Wednesday, May 26, 2004
The private security business in Iraq is a crowded - possibly overcrowded - market, which is why the professionalism and bravery displayed by many private security contractors in extremely trying circumstances is often overlooked. Among many good former soldiers and police officers operating in Iraq, a number have died tragically. Their deaths highlight the urgent need for action.
The Coalition Provisional Authority lists more than 60 separate security companies active in Iraq; there are also an estimated 15,000 individual security contractors deployed there. The presence of so many largely unregulated private contractors amid an ongoing - and escalating - conflict raises serious questions of public policy and corporate responsibility.
Why are so many private security concerns active in Iraq? The answer, as usual, is politics. Last year, the US-led coalition was anxious to declare the war over and hand over the running of the country to a civilian administration. At the same time, a similar political imperative was driving commanders to minimise the number of troops required by maximising the number of ancillary functions undertaken by private contractors. A short, surgical military intervention was to be followed swiftly by a temporary civilian government before a reconstructed and newly democratic country was handed back to a grateful Iraqi people.
Things did not go to plan. The security situation deteriorated and, with limited coalition troops and little progress in creating an effective Iraqi police force, civilian administrators and reconstruction experts have turned to the private sector to keep them safe enough to do their jobs. The 60 companies on the coalition list do not form a homogenous group. Established security consultancies with considerable experience in other hotspots - Colombia, Algeria and elsewhere - rub shoulders with a range of new companies, some with only limited operational experience. Among them are companies that take a much more overtly militaristic stance. Virtually all their employees are armed.
These companies have widely differing interpretations of their role and varying operational, recruitment and training standards. Their tasks range from armed close protection to large-scale guarding and the training of police units. The complex relationship between the private security companies, the coalition authority and the military has evolved in a piecemeal fashion and the June 30 handover of power to an interim Iraqi administration makes effective regulation an immediate necessity.
We need regulation in Iraq. At its heart, regulation needs to define the acceptable limits of a private security company's activities. The danger is that unless the legal and operational status of such companies is clarified and institutionalised, responsible companies, conscious of their liabilities and reputation, may be driven from the arena. This would deprive the authorities, civilian contractors and other groups of critical resources. It is clear that in some cases security companies have found themselves not just helping civilians avoid danger but making up for the shortfall in military resources. This raises the vexing issue of private military companies and how to distinguish their activities from those of mainstream security consultancies.
The best place for debate on establishing regulations is not in Iraq but in Washington, London and other key capitals. Private security companies have become the lynchpin in a system that enables reconstruction activities to proceed. They must not be left in legal limbo and ineffectively regulated without clear limits to their mandate - particularly at a time of acute national sensitivity. Reports of contractors involved in the handling of Iraq prisoners only intensifies the need for clear accountability within a transparent legal framework. This debate should seek to establish practices to be adopted by private security companies so they are discouraged from operating in ways that antagonise the populace and undermine coalition objectives.
Regulation needs to define the essentially defensive nature of private security activities and ensure a meaningful commitment to human rights and ethics; proper recruitment and training procedures; effective control of and limitations on the use of weapons; and the duty of care to employees, clients and Iraqi citizens. Only b etter regulation of private security contractors and clear definitions of what is expected of them will ensure they are recognised for their critical contribution in Iraq and receive the respect most of them deserve.
The writer is chief operating officer of Control Risks Group
Richard Fenning
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. Privacy policy.
