November 2010 Article

A Re-evaulation of the Corporate Warrior in the Twenty First Century

Published by: RUSI Newsbrief November 2010

Has the Private Military Contractor or Private Security Company (PSC), in different guises, existed for hundreds if not thousands of years? The discerning reader will of course equate this question with the somewhat dubious proposal that there is little difference between the modern military/security contractor, with a background in infantry training and peacekeeping in the post cold war world, and those soldiers of fortune who have existed throughout history – with their highly prized, yet highly priced experience, with the associated disadvantage of somewhat less than clear loyalties.

Some might point to the clear distinction between history’s independent Swiss mercenary and the highly trained, highly focussed, modern corporate warrior. But, how clear and distinct is that difference and although a price is put on their expertise, what price is put on responsibility? The last ten years have seen a massive growth in organisation, experience and power of those companies who might do everything from aiding armed forces through to carrying out their mission while acting on behalf of an indigenous or external government.

Of course, this re-focus of what a military presence means, is more prominent in the age of ‘Blackwater’ and associated contractor scandals. Are we right then to use the classification of ‘mercenary’ when describing such a company? Are we dealing with a completely new variant and if so, what are the long term repercussions of its continued existence?

The aim of this article is to outline the existing situations with regard to PSCs and determine the requirement for a workable standard and thus promote regulation. In a time when military budgets are shrinking, when governments are looking to private contractors to ‘get the job done’ and thus reduce their own military overheads, when the long term price of military activity is overlooked or ignored, the prospect of getting things wrong has more serious repercussions than any other business endeavour.

Speculation however must centre on the future of the PSC. Without a distinct war or police action to fight and so much potential ex military talent, what is its role? At this point the detractors will loudly proclaim, in their pleas related to the multitude of private security companies ‘in the business of looking for work’, that they have to take contracts wherever they can get them. Will this entail an increased number of coordinated coup attempts in Africa? Will senior civil servants with tighter and tighter budgets seek to shrink the military and even the training budget to such an extent that PMCs take on critical roles in a country’s defence, preparation for war or actual warfighting?

Extrapolation of likely events are always difficult, but how far can the original notion - set in stone since the late seventeenth century, of a nation’s ‘standing army’ remain, in light of the pace of and need for development? Are we witnessing the birth of an industry, wherein possession of a corporate fleet - with corporate air and naval assets, built in the far east for a large contractor, could become a reality?

Perhaps we have stretched the concept to its limits. However, it is clear that every PSC operates in a distinct market; a market which, unlike those of the more conventional business world, remains to a large degree regulated only by the presence and will of the world’s governments. Business, as with any institution, must of necessity be regulated. Elaborating on the need and objectivity of this regulation, with worldwide recognisable standards of accountability, conduct and engagement, is what we must consider.

Indeed, to echo the main thrust of the requirements, it is the Military Accountability, Conduct and Engagement (MACE) with which we are concerned. We will continue to use this acronym throughout this work.

The world we have described above is highly analogous to the business world. In fact, by turning security and military concerns into ‘trading’ endeavours, we develop an industry and a distinct business community, more recognisable even than the historical mercenary comparisons noted previously. In the modern world, regulation has become a watchword for many aspects of life. Companies now seek to compete by getting the next recognisable standard, and gaining an edge over their competitors by having it. Quality, health and safety, sustainable materials – all have standards. For some, the attainment of the management standard is a boon, a mechanism through which the company can be more effectively managed. For others, it is a badge, a ‘tick in the box’ – the new standard perhaps echoing the existing sound management principles.

If we understand the world of the PSC as a business, then regulation becomes even more important, due to the nature of the industry. Dealing with world governments and their requirements, people on the ground and indeed, matters of life and death, entail the closest regulation and standardisation. By these means, those PSCs will not be qualified by reputation alone, but by their status and ability to manage peacekeeping, people and indeed conflict, in a manner which will permit accountability for their actions, superior conduct in all instances and rules for engaging the particular objective, be it through peacekeeping or security measures. Those companies who do not attain the standard will of course be seen as less able to meet the stringent requirements imposed by the client.

The authors of the outline standard that follows make no apologies for approaching it from a business viewpoint, since as stated, we are dealing with a new industry. In this instance, more than manufacturing, more than goods or services, we are managing security and quasi military issues and ultimately, humanitarian concerns, in a world fed by media and public opinion.

To imply that the management and regulation of such activities is either impossible or simply not required ignores the facts. We live in a world where scandal and mismanagement of the military/security contractor is an ever present fear for the governments who contract them. In an industry which relies less on quality of product and more on reliability and assurance of a service, which by its nature deals in the prevention and containment of conflict, good management and regulation must be assured.

At the time of writing, the authors are preparing such a standard for publication and consultation. We can however look at the key points which drive further discussion. There are of course similarities with business and management system standards. This is unavoidable as systems which permit the right personnel to be present in the right place with the correct skill-sets, is not always a factor which can be left to chance. As with existing standards in the business world, we classify and use procedures where relevant. It is clear however that there are key differences in management in this type of industry; the fact that a recognised chain of command structure differs radically from a company management hierarchy is clear. The background and training of an ex-military individual is utterly different when compared with a manufacturing operative or an accountant. However, insofar as management of the variables is concerned, there are distinct similarities. Where the differences are clear we will be adapting the standard to suit.

The Military Accountability, Control and Engagement Standard (MACE) is being developed for consultation for the purpose of introducing legitimacy, transparency and confidence to the UK PSC based marketplace.

