|
The maritime industry is inundated with security companies claiming they can provide anti-piracy defense for the commercial vessels operating off the east coast of Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. The purpose for this article is to inform people on the complexities of security work, and how to ensure the company you hire is capable of providing the protection you need.
Listed below are six basic questions you need to ask (and get answers for) when evaluating a private security company:
-
What is the background of the company?
-
What equipment does the company utilize to accomplish the anti-piracy defense that is being marketed?
-
What are the security personnel’s background and training? If a security contractor indicates he/she can’t tell you their complete background because of a security clearance or client confidentiality…….that should be a red flag.
-
Do their security personnel have real-life experience in making decisions relating to the use of force that would be viewed as “appropriate” in a court of law?
-
Can your security contractor tell you what contingency plans are in place in the event security personnel are involved in a use of force, and what are their force options?
-
What type of oversight and transparency do they offer regarding their operations, and how far do the contingency plans reach?
These questions are very basic and should not be difficult to answer. The idea behind these questions is to determine if the security contractor has viable contingency plans that prevent security forces from going force on force against the threat they are hired to defend against. In other words, if the threat comes from a Somali Pirate attack, which involves AK47’s being fired at the crew and vessel, will the contractor have contingency planning beyond just firing AK47 rounds back at them. That is referred to as “force on force”, and is not the optimal tactic to be utilizing. Your security services provider should make every effort to avoid force on force options, and utilize tactical planning to our advantage. Working smarter and utilizing sophisticated communication equipment and gear to gain a tactical advantage minimizes the use of force on force. We know force on force is an old way of doing business, and usually involves a considerable amount of damage to both sides. Planning has to start at the beginning and your provider needs to explain how they will operate against common threats such as small arms fire and rocket propelled grenade launchers. How will they avoid the force on force dilemma?
Unfortunately, I have seen the six basic questions presented to CEO’s and managers of some security companies, and there were some very uncomfortable moments while they were trying to answer the questions. More than once, some of the responses involved the CEO citing he was unable to provide specific details and fully answer the question due to client confidentiality. That type of an answer is unacceptable and is a red flag. This may be an indicator that real life experience may be absent from their training and experience. I have been involved in hundreds of confidential investigations at both the state and federal level. I am still able to answer the six basic questions without interfering with the confidentiality of those cases I have participated in.
Many private security companies market their services online and tout that they have ex-special force operators employed, who have combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. The advertisements always focus on the defenses they can provide. However, very rarely are there examples of real-life experience that is applicable to the services you actually need.
My point here is that security services is a complex operation when providing services in high-risk areas. Planning has to start at the beginning and continually updated until the operation is complete. This brings up another point worth discussing. When is the mission complete? This question will draw several answers. The job is not complete until every possible threat has been minimized. I am not referring to the defense of a pirate attack itself. I am referring to the completion of a professional and thorough investigation. Ensuring every possible piece of evidence is located and preserved. Every person who was in one way or another involved, has been interviewed and provided a statement. We must ensure we take advantage of all possible leads and the preservation of all relevant evidence that will help our client down the road in the event of civil litigation.
Proper planning should include:
- Pre-incident risk assessment
- Pre-incident intelligence gathering
- Pre-incident operational briefings
- Pre-incident contingency planning
- Pre-incident liability assessment
- Post-incident after action reports
- Post-incident documentation
- Post-incident, evidence preservation and possible collection
- post-incident statements taken from everyone involved
Most security contractors may have heard of these functions, but too often they do not know why they exist and how the client and their legal team will benefit if all of these functions are done correctly. These functions should be part of the very basic operating foundation for a security company providing anti-piracy defense. The “disconnect” in not knowing why they should exist and be part of their business operations lies in the types of security companies out there and how they differ based on their philosophy and background.
There are some very good private security companies operating in conflict zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These security companies are working in war zones, where their clients are not concerned with civil liability to the extent a business would be that is conducting business in an area with a legitimate functioning government and judicial system. In other words, where the possibility of civil litigation being brought against the company for negligence or wrong doing is practically non-existent in a war zone … in civilian environments under the rule of law, liability and civil litigation are very real (and very likely) matters that the client has to be cognizant of.
Most of the security companies I have seen advertise do not clearly distinguish their experience in dealing with the two different scenarios I mention above. Clearly, a security company who has experience providing diplomatic and personal protection in Iraq (i.e. a war zone) should not operate under the same philosophy if they were providing anti-piracy defense for a vessel crossing the Gulf of Aden. These two events are completely different, even though they both are very high-risk environments.
Customers who are seeking private security protection need to know the capability of the company they are hiring for security services. It makes for good advertisement of capabilities if a company has provided high risk-protection in a war zone, but that very experience could be just as much of a liability if the experience and methods of applying it are utilized in an environment outside of a war zone.
Often, a security company is started by a person or persons who came together through joint experience and the foundation of the company will most likely take on a military philosophy if the founders are from a military background. If the founders of the company are from a law enforcement background, then most likely their policies and procedures will be consistent with a law enforcement agency. Even though both of the above companies may not be classified differently (they are both security companies), they would probably be suited for different types of security enforcement.
For example, you may have a person from the Special Forces who is the founder of a security company and has extensive military training. He would probably have the ability to put together a professional security team and provide services relating to the type of training and experience he has. That most likely would be in a conflict or war zone, with minimal exposure to civil liability.
