Commentary on providers of Demining and EOD services, from "Political Minefields"."There have always been links between the commercial demining, private security and defense industries. In the early 1990s, arms and security companies like Royal Ordnance (now BAE Systems Land and Armaments), MECHEM (part of South African arms firm DENEL), Saracen International and DSL (now ArmorGroup) played a prominant role in the developing sector of ‘humanitarian’ demining. In those early years, some commercial demining companies were accused of ‘double dipping’ for being involved in both mine production and clearance.
These days we seem to be observing even greater consolidation – blurring the lines between civilian demining companies and the more militarized private security contractors. This has been driven largely by the security contracting boom in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as commercial deminers working in much more insecure conditions than previously.
DynCorp, which has a particularly controversial reputation as a provider of private security, police and counternarcotics services, is one of the three main pre-selected contractors for the State Department’s mine action programs. The other two State Department contractors, ArmorGroup and RONCO have were recently bought up by global security giant Group 4 Securicor (see this article on the RONCO purchase, and this one on ArmorGroup).
Other demining and EOD firms are moving into private security provision. They often developed an internal security capacity while working in a dangerous place and then found it profitable to provide this service to other clients. EODT claims to offer “a range of direct security solutions for clients in high-risk situations.” MineTech sells “highly skilled Explosive Detection Dogs to security and affiliated companies.” UXB “provides armed security services in the middle-east.”
To a certain extent this merging of private security contracting and commercial demining makes sense. Both activities occur in conflicted regions, rely on similar logistical supply chains and draw on an overlapping pool of personnel — mostly former soldiers. Mine action, while less profitable, may also provide a more stable and less risky part of a security company’s portfolio.
However, I believe there are some real dangers in smudging the distinction between demining, which has often been viewed as a civilian and humanitarian endeavor, and the militarized industry of private security. If demining becomes associated with a military campaign, it threatens the lives of civilian humanitarian deminers working for NGOs. Moreover, in my own field research I have found private security companies are far less likely to understand local developmental needs, cultural sensitivies and humanitarian priorities than NGOs and local authorities."
Aprodex Comment: Whilst the concerns are clearly valid, the situation need not be so if NGO's and the PSC community worked out better ways of working together and cooperating in such theatres, rather than one group eyeing the other with suspicion and nervous apprehension - See NGO's and Private Security Companies for addtional commentary.
2 comments:
Response to your comment on my post: I think you have a decent point -- that there are misunderstandings between the NGO and PSC sectors. However, as someone from the NGO sector, I feel some of the 'suspicion and nervous apprehension' is justified. It is based on the reality that the involvement of PSCs in demining (and other reconstruction work) has often made armed factions see other civilian deminers as legitimate targets. (Have a look at my Afghan report for more on this: http://politicalminefields.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/the-commercialization-of-afghan-demining/). The 'suspicion' is the result of feeling under threat.
Moreover, NGOs and PSCs are not the only players involved -- you have to remember the local communities they operate in. For instance, in Afghanistan local people often have dim view of PSCs that cannot simply be chalked up to 'suspicion.' They have very valid reasons for being nervous, including: the impunity with which contractors operate, the lack of sensitivity to local conditions, the lack of command and control over PSCs and the priviledging of the 'client's' security over that of the public good. For more on this see the Swiss Peace Foundation's report (http://www.swisspeace.ch/typo3/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Working_Paper/WP_1_2008.pdf).
Indeed, there are undoubtedly concerns that may be justfied based on the experience of individuals, companies and NGO's on the ground - one cannot deny that there are problems of the kind you highlight.
My point though, was that in a relatively new industry (in modern terms) the problems are already well documented. Accusations and finger pointing abound. It is always easy to critise, and commentary appears to focus on the problems, but hardly ever on the solutions.
The better, more professional organisations, which can and do add value, are subject to market forces, and will not last if they dont deliver what they promise. The relationship may never be perfect - nothing in such demanding locations ever is - but it is better to talk, reach an operating consensus and go forward, than continue raising heads to the sky and decrying the situation.
Post a Comment