After
UN
Stonewalls ICP
on Use of PMC
Saracen, GPF
Adds DynCorp
&
G4S
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
July 10,
updated thrice
-- Might a new
report
on the UN's
use of private
military
contractors
shake it out
of denial?
The
UN's
use of PMCs or
even
mercenaries
became a
subject of
contention
back in April,
when the
Department of
Peacekeeping
Operations
declined to
confirm to
Inner City
Press its use
of the PMC
Saracen
Uganda, part
owned by a
relative of
Ugandan
president
Yoweri
Museveni.
After
several
rounds of
questions and
stonewalling,
Inner City
Press simply
published
the contract
information:
August
2010
SARACEN UGANDA
LTD UGA
CON/MON/10-085
Provision
of
Unarmed
Security
Services at
Entebbe and
Kampala
1-Aug-10
to 31-Jul-11
$170,685
MONUSCO
September
2010
SARACEN UGANDA
LTD UGA
Security
services
$132,935
11KIN-200211
MONUSCO
July
2011
SARACEN UGANDA
LTD UGA
Security
services
$144,648
12KIN-200059
MONUSCO
Only
after
Inner City
Press
published this
did DPKO's
spokesman
belatedly
admit (and
spin) it,
writing to
Inner City
Press that:
"I
have
a response on
the parts of
your questions
related to
MONUSCO. On
private
security more
generally, I
am still
following up.
Question:
Is MONUSCO
using the
services of
SARACEN, a
Ugandan
private
security
company?
"MONUSCO
contracts
private
unarmed
security
companies to
assist in
access
control
procedures in
all of its
compounds.
Saracen is
contracted by
MONUSCO for
these purposes
at its base in
Entebbe,
Uganda."
Inner
City Press
noted that
while DPKO did
not provide
that actual
contract
information
which Inner
City Press
published,
this
information
says
Saracen is
under UN
contract in
Kampala as
well. Inner
City Press
then awaited
the response
on "private
security more
generally."
But
soon
thereafter DPKO
chief Herve
Ladsous said
publicly he
would not
answer any
more Inner
City Press questions
due to
critical
coverage.
And DPKO has
in fact
provided no
information on
this since.
Now
comes a
detailed report
from Lou
Pingeot of
Global Policy
Forum,
which recounts
not only
Saracen and
MONUSCO, but
the use of
DynCorp
by UNOPS and
UNDP. (Click
here for
Inner City
Press' so-far
eight-part
series
on UN and UNDP
corruption in
Afghanistan).
GPF also cited
G4S,
which
the UN Global
Compact has
allowed to
join, telling
Inner City
Press
its
operations are
"legal."
One
hopes the GPF
study will
cause the UN
to reform, or
at least or
relately that
Ladsous, who
has proved
resistant to
criticism and
questions for
example about
his proposal
that DPKO
should use
drones,
will at least
read it.
Inner
City Press
asked for a
response at
Tuesday's noon
briefing, and
at 3 pm the
following
arrived:
NOTE
TO
CORRESPONDENTS
In
response to
questions on
private
security
contractors
The
UN system has
been working
to develop a
draft policy
which proposes
a decision
making
framework and
framework of
accountability
for the use of
armed private
security
companies by
the United
Nations. A
draft policy
was approved
by the Inter
Agency
Security
Management
Network at its
last meeting
in June 2012.
The
draft policy
provides the
structure for
the assessment
process for
the use of
private
security
contractors
and
articulates
that such
companies may
only be used
in
circumstances
where the
provision of
armed security
by the host
country,
another member
state, or
United Nations
resources are
not possible
or
appropriate.
The policy
emphasizes the
need for
strict
protocols
concerning the
use of force.
It also
describes the
management and
oversight
responsibilities
of the United
Nations.
Other
issues the
draft policy
deals with
include
guidelines on
the roles and
responsibilities
of United
Nations
personnel in
the decision
to use armed
private
security
contractors,
criteria for
recommending
the use of
armed private
security
contractors
and screening
and training
requirements.
The Working
Group produced
a Statement of
Work for use
by the Office
of Legal
Affairs to
develop a
model contract
for how to
engage an
armed private
security
contractor
that has been
selected.
The
draft policy
is still in
the process of
being approved
by the UN
system.
Regarding
the larger
issue on
whether it is
appropriate to
use armed
private
security
contractors,
we believe it
is appropriate
that if they
are used we
ensure due
diligence. UN
contracting
policies have
improved and
we need to
continue to
improve
them.
The distinct
differences in
the ways that
private
security
contractors go
about their
work also must
be borne in
mind.
And, very
quickly, this
reply from the
report's
author:
"Hi
Matthew,
Thanks for
sending.
System-wide
guidelines for
armed private
security are a
step in the
right
direction, but
it’s also
definitely a
case of too
little, too
late. As the
report shows,
the problem is
not limited to
armed private
security. What
matters is
less the
services that
the companies
provide than
their nature.
These
guidelines
would still
leave a lot of
issues
unaddressed
when it comes
to unarmed
private
security (UN
contracts with
Saracen, for
instance) and
other services
provided by
PMSCs, such as
risk
assessment or
even demining.
Further, there
is concern
among some UN
staff critical
of this
process
(concern that
I share) that
these
guidelines are
but a fig
leaf, meant to
show that the
UN is “doing
something”
when in fact
it hasn’t even
begun to ask
the right
questions
about PMSCs –
do they really
make the UN
safer? The
report
addresses some
of these
issues on page
39.
"In
addition, I
would argue
that the “last
resort”
argument (the
UN would only
use them when
it has no
other options,
i.e. host
state, another
member state
or UN own
resources) is
a bit of a red
herring. How
do you decide
that these
other options
have been
exhausted,
especially
when it comes
to UN staff?
There is
evidence that
the UN hasn’t
given enough
thought to the
possibility of
increasing its
own resources
rather than
relying on
PMSCs, which
have never
proven to be
cheaper."
, 
