Now as I'm sure many of you are aware, the world is a dangerous and violent place.
Arguably more so than 20 years ago. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO)s that were once able to operate with a measure of safety based upon respect are now no longer able to provide desperately needed services to the most desperate regions of the plant.
For example, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF or Doctors without Borders) recently had two of its personnel captured in Somolia. MÉDECINS SANS FRONTIÈRES / DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (MSF) - Canada: Somalia: MSF confirms two staff members abducted in Bakool region
International symbols like the Red Cross, which are recognized under the Geneva Convetion as protected members no longer offer any real protection. In fact they are often targeted in the more violent regions as likely sources of valuable ransoms.
These organizations bravely operate in the most lawless of regions without protection. There comes a point however where bravery becomes folly. Understandibly these peaceful organizations want nothing to do with the military, either western or local.
Their argument is that the imposing demeanor of professional armies intimidates locals and prevents the NGO from reaching the disempowered.
Fair enough, but these professional armies are the only real source of protection operating in failed states.
So where am I going with this? We are all aware of the rising prevelance of "Private Security Corporations" in modern warfare. Notably the UK's Guardian and the USA's Blackwater. Blackwater now boasts regimental strength and is developing light armour assets.
Obviously these mercenaries are not well suited ideologically to work with humanitarian NGO's but their skills and success proves a point. One, that there is money to be had and two that they are largely successful at protecting their contracts and staying alive themselves.
So what if a private security firm started up that focused on the providing protection to NGO's?
A low profile, heavily armed and armoured protection agency that would be available on a contract basis to embed itself into organizations like the Red Cross during relief efforts or provide close protection and convey operations to MSF would have prevented a number of tragedies now in the news.
Concievably this idea could be transferred to the proteciton of shipping around Somolia.
More to follow when I have time.
Comments?
An Idea
An Idea
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
So I just stood and listened.
Its an interesting thought to be sure, and it would conceivably work since corporations can usually go where a professional military can't because of political problems. The problem is mostly the reason you don't see much protection for NGOs today: who will pay for it? As far as I know, NGOs don't tend to have a lot of assets on hand that they can use to pay for a private military contractor, and said contractors won't be providing services out of the kindness of their hearts.
Also, there might the problem that even private protection might not be such a deterrent. A professional, national military has resources and political sensibilities behind it that conceivably act as deterrents. Hypothetically, an NGO protected by a national military would, if struck at, be forced to respond in a proportional and decisive way due to the political consequences. The same NGO protected by a private force might not be in a position to strike back, due to less resources and the fact that there is a bottom line at play. Why would a private contractor strike back at any group that assaults any of their employees or protectorates? There's little economic benefit, so, assuming rational actors, there's less of a deterrent in hitting something that IS protected by a private military.
Having said that, no doubt that any form of protection would be a strong deterrent to most groups.
There's also the willingness of the NGOs to consider. Most want to act as neutral actors that can go into dangerous situations with impartiality and help those they need to. Bringing along muscle would make locals and other groups more uncomfortable, and probably prevent their entry into many situations. For example, the impoverished country's government might see military contractors as simply the extension of another country's force. It lessens the image of some NGOs as impartial and nonthreatening actors, which defeats the purpose somewhat.
Its a tough situation though. I agree that protection is a good idea, but I'm not sure how it would work, since most private military organizations operate on a business model, and I doubt most NGOs have the funds required.
Also, there might the problem that even private protection might not be such a deterrent. A professional, national military has resources and political sensibilities behind it that conceivably act as deterrents. Hypothetically, an NGO protected by a national military would, if struck at, be forced to respond in a proportional and decisive way due to the political consequences. The same NGO protected by a private force might not be in a position to strike back, due to less resources and the fact that there is a bottom line at play. Why would a private contractor strike back at any group that assaults any of their employees or protectorates? There's little economic benefit, so, assuming rational actors, there's less of a deterrent in hitting something that IS protected by a private military.
Having said that, no doubt that any form of protection would be a strong deterrent to most groups.
There's also the willingness of the NGOs to consider. Most want to act as neutral actors that can go into dangerous situations with impartiality and help those they need to. Bringing along muscle would make locals and other groups more uncomfortable, and probably prevent their entry into many situations. For example, the impoverished country's government might see military contractors as simply the extension of another country's force. It lessens the image of some NGOs as impartial and nonthreatening actors, which defeats the purpose somewhat.
Its a tough situation though. I agree that protection is a good idea, but I'm not sure how it would work, since most private military organizations operate on a business model, and I doubt most NGOs have the funds required.
If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
The money question is certainly central to the discussion. Some NGO's are quite wealthy, the majority are not. I imagine the lions share of funding would come from nation states.
A armed escort would deter the majority of the thugs that populate failed states, but you are right in saying not all.
If I were to create a private security company for the protection of NGO's, there would be certain stipulations like
1) Only operating in a region where a professional (preferably western) army operates. It would be nice to have back up when you spot 200 insurgents heading for you and I know that that coalition forces in Afghanistan for example would be more than happy to engage a collection of insurgents that size.
2) No night operations
3) No dismounted operations
4) NGO's leave when the escort decides it is time.
The neutrality issue is important which is why a private security company dedicated to the protection of NGO's would specialize in low profile operations.
Up armoured land rovers with the machine guns in a drop down cuppola, troops on the ground wearing body armour under their outside clothing, small weapons concealable under a jacket (but still capable of engaging targets at 200m) and a combat belt rather than a harness.
All the heavy gear can be left in the trucks.
A armed escort would deter the majority of the thugs that populate failed states, but you are right in saying not all.
If I were to create a private security company for the protection of NGO's, there would be certain stipulations like
1) Only operating in a region where a professional (preferably western) army operates. It would be nice to have back up when you spot 200 insurgents heading for you and I know that that coalition forces in Afghanistan for example would be more than happy to engage a collection of insurgents that size.
2) No night operations
3) No dismounted operations
4) NGO's leave when the escort decides it is time.
The neutrality issue is important which is why a private security company dedicated to the protection of NGO's would specialize in low profile operations.
Up armoured land rovers with the machine guns in a drop down cuppola, troops on the ground wearing body armour under their outside clothing, small weapons concealable under a jacket (but still capable of engaging targets at 200m) and a combat belt rather than a harness.
All the heavy gear can be left in the trucks.
The waves came crashing in like blindness.
So I just stood and listened.
So I just stood and listened.