Intelligence: The risks of going private

Private security companies (PSCs) are struggling to define how they should fit into Europe’s traditionally state-dominated security and intelligence sector, and to persuade policymakers that their industry deserves formal recognition to reinforce its legitimacy.

Many PSCs would like to see action by the EU authorities in support of a system of certification, preferably industry-led. But there is still considerable reluctance to countenance this within the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, which represents the EU’s 27 national capitals. The two authorities are keeping an arm’s length distance from the highly controversial nature of outsourcing public security and intelligence functions to the private sector.

Yet the PSC trend is growing within Europe and internationally. How to deal with the many sensitive privatization issues surrounding this most sensitive of government functions was the focus of debate at a closed half-day workshop here on 30 March. The workshop was organized by the independent policy group, the Italian Center for International Perspectives (CIPI) - with support from the European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center (ESISC), a think tank and consultancy in the security sector. Both are based in the Belgian capital.

The event brought together policy officials from the EU and NATO, diplomats from national governments, PSC executives and security experts from other business sectors such as IT (information technology) service providers for a non-attributable discussion of the issues. Selected members of the press, including ISN Security Watch, were invited to attend the debate, which was moderated by Paolo Raffone, CIPI’s secretary general, and Claude Moniquet, ESISC’s president.

The workshop examined two broad subjects: whether new policy in Europe is needed regarding PSCs, and whether a limited privatization of intelligence carries security risks or opportunities and for whom.

The PSCs image problem

As CIPI noted in a background paper circulated during the debate, “there is a need to better assess both the potential benefits and risks resulting from the current privatization and outsourcing trend - with the ultimate objective of ensuring more effective protection and assistance for individuals, groups and corporate interests of any sort. The present moment is therefore a critical one to establish regulation or, more accurately, ‘control’ for the industry not only on a national, but also - ideally - on an international level.”

After a quick tour de table of opinion by the workshop’s 40 participants, it became clear that a divide exists between PSCs and governments about the nature of their relationship.

In general, representatives from the private security companies - many of whom employ former officials from military and government intelligence agencies - said they want some kind of government policy in place that recognizes their status and the importance of their work.

While most PSCs are involved in ordinary information-gathering tasks or security-of-infrastructure work, their sector’s reputation has suffered from bad publicity generated by certain players involved in abusive or clandestine activities in recent international conflicts such as those of Iraq, Afghanistan and across the African continent.

As the PSCs themselves admit, they have an image problem in the eye of the general public, whose view of their sector, however unfair it may be, is one of cloak-and-dagger companies immersed in less-than-ethical behavior in an unregulated operational environment.

Moniquet categorically rejected that perception. “PSCs are legitimate members of the intelligence and information-gathering community and should be acknowledged as such. We must dispel the myth that they are engaged in espionage or underhanded techniques. The vast majority want information and inside intelligence but they want it obtaine