If the founder of the second company comes from a law enforcement background as a SWAT Commander, then that company would be better positioned for high-risk work where maintaining the public trust is essential and ability to work within the confines of civil liability is of critical importance. The experience the SWAT officer obtains most likely comes from working in a city with a functioning government and judicial system.
No matter whom the security company is founded by, they should be able to answer basic questions as to their real life experience, and their abilities to perform the type of work or services you are looking for. Again, as I have seen recently - using the excuse of customer confidentiality to avoid answering a question should be a red flag.
Getting back to anti-piracy defense off the east coast of Somalia and Gulf of Aden. This is an area that has both military and civilian involvement. This is certainly a multi-faceted problem for many shipping companies and their crews who must work in the areas that are subject to pirate attacks. Somalia itself has been without a functioning government since 1991 and is a lawless nation that affects the region. Somali fishermen cannot make a living these days. Numerous ex-fishermen have now joined forces with the pirates and are responsible for the attacks on commercial vessels traveling through the area. The Somali Pirates feel their waters off the coast of Somalia have been over-fished by illegal trawlers from countries like Russia, China, and others. Several Somalis feel they have a right to highjack these large vessels and hold the crew for ransom, because some of these very same ships come from the countries where the fishing trawlers entered their waters and illegally overfished the area. The pirates within some of the communities are looked up to as they are providing essentials for the communities since their primary livelihood has been taken away.
The amounts of ransom paid in a single year were, by some estimates, over 30 million US dollars—this amount is expected to increase. This has given the pirates a financial platform to upgrade their weaponry and technology to help them become more efficient at boarding large ships and holding the crew for ransom. Somali Piracy is a problem with and at many different levels and is one that will not be fixed by any single country or any one resolution. This complex problem will take a diverse solution coming from multiple countries.
In the meantime, what do the shipping companies do to prevent their ships and crewmembers from being taken for ransom?
There has been a historical and international naval response to provide warship patrols to the area in an effort to curtail the opportunity for Somali Pirates to highjack shipping vessels in the area. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has demanded this military response. With the support of the IMO, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) was able to get an extension of Resolution 1816. This resolution along with the Somali Government have outlined terms for foreign countries who are supporting anti-piracy efforts to enter Somali territorial waters to use “all necessary means” consistent with international law to stop piracy.
This extension of Resolution 1816 and the establishment of the Maritime Security Patrol Area in the Gulf of Aden have not stopped the attacks from occurring. In fact, 2009 has seen a significant increase in attacks over 2008 during the same period. This is evidence that this problem will not be solved by the military alone. In fact, several high-ranking military officers have indicated they (the military) will not be able to solve this problem alone or guarantee the safety of commercial vessels traversing the Gulf of Aden. Shipping companies have been encouraged to take a more aggressive approach towards providing self-defense of their vessels, which includes the possibility of hiring private security.
As the Founder and CEO of Triton Global Services, I feel the shipping companies have to be extremely cautious if they are considering hiring a private security company. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, numerous security companies are advertising they have the ability and experience to provide anti-piracy defense. Several of these companies were working in Iraq and Afghanistan during wartime events, which we touched on above, is significantly different then providing anti-piracy defense. My ideas are by no means permanent fixes to the root problems, but they do address the options for the shipping companies who cannot avoid the area without a significant negative impact to their businesses.
Shipping companies are going to be held accountable for the actions of any private security company they hire. Here are my thoughts on what they should expect from a private security company in order to minimize their liability and risk and provide appropriate anti-piracy defense for their vessels and crews:
The security company should include real-life experience with respect to use of force. A ship at sea in the Gulf of Aden is not considered a war zone. There are functioning judicial courts with jurisdiction on these vessels based on their country of registry, country of the ship owners, and country of the crewmembers, and possibly the jurisdictions where an incident occurred.
The private security company best suited for a maritime operating environment should be experienced, have a law enforcement background, and be familiar with accountability to the laws governing both criminal and civil litigation.
Most security companies do not realize or take into account that as soon as a criminal attempt to take control of a vessel or any other property, a crime has been committed. There will be an investigation pursuant to the crime. Depending on the involvement and complexity of the incident, providing security services to thwart the attempt is not the end of the incident. A security service provider must realize the vessel becomes an active crime scene and must be maintained. Documenting, preserving, and possibly collecting evidence is critical to any future court proceeding. Having a security team onboard who has the experience to process evidence and maintaining evidentiary qualities can make the difference between a vessel owner being dismissed of all negligence and having his vessel returning to service or a lengthy civil court proceeding with penalties and a vessel out of service.
Transparency and oversight of all actions becomes very important down the road when the next fight takes place … the one in the courtroom.
What I have discussed above shows why I feel a security company structured after a law enforcement entity would be better equipped to deal with security services involving criminal events where there is a functioning judicial system.
A security company structured from military philosophies would probably be better suited to provide security services in conflict or war zones, operating in areas without a functioning government or judicial system.
The policies and procedures implemented must be in place before attempting to provide security services and should reflect the environment the security company is conducting business. A security company that “rewrites” policies and procedures to accommodate a new contract or to “approach” a new client prospect is not one that you should give a great deal of consideration to. Or is certainly one that you should do your homework on to be sure that they are in fact capable of providing you the level of service you require and that is a service that incorporates liability awareness along with anti-piracy defense. I feel that tactical defense must be coupled with liability awareness. This is such a critical component that I have made it the central theme of my company, and the focus of our consulting services to shipping lines and vessel owners. We are "where tactical defense and liability awareness converge.”
About the Author
|
