Private Security Enters the Humanitarian Field
Humanitarians and Private Security Companies: Time for Dialogue
By Jean S. Renouf — WELL AHEAD OF his time, Jean Marguin wrote, as early as 2000, “It is not out of the question to believe that the armed defence of most countries in the world, the missions of collective security entrusted to international organizations and the protection of NGOs’ humanitarian operations will one day be provided by private military - humanitarian multinationals”. We are not quite there yet, but we aren’t far off. While Blackwater recently proposed sending brigade-sized rapid reaction forces to support or replace peacekeepers in war zones, Pacific Architects and Engineers and Medical Support Solutions in fact did provide logistical support as well as medical services for the African Union in Sudan in 2002-2003.
Dyncorp recruited and trained new armed forces as part of the reform of the Liberian security sector, and also ensured security for President Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. Blue Sky supervised the cease-fire in Aceh; and, for a number of years, Centurion has been training humanitarians headed for high-risk zones. What do these various operations have in common? Known as private security companies (PSCs), or sometimes private military companies (PMCs), they offer services designed to have a strategic impact on the security of persons or property. While the American and British governments and multinationals of all sorts are their main clients, humanitarians are not absent from the list. The growing importance of private security companies has both a direct and indirect impact on humanitarian players. Direct, because an increasingly larger number of humanitarian organizations are signing contracts with PSCs. The services provided vary from context analysis to the review and implementation of security procedures; from demining to crisis management or support; from training to static or mobile protection sometimes armed. Indirect, because the presence and activities of these new players in places traditionally occupied by humanitarian organizations changes the environment in which humanitarian action is taking place as well as the perception that local populations have of humanitarian organizations. The question now becomes, is this good a good thing or a bad thing? Should we applaud or condemn Blackwater’s proposal to support or supply African Union forces in Darfur? Should the United Nations Security Council have contracted the services of a PSC to limit the Rwandan genocide as it was contemplating doing at the time?