Outsourced security is an ancient concept. History is replete with mercenary forces. From the Roman Empire to the British during the American War of Independence and through to today, leaders have found it convenient to employ mercenaries. The doctrine of the sovereign nation derived from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 impelled states to consider the utility of standing armies and thereby reduce reliance on mercenaries – but the concept of private armies has endured in one form or another.
More recently, economic, political and operational factors have reduced many states’ military capabilities. The increasing unsuitability of conventional national forces for defence against some significant emerging threats has also contributed. Some governments have therefore looked to the market for their security solutions. As a result the private security and military industry has grown over the last two decades. Employment of security contractors by the US and British governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have been obvious examples. Due to the unregulated nature of this industry, no official global statistics exist for the size of the industry but it may be worth up to $350 billion.
These developments may be an issue for state sovereignty. Max Weber said that the central characteristic of a state is to have a “legitimate monopoly on violence”. Thomas Hobbes argued that the main function of a state is to provide security to its citizens. But – as an example – there are thought to be more ‘private police’ in the U.S. than there are public police. Some scholars question the concept of a state that no longer fulfils this key responsibility itself. They might on the other hand argue that the state grants legitimacy to private military companies by employing them, thereby making them an extension of the state itself through a ‘letter of marque’ process.
On the plus side, private companies can help conditions more broadly in the places where they operate. Improved security enables livelihoods. And many such companies employ local workers, albeit not sustainably. Conversely, they can be very destructive. Sometimes the same company can be both at different times. Operators of the US company ‘Blackwater’ were sentenced for killing innocent civilians in a notorious incident in Baghdad – but following Hurricane Katrina the same company is reported by some to have been a force for good. In a similarly benign use of such a company, the Norwegian government has in the past paid a Norwegian security firm from their foreign aid budget to help establish a more sustainable Somali fishing industry.
A wider interpretation of security might therefore suggest a more imaginative use of such firms and could remove from them the stigma of being no more than providers of ‘guards, gates and guns’. Foreign entities working in developing markets will often need to build mutually beneficial relationships with local communities in order to be able to operate effectively and securely. This could be outsourced to new-look security companies. If those companies are sincere in their efforts to understand local dynamics and needs, and to engage with the communities in the areas in which the foreign entity wants to operate, then the relationship can be of considerable benefit to all sides. As a result, a sort of unofficial “licence to operate” will be conferred on the foreign entity. But this will have to be preceded by painstaking research and on-the-ground consultation with local leaders in order to ensure that any community engagement does not inadvertently cause more problems than it solves. For example the company might unwittingly take more employees or provide more facilities for one group rather than another and thereby cause resentment – which might in turn lead to an increase in insecurity, the very thing that the company seeks to avoid. Conversely, being perceived as part of the local fabric and economy and sensitive to the environment and the communities who live there will actively enhance security.
What might a ‘theory of change’ look like in such a situation? If the foreign entity increases employment for male community members aged 18-33, provides enhanced access to primary healthcare for women of child-bearing age, and more people have access to clean water, and people attribute these improvements to contributions made by the new-look security company and its parent entity, then local acceptance, approval and support will increase, days lost to labour stoppages and theft of produce will decrease, thereby increasing the foreign entity’s output and contributing to an improved return on investment.
There are many examples of such support successfully given to communities. Longer-term engagement should look beyond the lifetime of the foreign entity’s commercial interests and could include vocational training, scholarships and education, environmental schemes, advice to the host nation on creation of laws to ensure tax on the revenue generated by foreign operations benefit the people as a whole rather than the pockets of a few. The commitment of the company to meeting the wider needs of the host country might even include advice on creation of a sovereign wealth fund.
In such a way will longer-term security best be served, though this will require a wider and ultimately more sustainable interpretation of the word ‘security’ and a considerable broadening of the purpose of such companies and perhaps a different sort of employee.
This guest blog was written by Daniel Oppenheimer, email: daniel.oppenheimer@kcl.ac.uk