Friend or Foe? MSF’s Debate on Private Security Companies’ Humanitarian Role
James Matheson is a medical student at St George’s University, London and is involved in the Centre for Trauma, Conflict and Catastrophe. He attended a very interesting event organised by Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) at the end of April and writes about it here. Sorry for the delay-the fault is completely mine! Rhona
On Tuesday 29 April, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), well known for their involvement in areas of both conflict and contention, hosted a discussion evening under the title of, ‘Friend or foe? Cooperation with private military and security companies’. A heated debate was anticipated.
The speakers were Dr Dominick Donald, chief analyst for Aegis Research and Intelligence and academic expert in this field, Dr Kevin O’Brien, Director of Alesia PSI Consultants, an advisor to the government on public security and strategy matters and Nick Downie, Head of Security for the Emergencies Team at Save the Children Fund. Paul Foreman from MSF UK was facilitator. Interestingly the UK’s Department for International Development were invited but declined to be present.
Paul Foreman introduced the speakers and the subject by remarking that in recent years ‘the humanitarian space’ had become so eroded by combatants as to be non-existent and, as a result, the subject of Private Security Companies’ (PSCs) involvement in an area previously the preserve of the NGOs was an important matter for discussion.
Dr O’Brien opened the speaking, talking about the long history of PSCs and their operations throughout the world. He spoke of the need for employers of their services to be sure that the companies they hired were not involved in human rights abuses elsewhere in the world and was the first to raise the issue of regulation and accountability. In this regard he spoke of ongoing work by the Swiss government and the ICRC to look at an international regulatory framework for PSCs.
Dr Donald spoke next and passionately about why PSCs had an interest in the humanitarian field and what they were doing there. He used the example of Iraq to illustrate his point. In post-war Iraq the Coalition leadership had a chart of reconstruction functions including healthcare, education, governance and many others and a timescale alongside them. They hoped that these tasks, begun by the military might be taken over and fulfilled by civil servants and NGOs - neither showed up. As a result contractors were called in and here the PSCs found a role. Dr Donald talked about some of the quick impact projects his own company, Aegis, were delivering in Iraq and then explained that these were not only at the behest of governments but that his company carried out its own aid work - a measure he said helped them operate more readily in the country - and fundraised as a charity to do so.
Nick Downie then related Save the Children’s involvement with PSCs. Some in the audience were surprised to hear that, not only did Save the Children employ local armed security but that they also had contracts with international PSCs. He made the point that nearly all organisations working in Somalia employed security and that they would not be able to operate without. Mr Downie also related tales of what happens without security cover, including instances of humanitarian workers accepting firearms from US special forces soldiers and even carrying grenades. He pointed out that there was a massive skill gap, in NGOs, of people capable of working safely in an insecure environment. He also mentioned the down side of working with PSCs and cited incidents of PSCs in Kosovo and Afghanistan being involved in people-trafficking for prostitution. His overall stance was well established in his opening statement that he, ‘didn’t know of any humanitarian organisation that hadn’t benefited from PSC activities’.
When the forum was opened up to questions, Amnesty International’s representative challenged the PSCs on accountability and their lack of it. Amnesty are looking at ways in which PSC operatives could best be legally accountable for their actions throughout the world’s conflict zones. The PSC representatives responded that they were keen to be regulated but that there was little enthusiasm for regulating them and as such it fell to them to regulate themselves, which they were endeavouring to do.
Surprisingly little opposition came from the floor and those humanitarian organisations represented in the audience. It fell to a member of the PSC industry amongst the attendees to criticise the use of PSCs in Iraq and the people they employ. He put a weight of the blame for failure in Iraq on the use of private contractors and remarked that the PSCs were putting armed men on the streets with as little as 4 weeks training. He described as ‘absurd and obscene’ the PSC’s practice of putting signs in vehicle windows warning that they would use lethal force on vehicles within 100 metres and then doing just that. He was the first to allude to the Nisoor Square incident in which Blackwater, one of the biggest PSCs operating in Iraq are alleged to have opened fire without provocation on civilians, killing 8 including a mother and child in a car which did not stop when instructed.
Eventually, Paul Foreman as facilitator elicited some opposition from the humanitarian side by asking, with some incredulity, ‘Is no one going to challenge the principle that these armed groups should be providing humanitarian aid?’ Some concern and indignation was then forthcoming.
To conclude the evening, the new head of MSF UK, Marc DuBois, introduced himself and then described NGOs as ‘dodos’ soon to be driven into extinction by the PSCs. ‘We shouldn’t be criticising them’, he said, ‘we should be criticising ourselves’.
For me the evening’s proceedings raised substantially more alarm than it seemed to in the humanitarian community there present. In the world of the Private Security Companies there are many morally decent people who provide a professional and valuable service in the provision of security. As Nick Downie pointed out, some humanitarian organisations benefit from this service. Since the exponential increase in demand for their services brought on by coalition and NATO out-sourcing in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, private security work is no longer the preserve of former special forces soldiers or even of soldiers at all. PSCs now employ non-combatant military, police and many Walter Mitty characters who would never be employed by the UK’s armed forces.
The Blackwater incident in Nisoor Square is no isolated example. Anecdotal reports of the atrocities carried out by PSC employees and their fatal mistakes abound, to which I’ll add my own. In my last operational tour with the British Army in Iraq the first person killed was not at the hands of a British soldier or his enemy but was shot by a PSC operative spooked by a small group of unarmed protesters at the gates of the Coalition Provisional Authority. PSC employees have infamously posted footage of their wayward actions, firing on the move into civilian vehicles, on the internet.
From Tuesday’s discussion it was clear that not only are PSCs taking a role in providing security for humanitarian organisations they are also being paid to provide the aid work themselves. To take matters further they are also passing themselves off as charities to raise money for projects as a force protection measure for their own operations. Whilst those present on the occasion did not take issue with this I find it significantly disturbing.
When the ‘humanitarian’ money for services required goes out to tender, the PSCs will have a strong case to put. They will be able to deliver a service swiftly and efficiently in areas where NGOs cannot or will not operate and it is worth noting that these areas, including Iraq and Afghanistan are the areas where big international donors, the US, the UK and the EU desperately want the services delivered. What is more, they will do those without insisting on difficult clauses concerning their neutrality or impartiality. The Private Security Company is a smart re-branding of an age-old concept - they are mercenaries. They will deliver a service and they will kill people in doing so.
For those NGOs who do not want to become ‘dodos’, some thinking and action is required. Hostility to outsiders is no new concept and humanitarian agencies have been delivering aid to those most in need in hostile environments since their beginnings. Undoubtedly they can continue to do so and that will involve tackling problems in countries where they are particularly targeted. One answer is a collaboration with agencies, including PSCs, that can provide high quality and responsible security. Other solutions may be better.
‘The Iraq Bubble’, which spawned hundreds of new security companies, is about to burst and the PSCs are looking for new ways of making money. If the NGOs don’t provide a solution to donors’ problems, the PSCs certainly will.
MSF discussion evenings are held regularly at the Crown Tavern, 43 Clerkenwell Green, London. The nearest tube station is Farringdon. MSF welcome those with an interest in the humanitarian field including students. Transcripts of the discussions are posted online and details of forthcoming subjects and future MSF UK events can be found at: http://www.msf.org.uk/events.aspx. James Matheson
Bookmark on delicious | Digg