Guns for Hire - With Canadian Taxpayer Dollars

Benjamin Perrin

Canada has been hiring private companies to do jobs that our military would traditionally do – including protecting our Prime Minister when he visits hotspots like Afghanistan. Should we be concerned about this practice?

The United States was forced to confront this issue in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal where contract interrogators were employed. More recently, Congress has been grappling with an incident where the private security firm Blackwater USA allegedly indiscriminately killed and wounded Iraqi civilians in September 2007. For Britain it was the “Arms to Africa” affair where UK-based private military companies allegedly fuelled local armed conflict. And in South Africa, international pressure led to the reigning in of firms with links to apartheid-era mercenaries.

Fortunately, Canada has yet to be singled out for our private military and security company activity. That is, however, surely no reason to wait to address the issue. A starting point is the hiring of these firms by the government.

The Department of Foreign Affairs spent almost $15 million last year on nearly two dozen private security firms to provide security for Canadian embassies in Nigeria, Pakistan and Haiti. They also do unspecified work in Peru and Greece, on behalf of Canada.

Little is known about the extent to which the Department of National Defence relies on private military and security companies. We know that one company, Saladin Security, provides protective security to dignitaries in Afghanistan, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Saladin was allegedly fired by the Red Cross several years ago in Uganda over concerns about links to ex-mercenaries in South Africa. Blackwater USA has provided specialized training in bodyguard and personal protective services for select members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The private military and security industry is projected to reach US$210 billion by 2010 worldwide. While Canada’s piece of this pie is not significant, it only takes one allegation that a firm hired by our government has indiscriminately wounded or killed civilians in Afghanistan to stir up animosity against our soldiers – putting their important mission in peril.

We need to take a hard look at what roles these private firms are taking on, in order to protect our reputation and interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and whether sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure proper conduct. Waiting for something to go awry before taking action is bad policy.

What should we be doing to protect Canadian interests from lapses that might occur with private security forces? To start, the federal government should ensure that its contracts with private military and security firms include key contractual protections, such as the ability to immediately remove individual contractors that run afoul of rules governing the use of force. A penalty clause could also be included for misconduct.

All private military and security contractors hired by the federal government should be fully vetted. This lesson was hard learned in Iraq by other governments when an investigation revealed that a former British Army soldier who had been jailed for working with Irish terrorists, and a former South African soldier who had admitted to firebombing the houses of more than 60 political activists during the apartheid era, were working for private security contractors in Iraq.

The US government is now requiring enhanced training in human rights and international humanitarian law among contractors deploying with their military. We insist on such training for our own soldiers. Inadequate training in these areas is a serious risk factor, so Canada should require the same of any contractors that it hires.

A further safeguard would ensure that every contractor hired by the Government of Canada abroad is subject to local law in the event that a serious crime is committed. This is vital to provide a sense of discipline and to prevent an “impunity gap” as was seen in Iraq, where private contractors had immunity from prosecution.

In short, Canada needs a transparent and comprehensive policy on hiring private military and security companies. Where such firms are hired, a preliminary list of measures to mitigate the risk of improper conduct could include the following:

1. Preventative approaches:

2. Reactive approaches:

The most reputable private military and security firms in the industry are open to accepting these safeguards. Their clients are not just governments and companies, but also non-governmental organizations. These firms see a competitive advantage in being able to guarantee proper conduct by their employees. For example, UK-based Armor Group is a private security company that has a client list that reads like the “who’s who” of international humanitarian and development agencies. The firm has long been opposed to immunity for its employees.

We should also question whether it would better serve our national interests to build up the capacity of our own Canadian Forces in areas that we have begun hiring contractors to fulfill. Recent polls find Canadians increasingly interested in our country demonstrating principled leadership abroad, and improving capacity within our own military would be consistent with that sentiment.

Renewal of our military to play a positive role globally has grown in recent years and it would be tragic for that to be thwarted by reliance on private firms for core security functions. Taking action to address concerns about private military and security firms would also be an important contribution by Canada to ensure stability in conflict-ridden areas like Afghanistan.

Canadian Military Police providing protective services are trained to uniform standards and subject to our National Defence Act. Hired contractors are not. We’ve already learned hard lessons from the Somalia Inquiry about the importance of clear command and control structures.

Surely, we do not need to learn those lessons again.