

Security Firms Threaten to Leave Afghanistan
APRIL 6, 2011
By MARIA ABI-HABIB
KABUL—Some private security companies guarding diplomatic and aid missions and critical infrastructure facilities in Afghanistan are threatening to withdraw from the country if President Hamid Karzai’s government follows through on its plans to impose on them hundreds of millions of dollars in back taxes.
Many of the more than 30 security companies targeted by the Afghan tax authorities say they are supposed to be tax-exempt because they support diplomatic missions, such as the large U.S. Embassy in Kabul.
Executives at these companies say Western diplomats are encouraging them to hold off on paying the taxes so as not to set a precedent for U.S. and European diplomatic missions around the world. (more…)

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Iraq: Oil News–Local Security Firms Running A ‘Mafia’ To Artificially Inflate Prices

     This is a great little article that gives a snap shot of the current oil security business in Iraq. It also mentions the Chinese security teams operating there and some of the issues they have faced. For a quick primer on this, I posted some stuff about China’s plans in Iraq.

     Basra is also really bad for this kind of thing. It is to be expected that these Iraqi companies would try to inflate prices and jerk around the oil companies.  Haliburton and others should not be surprised that these local companies would be like this. –Matt

WikiLeaks cables: Iraq security firms operate ‘mafia’ to inflate prices

Halliburton executive’s comments reveal tensions between security firms, oil companies and the Baghdad government

By Rajeev Syal

Tuesday 21 December 2010

Halliburton’s senior executive in Iraq accused private security companies of operating a “mafia” to artifically inflate their “outrageous prices”, according to a US cable.

Written by a senior diplomat in the US’s Basra office, the confidential document discloses the tensions between private security firms, oil companies and the Iraqi government as coalition forces withdraw from protecting foreign business interests.

John Naland, head of the provincial reconstruction team in Basra, wrote in January this year that several oil company representatives complained of “unwarranted high prices” given an improving security situation since 2008.

“Halliburton Iraq country manager decried a ‘mafia’ of these companies and their ‘outrageous’ prices, and said that they also exaggerate the security threat.

“Apart from the high costs for routine trips, he claimed that Halliburton often receives what he says are ‘questionable’ reports of vulnerability of employees to kidnapping and ransom. He said that he recently saw an internal memo from their security company which tasked its employees to emphasize the persistent danger faced by IOCs [international oil companies].” Naland wrote.

(more…)

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Industry Talk: Afghan Ban On Security Firms Delayed By 2 Months

     That’s a start. Although I wonder how much we had to pay Crazy Karzai for this two month extension? lol Lately I have been reading all the latest articles about this circus, and it is just dumb. It is obvious that Karzai is playing games. I mean this guy is talking with the Taliban, getting money from Iran, and at the same time jerking us around about PSCs in Afghanistan.  He is using the ban on PSCs as a means of extortion and it is just dumb. It’s almost as if some agent was able to penetrate his brain and plant this idea, ‘Inception‘ style.

     Because lets be real on this one. Karzai’s life was dependent upon private security during many of the years of his presidency. His family operated private security companies who made millions of dollars from contracts over the years. And all of these recent incidents involving kidnapping, attacks on facilities, and attacks on convoys all highlight how important security is. If there are not enough troops to do the job, then of course private security is the next step, and yet Karzai wants to ban them?

     Also, if Karzai has an issue with companies, then instead of throwing the baby out with bath water, he could instead ‘fairly’ issue licenses (which they do, yet does not regulate or manage well ) and require them to be bonded. A bond could make it extremely expensive for companies that screw up, and give the offices an incentive to watch the industry. That would be one way for him to control and regulate companies.

     The alternative is that he kicks out all of these companies, to include expat companies, and all of the programs they were tasked with securing will falter. Billions of dollars in aid designed to rebuild and infuse money into the local economies, will now be shut off because these programs do not have security. Not to mention investors will now have second thoughts about doing anything in Afghanistan, all because they are not allowed to use private security.

     The logical way to reduce the numbers of contractors is through success in the war. As security increases, attacks and threats decrease, and the requirement for security will decrease. Actually this would be a great metric on how the war is going, and if security contractor use naturally decreases because of that classic market force called ‘a lack of demand’, then this would be an excellent indicator that things are getting better.

     It is a lot like the timeline issue that I have talked about in the past. The enemy loves timelines, because it is a date for victory. Troops or contractors should leave not based on timelines but based on progress and success. –Matt

Press Release From The Office Of The President (Afghanistan)

October 27, 2010

 Arg, Kabul – For a rapid implementation of Presidential Decree 62 on the dissolution of private security companies, President Hamid Karzai has ordered the establishment of a committee led by the Minister of Interior and participated by representatives from NATO-ISAF and major international donors.

The Committee will develop plans for the disbandment of the PCSs that provide security for development projects and report on progress to the President.

The phasing out of illegal PCSs and road convoy security companies continues on a priority basis as laid out in the Decree.

Recognizing the importance of maintaining the continuous delivery of critical development projects and programs funded by the international community, the Committee will prepare a timetable for the disbandment of the PCSs that secure development projects and submit it to the President on November 15th, 2010.

(more…)

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Afghanistan: Is Matiullah An Illegitimate Warlord Or Respected Businessman?

    “There is no doubt about it — the people of Oruzgan love Matiullah!” said Fareed Ayel, one of Mr. Matiullah’s officers on the route. “The government people are not honest.”

     Like many of Mr. Matiullah’s men, Mr. Ayel quit the police to join his militia, which paid him a better salary.