Although there are works in place related to developing a Code of Conduct from the Swiss Government, this standard is being developed to either integrate with the Swiss initiative or as a standalone UK based industry standard. MACE is based on elements of well established and tested international standards, such as:

·         BS EN ISO 9001:2008

·         BS EN ISO 14001:2004

·         BS OHSAS 18001:2007

·         BS 7499 Civilian Security Series

·         FSC-STD-40-004 (Version 2)

As the range of ISO modern day standards were initially modelled on military standards such as Mil-Q-9858A and AQAP-NATO, it was a logical step to base the core elements of a new standard on these well established and tested frameworks.  The MACE standard uses, as a baseline, the core principles of these works and takes the learnings from industry to develop a bespoke working standard and framework for this new requirement.

The MACE Standard is designed to illustrate what companies need to achieve to gain certification, but not how, thus giving the individual organisation the freedom to use processes and procedures specific to them, while keeping their systems compliant to the agreed standardised controls.

Credibility and transparency is required within the PSC Industry to ensure security and integration for the industry in the future.  This can be achieved through harnessing the tools and lessons learned from the civilian business world and tailoring these elements to reflect the new issues affecting the PSC.

The MACE Standard is based on the following key principles:

·         Legal compliance

·         Environ risk management

·         Leadership

·         Involvement, training and protection of people

·         Operational control and response

·         A transparent approach to management & reporting

·         Continual improvement

The effective implementation and adoption of these principles will assist in enhancing the protection of the organisation, its employees, clients, contractors, suppliers and civilians within the affected area.

In a similar fashion to international standards, the MACE Standard has been broken down into manageable elements:

Element	Key Features
General Requirements	Consisting of business best practice in ensuring adequate record keeping, control of records and control of documents.
Management Responsibility	Operational Responsibility, Customer Focus, Contract Formulation and Compliance, Annual Reporting and Management Review.
Resource Management & Planning	Resource Planning, Recruitment and Selection, Competence, Training and Development Infrastructure Management, Objectives, Threat Classification and Monitoring
Operational Control	Structure, Specific Environ Threat Classification, Code(s) of Conduct, Operational Planning, Rules of Engagement, Communication at all levels, Environ Management, Infrastructures, Emergency Preparedness and Response.
Monitoring	Auditing, Measurement and Mission Performance Monitoring, Compliance with Existing Controls, Reporting Elements.

These requirements will be relevant for both the main registered offices of the PSCs as well as to each area of their operations worldwide.  Each site and location of command, will be required to ensure the outlined systems are implemented ensuring adequate control and protection for client, company, employees and civilians.

This standard has not been created to hinder the work of the PSCs, but is being developed to ensure drive and commitment in terms of the creation of a legitimate industry for personnel exiting the Armed Forces; a second career if desired where existing skills can be developed.

Although the British Armed Forces are held in the highest regard worldwide, it is recognised that post service personnel are expected to enter into a civilian market, quite often, with significant qualifications and experience which are not recognized or understood by potential employers. It is inevitable therefore that ex service personnel sometimes find it difficult to acclimatize

Having a legitimate framework ensures a sustainable future for both PSCs and their employers. A market certification will help provide competitive advantage and will also make certain that structures are in place to provide adequate legal and sustainable careers for the right people.

The development and continual improvement of the standard depends on the commitment and support within the market place from PSC’s and other stakeholders, such as NGO’s, Aid Agencies and Government. 

This standard, in a similar vein to the future of the PSC Market Place, requires acceptance and legitimacy for a sustainable future.  From an adaptation of a Rolf Uesseler statement, this standard is aimed at providing a solution for ‘Peace from Within’.

Uesseler’s illustrations outline:

‘Peace from Above’ – Making peace by imposing security and stability from above using legitimate military and police force.

‘Peace from Below’ – Fostering Peace, building up security structures, and stabilizing societies from below.

‘Peace from Within’- Structuring peace and stability through proactive co-operation between the relevant country’s government, leaders, communities, aid agencies, PSCs and stakeholders through risk management and transparency of management and reporting. Change being brought about proactively from within the area of operation itself.

In tandem with the key principles of MACE outlined earlier therefore, PSCs need to develop their own ‘Peace from Within’ to thereby ensure a sustainable and integrated future for the marketplace.

Conclusions

We are sure that many readers remain unconvinced with regard to the requirement. Senior figures in such contracting companies may in fact question the need for it. Consider this however. With the growing industry and unregulated policies, there remains a very real possibility that the growth of PMCs will result in unregulated, uncontrolled, yet highly lucrative quasi military actions in the next thirty years. The example cited earlier of privately owned naval and air assets is by no means a fictional threat. Consider a company operating with such equipment, essentially outside the law and the controls of local government. And why not? There would be no controlling policy or institution to prevent a company making money through propogation of an unscrupulous client’s wishes. Therein lies the thorny issues of morality, legal ramifications and the very nature of international security.

By regulating the PSC and providing a standard, there is a recognisable degree of accountability on the part of the company. The availability of their equipment and their own capabilities mean that they have a responsibility to the state in which their company is based and to the client state for which they work. Those companies that sign up to the standard and are regularly audited against same, pass on an assurance of quality of service, good management and accountability, which brings the burgeoning PSC industry out from the shadow of recent media frenzy and creates corporate visibility – a facet of business perhaps more critical in this new industry, than in any other.