02.11.2013 Views

Dangerous Partnership - Global Policy Forum

Dangerous Partnership - Global Policy Forum

Dangerous Partnership - Global Policy Forum

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Lou Pingeot | <strong>Dangerous</strong> <strong>Partnership</strong><br />

Cozy Relations with Host<br />

Governments<br />

Key parts of the PMSC industry have very close relations<br />

with the governments of countries where they are headquartered.<br />

This is particularly true of the US, which is by far<br />

the largest source of company contracts, and it is the case<br />

in the UK, which is home base (and prime contractor) to a<br />

large number of firms.<br />

Some companies, like DynCorp International, are almost<br />

entirely dependent on their host country for contracts and<br />

they see themselves as extensions of their government’s<br />

policies and interests. DynCorp derived 96% of its 2009<br />

revenue of $3.1 billion from the US government 40 and it<br />

announces proudly on its website that it works “in support<br />

of US national security and foreign policy objectives, delivering<br />

support solutions for defense, diplomacy, and international<br />

development.”<br />

The exchange of top personnel between companies and<br />

host governments makes for especially close relations, as<br />

does the often secret nature of the contract work, which<br />

touches on the most sensitive national security, military and<br />

intelligence issues.<br />

Observers believe that many PMSCs are extensions of their<br />

host governments’ foreign and military policy and instruments<br />

of their nation’s economic interests. A recent French<br />

government report notes enviously the powerful influence<br />

of the “Anglo-Saxon” (US and UK) security companies and<br />

comments that they are advancing the economic interests<br />

of their host governments in places like Libya to the<br />

detriment of French interests. It concludes that the firms<br />

act as “a formidable lever of influence for their country of<br />

origin,” 41 that they enable governments to have a “military”<br />

presence without actually intervening directly, and<br />

that France needs to promote its own PMSC industry if it is<br />

to compete effectively.<br />

Branding and Public Relations<br />

The private military and security industry has made great<br />

efforts to shake off the “mercenary” label and brand itself<br />

as a respectable and legitimate business. Through an active<br />

public relations campaign, it is seeking to identify itself<br />

through neutral terms such as “Private Security Providers”<br />

(PSPs). Industry heavyweight Securitas touts its three core<br />

values as “Integrity, Vigilance and Helpfulness.” 42<br />

As part of this PR campaign, many security companies feature<br />

their “corporate ethics” and “code of conduct” prominently<br />

on their website. 43 To prove a commitment to ethical<br />

practices, some have joined the non-binding UN <strong>Global</strong><br />

Compact. 44 Compact members include G4S, Securitas, Aegis,<br />

Mission Essential Personnel and IDG Security. The toothless<br />

International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service<br />

Providers, 45 which the companies helped bring into being,<br />

is yet another vehicle for company reputation-building. Like<br />

the <strong>Global</strong> Compact, it is very low on accountability.<br />

Industry lobby groups have adopted names that evoke<br />

comfortable and positive concepts, such as the Washingtonbased<br />

International Stability Operations Association (ISOA)<br />

and the British Association of Private Security Companies<br />

(BAPSC). These groups affirm that their industry provides<br />

“peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction” 46 as well<br />

as “nation building and security sector reform.” 47 By using<br />

United Nations policy language, evocative of peace, legality<br />

and economic progress, the industry attempts to dissociate<br />

itself from its tarnished image and from the traditional<br />

idea of mercenaries as assassins, coup-plotters, demolition<br />

experts, and purveyors of violence for hire. Mergers and<br />

name changes also help to shake off bad reputations. The<br />

infamous Blackwater has changed its name twice in a short<br />

period, first to Xe in 2009 and then to Academi in 2011.<br />

The industry features humanitarian imagery and language<br />

in its public communications. The ISOA, for instance, advertises<br />

its members as providing “humanitarian aid” and<br />

14<br />

40 DynCorp International Annual Report, 2009, 3.<br />

41 Christian Menard and Jean-Claude Viollet, note 13 above, 15.<br />

42 www.securitas.com/us/en/About-Securitas1/Our-Values/.<br />

43 See, for instance, Hart Security (www.hartsecurity.com/aboutus_codeofconduct.asp),<br />

IDG Security (http://web.mac.com/idgsecurity/<br />

idg-security/Our_Ethos.html), or Aegis (www.aegisworld.com/index.<br />

php/code-of-conduct-2).<br />

44 To join the <strong>Global</strong> Compact, companies only have to agree nomally<br />

to respect core principles of human rights, labor, the environment,<br />

and anti-corruption, and submit a yearly report on their performance.<br />

45 www.icoc-psp.org/.<br />

46 This exact description was available on the old version of the<br />

ISOA website as late as January 2011.<br />

47 BAPSC website: www.bapsc.org.uk/?aboutus=about-us.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!