     Indeed, many people in Tirin Kot praise Mr. Matiullah for the toughness of his fighters and for keeping the road open. Mr. Matiullah claims to have lost more than 100 men fighting the Taliban. Recently, he and several of his fighters followed an American Special Forces unit to Geezab, where the Taliban had been expelled after six years.

*****

     I have to say, I am conflicted with this one.  Dexter brings some very compelling points to the table, and I think in this one I will lean on the side of ‘devil’s advocate’.  Is Matiullah a warlord or Al Capone type, or is he the CEO of a respected company who is actually doing a better job of taking care of the people than the government?  I seem to remember that Al Capone was famous for hearts and minds operations with soup kitchens etc. Or is this a case of a little jealousy and competition between government and private industry, like with the US Postal Service versus Fedex?

     In this case, I wouldn’t call Matiullah an enemy of the state. In this war against the Taliban, Matiullah’s men are fighting and dying for our side and that to me makes him less of an Al Capone type.  He is a businessman, and his business is security.  He has also lost over a hundred men in defense of NATO convoys, and Matiullah is employing thousands of Afghans with his businesses.

     Just look at his actions.  In order to command over these roads with his security teams, he has to go up against the same enemy forces that the coalition has to. And because he has the manpower and logistical ability, he can effectively canvass entire roads to keep them safe for convoys. This so-called warlord, is winning over the people of these districts, so he can successfully deliver these goods for NATO and the coalition. If you get the support of the people by becoming the source of income of the people, then you have effectively created a system that will support your business goals. If protecting the road and these NATO goods is the business, then that is what the local populations will be a part of. Not only that, but he is the guy providing 15,000 jobs to the locals, and he is paying a better salary than the government!

     My point is, and I keep bringing this up over and over and over again. You must pay more than your competitors, if you want to attract the best. You must also treat your people better than your competitors treat theirs.  Of course police and army officials are going to leave to join Matiullah’s PMC, if in fact he is paying more or treating them better.  And if the people respect that PMC and what it has done, then that makes the decision to join that much easier. War and business are a lot alike in this regard.

     We are also seeing this in places like Somalia, where Al Shabab is paying more than the TFG government.  And if Al Shabab or any other group has the respect of the people or is even tolerable, then the choice to ‘jump contract’ is quite easy.  Soldiers and police have to feed their families. More importantly, they have to choose the winning side or face the consequences of being associated with the losing team.(death and imprisonment for self and family come to mind)

     I also see where Dexter is going with this article.  Of course we want the government to be the top dog in our modern western way of thinking.  But it is kind of hypocritical for the US to point this fact out, when we are using over a quarter million contractors in this war. Or if we were to really put some context on this, the US used thousands of privateers during our early wars, and certainly there was no real monopoly on the use of force during that time.  Hell, we even implemented the Second Amendment in our constitution which allowed citizens the right to ‘keep and bare arms.’ Not to mention Article 1, Section 8 which allows our congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  The US is a prime example of why Max Weber’s definition of the state is flawed. There is certainly not a monopoly on the use of force in the US, and my gun locker filled with rifles and pistols is proof positive of that.  The key to Afghanistan’s future is how can they co-op with guys like Matiullah and keep him on the right side of the war.

     The Aghan government is looking at Matiullah in the wrong light.  Instead, they should be studying what he is doing and try to learn from it.  But by all means do not demonize him or force him to cross over to the enemy’s side. If anything, his business should be a source of inspiration.  After all, his contractors are dying in defense of NATO convoys and not Taliban convoys. With that kind of sacrifice, the government should be embracing Matiullah, and at the same time trying to figure out how to win over the local populations like he has done. If Matiullah is violating any laws or paying off the Taliban, then of course that should be pursued and he should face the consequence. But he should not be demonized or persecuted for running a profitable and legitimate business that employs thousands of people.

     Now if the Afghan government wanted to out do Matiullah, a good first step is to pay more than him. The second step is to out do Matiullah in protecting and serving the local population.  It is the same with the war against the Taliban.  The government must prove to the local populations that they are a better idea. –Matt

——————————————————————

With U.S. Aid, Warlord Builds Afghan Empire

By DEXTER FILKINS

June 5, 2010

TIRIN KOT, Afghanistan — The most powerful man in this arid stretch of southern Afghanistan is not the provincial governor, nor the police chief, nor even the commander of the Afghan Army.

It is Matiullah Khan, the head of a private army that earns millions of dollars guarding NATO supply convoys and fights Taliban insurgents alongside American Special Forces.

In little more than two years, Mr. Matiullah, an illiterate former highway patrol commander, has grown stronger than the government of Oruzgan Province, not only supplanting its role in providing security but usurping its other functions, his rivals say, like appointing public employees and doling out government largess. His fighters run missions with American Special Forces officers, and when Afghan officials have confronted him, he has either rebuffed them or had them removed.

“Oruzgan used to be the worst place in Afghanistan, and now it’s the safest,” Mr. Matiullah said in an interview in his compound here, where supplicants gather each day to pay homage and seek money and help. “What should we do? The officials are cowards and thieves.”

Mr. Matiullah is one of several semiofficial warlords who have emerged across Afghanistan in recent months, as American and NATO officers try to bolster — and sometimes even supplant — ineffective regular Afghan forces in their battle against the Taliban insurgency.

In some cases, these strongmen have restored order, though at the price of undermining the very institutions Americans are seeking to build: government structures like police forces and provincial administrations that one day are supposed to be strong enough to allow the Americans and other troops to leave.

In other places around the country, Afghan gunmen have come to the fore as the heads of private security companies or as militia commanders, independent of any government control. In these cases, the warlords not only have risen from anarchy but have helped to spread it.

(more…)

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress