Feral Jundi

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Publications: GPF Report On Private Military And Security Companies And The UN

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 3:03 AM

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.”

(more…)

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Letter Of Marque: World Food Programme Privateers?

Filed under: Africa,Letter Of Marque,Publications — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 10:44 PM

Yep, in this conference, the idea of using privateers and the Letter of Marque was brought up as a means of protecting World Food Programme vessels. How cool is that? Not only that, but the idea was brought up in a conference filled with Ambassadors, academics, UN folks, PMSC folks, NGO’s etc. Here is a quote and page number if you would like to check it out.

Potential problems with the use of PMSCs in counter-piracy efforts, according to Mr Stupart, include firstly the issue of legality, where the use of PMSCs under current international maritime law is not very clear. In order to overcome this issue, calls for the reintroduction of the Letters of Marque have been suggested. The letters of Marque refers to the definition of piracy, the jurisdiction being decided upon, and the rules of engagement being determined by the flag state under which the vessel operates. Another issue raised by Mr Stupart relates to the possible escalation of violence. If pirates feel a risk due to the arming of vessels with PMSCs, they may adopt more aggressive tactics. This will be a major problem, especially for all merchant vessels that are not escorted or guarded by PMSCs. -From the section WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME PRIVATEERS – OUTSOURCING HUMANITARIAN AID IN THE GULF OF ADEN MR JOHN STUPART, Page 18

The other interesting thing about this conference is that it goes into some of the details of PMSC involvement in Africa. Places like the Sudan or Somalia, and that is great to hear. Most of all, the support for this industry was favorable as well. We are the go to forces for protecting these humanitarian operations and it was clear to me that the conference did recognize our value.

On the other hand, the recurring theme throughout the conference was the lack of legal authority or accountability with the various PMSC’s in Africa. So yes, the humanitarian assistance industry wants to use our industry, but they also do not want to get in trouble legally because of the actions of their security forces.

And of course, the classic principal agent problem comes up, and that is a constant theme everywhere in the world when it comes to contracting. A poorly written contract, a lack of oversight over the project, etc. are all issues that need to be worked out and discussed so you can responsible contract the services of a good PMSC.

Here is another quote in the conference that summed up quite nicely why there is such an interest and demand for PMSC’s in Africa.

Mr Chris Kwaja began the fourth session with an interrogation of the rationale and centrality of non-state military and security providers in the provision and delivery of humanitarian assistance operations in Darfur/Sudan. He argued that the rise of PMSC involvement in humanitarian assistance operations was due to the rising amount of armed conflicts and the inability of states to contain these conflicts, the decline of state troop contributions, the success and popularity of neo-liberalism which encouraged private sector involvement and the weakness of states to fulfill their constitutional obligations of security provision for the masses. Mr Kwaja also stated that PMSCs were arguably able to fill the capacity gap in terms of high-tech skill provision, that national militaries lack. -From the section FROM COMBAT TO NON COMBAT ACTION: PMSCS AND HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE OPERATIONS IN DARFUR/SUDAN MR CHRIS KWAJA, Page 15

This is why I perked up with what was discussed in this conference, along with the mention of the Letter of Marque. To me, these folks were not focused on trying to get rid of us, but on’ how to use us’. Check it out. –Matt

 

Conference report on the involvement of the private security sector in humanitarian assistance operations i…

Monday, January 9, 2012

Maritime Security: The UN Says Growing Links Between Al Shabab Militancy And Pirates

Filed under: Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 6:26 AM

This is a great little interview with the UN about the current trend of Somali piracy and any connections to Al Shabab. Check it out. –Matt

 

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Publications: UN Use Of Private Military And Security Companies– Practices And Policies, By Åse Gilje Østensen

Filed under: Industry Talk,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 10:58 PM

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this one. Great little paper and the real value here is all the history between the UN and private military and security companies listed in this thing. Here is a snippet about PAE in Africa which I thought was interesting.

PMSCs in UN humanitarian operations 
…..The role played by PAE in MONUC serves as a more recent illustration of  how  a  PMSC  has  been  deployed  in  a  UN  peace  operation.  In  June  2004  Congolese students released a wave of violence in central and eastern parts of the DRC in protest at the UN mission’s failure to prevent atrocities in Ituri  province.  The  frustration  of  the  Congolese  civil  war  was  directed  towards  UN associated  personnel  and  facilities.  PAE  was  an  integral  part  of  the  UN  operation.  It  ran  six  airfields  for  the  mission  and  its  employees  drove  UN  vehicles  and  were  considered  UN  workers  by  locals  –  and  hence  were  also  subject  to  attacks.  The  violence  in  Kisangani  included  burning  the  UN  headquarters  in  the  city  to  the  ground,  UN  staff  housing  was  attacked  and  burned,  and  over  70  UN  vehicles  were  stoned  and  set  ablaze.  As  the  UN  military  contingent  withdrew,  300  UN  staff  fled  to  the  local  airport  where  they  demanded  emergency  evacuation  from  the  city,  fearing  they  would  be  killed  by  the  rioting  mobs.  PAE  workers  prepared  for  and  carried  out  the  evacuation  of  the  UN  staff,  while  the  PAE  teams  stayed  behind  to complete their  contract.  This  example  in  particular illustrates a fundamental  dependency  on  commercial  companies  for  essential  tasks  in  certain  peacekeeping  operations, and  suggests  that  at  times private contractors may face more risks than UN personnel. 

The other thing that I liked about the paper is that it showed the hypocrisy of the UN and their view of this industry. Here they have the UN Working Group on Mercenaries which criticizes everyone for using PMSC’s, and yet in the same breath, the UN had companies like Executive Outcomes on their vender list. Or they use PMSC’s all over the world to help secure operations and protect personnel.

Anyway, here is the paper and definitely check it out. Let me know what you think in the comments section. –Matt

 

UN Use of Private Military and Security Companies: Practices and Policies, By Åse Gilje Østensen

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Publications: From Dogs Of War To Soldiers Of Peace, By Stephen Wittels

Filed under: Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 3:17 PM

A big hat tip to David Isenberg for finding this paper. He does a fantastic job of finding the really interesting publications out there that need to be read and discussed. It should also be noted that this particular piece won the 1st Prize in the Awards For Excellence contest at the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies back in 2010. Pretty cool.

As to the paper itself, the point of it is to address the problem that the UN has in getting member states to contribute quality forces. Or the problem the UN has in getting enough troops that are capable enough to do the job. So a quantity and quality problem, and a possible solution to address that. The paper argues that PMC’s could be the solution to the quantity and quality problem that the UN is up against.

Contractors are also politically acceptable, just because no one cries when we are killed. With member states, when they send their military units to the UN for peacekeeping duties, and that mission goes horribly wrong and many troops are killed, then that becomes politically sticky for those leaders of those states to deal with. Tragedies in peacekeeping could actually force states to pull out troops, or a mission might be too dangerous, and no states want to contribute forces–all because those missions are threats to the careers of politicians in those contributing nations. That is reality, and PMC’s are one way to mitigate that reality.

Or worse, you get states that have poor and corrupt leaders who view their military as a way to make money by pimping them out to the UN. They could care less about taking care of their military, or accomplishing the mission/providing a good service. What matters to them is getting paid by the UN, and then letting the UN and the other member states figure out how to take care of their prostituted military. Meanwhile, those poor leaders also rip off their soldiers and siphon off their pay.  Pfffft.

Now of course I have cursed the UN in the past, just because they seem to cause more problems than fix problems in these countries. But it is also important to note that a properly equipped and armed professional force with a well defined mission can make all the difference in the world.  So if the UN wants to go down this path and have it succeed, then it will first have to square away the way it does business. It will have to first accept that PMC’s can do this kind of work, and then they will have focus on lessons learned within their organization and within the current wartime contracting lessons learned by the west. (or at least trying to learn…lol)

In other words, they can build a model contracting system, but it will take reaching out to other country’s experiences, other industries and companies, and ‘building a snowmobile’ out of all of these lessons and ideas. Because the really hard and costly lessons that the US has experienced, could totally help the UN form a sound contracting system that delivers the services they want and need.

Another point I wanted to bring up is that in my opinion, the optimum contracting mechanism that best mitigates the principal agent problem is the ‘best value’ contracting method. The lowest priced, technically acceptable contracting mechanism is a horrible way to do business, and it is a ‘race to the bottom’.  So instead of getting poor troops from member states, you will replace them with poor PMC’s if you go this route.

Furthermore, you must have a professional contractor management force that actually produces the correct ratio of management per contract. Please do not assign one guy to manage billions of dollars and thousands of people and multiple contracts. A division of labor is vital to this effort, and those people tasked with watching these contracts need to know what they are doing and what they are looking for. Like I said, the lessons are there if anyone is willing to study this stuff.

Oh, and why was there no mention of the excellent work that Executive Outcomes did in Sierra Leone, or the cost effectiveness of that PMC, versus the total waste of UN manpower and money to do the same job there? (see the graphic above) Or where was there any mention of the UN calling Executive Outcomes and asking for help and a quote on services for dealing with the Rwanda Genocide crisis back in the nineties? My point here is that the UN should be talking with men like Eeben Barlow, and asking exactly the best way to partner and work with such companies like EO. Who knows, the UN could have actually stopped the Rwandan Genocide if they would have hired a company like EO?

I guess the final deal I want to talk about is the global economy. Right now, there are austerity measures being implemented throughout the world, and the availability of force for the UN and it’s member states is decreasing because of it. The UN will have less money and less force to work with under the current constraints of that economy, and missions will suffer because of it. That’s unless they get creative and actually look to private industry as a way to save money and provide a force with capability. I believe private industry can be a great service to the UN, but that all goes out the window if the UN does not set this up correctly or fails to manage these contracts properly. –Matt

 

From Dogs of War to Soldiers of Peace: Evaluating Private Military and Security Companies as a Civilian Pro…

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress