Turning To The Markets For Human Security: Impact of Privatization On The Security Landscape (Incomplete)

Turning to the Market for Human Security The Impact of Privatization on the Security Landscape
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Regulations for the Degree of Masters of Science in Global Studies
of the University of the West Indies
by Joshua Hamlet 807006371 15th July, 2012
2|Page
Joshua Hamlet Turning to the Market for Human Security: Impact of Privatization on the Security Landscape
Table of Contents Chapter One .......................................................................................................................................4 PROBLEM DEFINITION ....................................................................................................................4 THESIS STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTION .............................................................................9 Chapter Two ..................................................................................................................................... 11 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................... 11 Chapter Three .................................................................................................................................. 14 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 14 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Recurrent Limitations in the concept of security ................................................................. 14 Major Pillars of the Security Discourse: Referent Object, Nature of Threats and Mechanics ..... 17 Human Security: Creating a Market Space for Privatization ................................................... 24 Rationale for Privatization and Privatizing Security ................................................................ 28 Historical Management of Force and Typology of Private Security Companies......................... 33 Caribbean Security Agenda: A Response to Vulnerability ....................................................... 37
Chapter Four .................................................................................................................................... 40 METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 40 Indicators of incidents of threats to physical safety and security; against property ............................ 42 Indicators of incidence of threat to physical safety and security; against persons .............................. 42 Perceptions of Safety and Threats of Violence ................................................................................. 43 Chapter Five ..................................................................................................................................... 44 PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 44 Recent Trends in Private Security Companies .............................................................................. 44 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 46 The Montreux Document and Regulation ..................................................................................... 46 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 57
3|Page
Tables and Figures

Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3: Epistemic Distinctions .................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 1: Four Dimensions of Extended Security ....................................................................................... 26 Table 4: Thompsons Analytical Framework for Organization of Violence .............................................. 34 Figure.2: Tip of the Spear Typology: PMFs Distinguished by Range of Services and Force Levels ........ 36 Table 5: Scope, Purpose and Forms of Privatized Security ........................................................................ 38
4|Page
Chapter One
PROBLEM DEFINITION Contemporary trends in private security highlight two issues for investigation: firstly, the role of the state in providing security, and secondly how the changing nature of threats at a global scale is reinforcing the demand for services of private security companies1 (PSCs). The Small Arms Survey (2011) which reviewed 70 nations estimated that the formal private security sector employs between 19.5 and 25.5 million persons worldwide and at an increasing rate is outnumbering public authorities. It noted the rapid growth of the sector occurred with minimal oversight and regulations as international initiatives are still in their infancy. Globally, private security industry growth recorded an estimated worth of USD 100- 165 billion annually with an annual growth rate of 7-8 percent. The report also estimated the number of private security personnel in Trinidad and Tobago at 5,000 persons as compared to 6,500 police officers. These trends in private security figures suggest that public authorities are likely to be outnumbered in the near future. In terms of activities, the impressive range of traditional and non-traditional services offered by the markets2 through PSCs, which span from small local outfits to large multinationals carrying out contracts, attract diverse clients such as governments, international corporations, local businesses and private households.
Private Security Company is defined using the Hallcrest Report as those self-employed individuals and privately funded business entities and organizations providing security-related services to specific clientele for a fee, for the individual or entity that retains or employs them, or for themselves, in order to protect their persons, private property, or interests from various hazards. 2 The following studying utilizes the market in a narrow sense to mean the production and sale of various goods and services to private individuals and organizations by profit-seeking entrepreneurial firm. See Benson (1998).
5|Page
Rationales for the increase in PSCs include a downsizing of the public sector coupled with an increased outsourcing of security functions to satisfy individuals increased awareness of security risk and increasing demand for technology. Trends in the provision of security services are also linked to global trends in threats. The Human Security Report 2009/2010 Figure 10.1
highlights the trends in various types of conflict3, with a majority being waged within states involving various actors. Such conflicts increased between 1989 and 1992, decreased till 2003 with a resurgence between 2004 and 2008 (Sundberg, 2009). The World Report on Violence and Health (2002) note an increase in the threat of violence be it self-inflicted, inter-personal or collective; an estimated 5.06 million people die from violent injuries, with the vast majority occurring in low and middle income countries. This increase in interpersonal violence occurs in an environment wherein states argue that contracting private sector increases flexibility, efficiency and affordability versus permanent in-house capability (Small Arms Survey 2011). Within such arguments, this paper questions whether private sector contributions should be
3
Uppsala Conflict Data Program provides the following definitions; one-sided violence is the use of violence by the government of a state, or by formally organized groups, against civilians. A non-state conflict involves the use of armed force between two groups neither of which is the government of a state, that results in more than 25 deaths in a calendar year.
6|Page
treated as a threat to the states monopoly on force or as an alternative means of stabilizing the use of force. Concomitantly, early twenty-first century publications such as the UN Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004) indicates that threats are becoming progressively inter-related with a threat to one becoming a threat to all. The extensive nature of threats draws attention to possible limitations in the states protective capacity and the need to collaborate with non-state actors to manage todays threats. Issues of sovereignty underlie measures of threat management as the report emphasizes that the sovereign responsibility of states to protect their citizens creates the need for new expressions of sovereignty such as contractual agreements with the private sector to fulfil security services. Similarly, Post Cold War dynamics eliminated the ideological patronage system of bloc parties thereby requiring weak bureaucracies to find alternative marketbased avenue to satisfy the military resource gap and increased demand for military goods and services (Branovic, 2011). These aforementioned phenomena stem from a changing global focus on security issues intensifying the security culture (Daase, 2010), where security concerns dominate strategic debates and programmes. Societys escalating reliance on PSCs for crime prevention and protection reflects such dominance, requiring parallel examination of notions of and the commoditization of security. These trends directly challenge traditional state centred security assumptions through an expansion of threats and possible reconfigurations of the security landscape. The expansion of threats is strongly linked to academic challenges towards the traditional notion of security, most pervasive being the human security paradigm, which create research opportunities into the impact of privatization and an increase in PSC.
7|Page
The World Bank Crime, Violence and Development Report for the Caribbean (2007) denotes the region as having an overall murder rate of 30 per 100,000 with high levels of other violent crimes, reporting that high rates of crime and violence undermine growth and threaten human welfare. The report illustrates the inertia effects of crime (once crime rates are high, it may be difficult to reduce them), and levels of inequality associated with violent and property crime as Caribbean countries show patterns similar those seen worldwide however with higher overall crime rates. Regionally, murder and robbery rates are higher in countries with low economic growth and in communities with large population of poor young men. The Caribbeans vulnerability to violent crime is expounded by being geographically situated between worlds primary source of cocaine and its primary consumer market. Its location highlights the regions limited capacity to protect its shores and the inefficiency of the criminal justice system. Hence a growing regional demand exists for the provision of security services4 which is strongly correlated to increasing private sector contributions through PSCs.
Rapes, Incest & Serious Kidnapping Other Kidnapping Robberies Indecency for Ransom Sexual Off rep det rep det rep det rep det rep det 744 546 59 41 222 148 58 15 4868 911 903 646 81 56 197 113 17 8 5633 921 825 550 76 52 164 90 14 2 4965 849 724 405 55 28 138 62 17 5 5043 567 760 393 44 27 147 49 8 6 6107 753 706 362 61 28 108 41 7 4 5123 555 650 257 59 26 119 57 3 1 3718 434
Years
Murders
Woundings & Shootings rep 801 657 680 771 689 616 535 det 282 243 286 205 195 154 129
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
rep det 386 96 371 93 391 74 547 99 507 134 473 106 352 74
Table. 1: Violent Crimes against Persons in Trinidad and Tobago 2005-2011 (CAPA: Reported and Detected)
Companies that offer offensive services designed to have military impact are defined as private military companies while defensive services mainly to protect individuals and property are private security companies (Shearer 1998; Singer 2008).
8|Page
The intensifying nature, quantity of, and propensity towards violent crimes reinforce Diprose (2007) conclusion that violence impedes human freedom to live safely and securely. As such, the changing role of the state given its limited capacity to equally address every single security issues becomes a core question. Trinidad and Tobago currently experiences an increasing number of violent crimes against persons annually (Table.1)5 amplifying tension and a lack of confidence in public authorities. Barring that a large proportion of violent crime remains unrecorded, it can be argued that these trends demonstrate the need for more personalized security services as crimes against property also follows a similar trend (Table.2). Overall however, violent personal and property crimes have diverged with decreasing rates in certain categories of violent property crime.
Years
Burglaries & Break-ins rep det 659 719 676 464 560 615 531
Fraud Offences rep 300 322 236 234 268 211 224 det 283 315 213 152 224 160 121
General Larceny rep 2752 3064 3570 4407 3987 4089 3119 det 353 363 450 333 345 319 300
Larceny Motor Vehicles rep 1329 1496 1795 1750 1706 1371 900 det 112 84 118 63 93 68 69
Larceny Dwelling House rep 408 452 453 446 613 623 481 det 53 69 56 48 57 60 64
Malicious Damage rep 413 401 519 620 626 639 549 det 192 222 232 165 190 138 89
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
4582 4973 4958 4855 5765 5226 4221
Table. 2: Violent Crimes against property in Trinidad and Tobago 2005-2011(CAPA: Reported and Detected)
Gang-related violence and unconstrained gun usage has been a security impetus with 159 gang-related murders and 269 firearms used in 2006 to 293 gang-related murders and 437 firearms used in 2008. Gun-related criminality related to narcotics trafficking facilitates the
Crime and Problem Analysis branch statistics illustrate a steady increase in reported murders from 120 in 2000 to 507 in 2009, 473 in 2010 and 352 in 2011. Noteworthy exception is the decrease in abduction related crimes however the relatively steady numbers of shootings and robberies are important.
9|Page
availability of firearms, as the firearms required to protect contraband are smuggled in and at time remain in the country. The spill-over violence caused by the symbiotic link between narcotics and violent crime diverts criminal justice system resources from other aspects of the nations security while embedding violence within Trinidad and Tobago. The nation is becoming increasingly reliant on PSCs with the majority being small and local targeting niche sectors and others establishing regional and international links. Consequently, the current regulatory mechanisms for the services of PSC highlight a critical deficiency in our national security strategy as exemplified in the lax package of legislation6 governing PSC. The problem being examined can thus be summarized as: the expansive nature of threats reconfigures the security landscape such that the increase in private security companies occurs with minimal regulation. THESIS STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTION
This study examines the factors that impact the security landscape of the Caribbean, and consequently assesses the issue of minimal regulation that is directly related to an increase in private security companies in the first decade of the 21st century. Firstly, this paper provides a brief critique of security through its recurrent limitations and major pillars while acknowledging the increasing demands of human security. Secondly, it investigates possible reasons for the global increase in PSC and the extent to which Trinidad and Tobago follow such trends. Thirdly, it suggests possible changes to the security landscape for stakeholders (state, civil society and PSC). Finally, this paper proposes a conceptual model for understanding the significant factors affecting the varying roles of security stakeholders, in relation to regulation utilizing the
In The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago the legislation are; Trinidad and Tobago Supplemental Police Act 15:02 (1906), Trinidad and Tobago Police Service Act 15:01 (2006) and the Firearms and Companies Act. The Private Security Bill lapsed upon the dissolution of the 6th Parliament on 9th October, 2001.
6
10 | P a g e
principles of the Montreux Document7 and the framework of Griffith (2004) Discrete Multidimensional Security Framework (DMSF) (Appendix 1). The research questions for the study are as follows. 1) To what extent has there been an increase in private security companies globally and specifically in Trinidad and Tobago? 2) How does an increase in private security companies reconfigure the security landscape in Trinidad and Tobago? Given particular emphasis on the role of the state, civil society and private security companies. a) Focusing on human security, securitization and symbols of security; the way in which these factors increase the role of non-state security actors and highlight minimal regulations? b) What are the possible characteristics of a model of regulation for private security companies in Trinidad and Tobago
Created by the Swiss Initiative and signed by seventeen states(notably including Afghanistan, China, France, Germany, Iraq, the UK, the US, Sierra Leone, and South Africa. , the document reaffirms existing international law obligations and good practices for contracting and regulating PSC. It is explicitly non-binding with no legal obligations however it serves as the most coherent, precise and consensually development good practice statement for the industry that is supported by multiple states.
11 | P a g e
Chapter Two THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Critiquing security within International Relations (IR) requires considering broader theoretical frameworks whilst comprehending its unique nature. Traditional IR perspectives of realism and liberalism are central theories providing the background for the security discourse. Challenging these mainstream approaches are critical perspectives contesting previous assumptions about the nature of the world and constituent actors. The theoretical framework is divided into two parts whereby the security concept formulated by mainstream IR theories shall be critiqued utilizing critical perspectives. Privatization and the subsequent increase in PSC shall be analysed in light of the human security paradigm and the securitization branch of critical security studies. The Realist paradigm focuses on the traditional Westphalian notion of protecting territorial integrity and political sovereignty of the state with an emphasis on guarding against external military threat. The nation-state is the legitimate protector of its citizens and the unit of analysis as a rational actor pursuing national interest. Liberalist thought similarly focuses on preservation of the nation-state however by recognition of the involvement of a plurality of actors especially through multilateralism. Complex inter-dependence, cooperation of institutions and multilateralism serve as avenues to achieve and maintain security (Edwards and Ferstman 2009, 10). Critical perspectives such as constructivism and critical security studies (CSS) maintain a micro-analytical focus. Constructivism emphasizes the way in which ideas, interest and politics in security are socially constructed and arise from social processes and interaction. Critical
12 | P a g e
perspectives challenge what it means to be secure, causes of insecurity and who or what the concept of security should be apply to. Peoples and Vaughn Williams (2010: 2) highlight such critical perspectives refute the idea that security has a constant definitively settled meaning and content that can be taken for granted. Critical perspectives focus on three elements of security as a derivative concept, the idea of a broaden security and challenging state-centrism.
The key concepts (Box 1.1) of critical perspectives challenge political realisms emphasis on the state and war being the main threat within the cycle of the security dilemma. It promotes a broadening and deepening of the security agenda. The former relates to an expansion of the analytical horizon of the study of security beyond the military while the latter refers to the extension of the referent object to beyond the state. This expansion also recognizes a multiplicity of actors beyond the state as a site of insecurity such as the individual human beings. CSS challenges the ontological assumption of state-centrism while recognizing that understandings of security reflect deeper assumptions about the nature of politics and the role of conflict in political
13 | P a g e
life. It analyses the theory-practice nexus wherein theories inform security practices and viceversa with the normative goal of emancipation. Booth refers to this emancipation as the freeing of people from those physical and human constraints which stop them from carrying out what they freely choose to do. CSS objects to the static picture of security under the traditional approaches by analysing the language of security to understand the divergence between the material world and various inter-subjective meanings of the word. The critical perspective of securitization is applied to understand the link between increasing demands for security services and the mechanisms of threat definition. Securitization refers to shifting an issue out of the realm of normal politics into the realm of emergency politics by presenting it as an existential threat. It is initiated through speech acts whereby an issue becomes a security threat by being spoken of by important security actors. Threats gain acceptance through intersubjective recognition and some degree of agreement between the perpetrators of the securitizing speech and the relevant audience. Overall, this framework occurs within discourse of the constructed, written, advertised and deployed notions of security in the Caribbean. Human security and securitization address part of the security dynamics within the Caribbean as cultural and symbolic meanings within security discourse reveal responses to the inherent vulnerability of the region. Caribbean security notions assist in examining the possible reconfigurations of the security landscape in Trinidad and Tobago. This framework is applied through the Discrete Multidimensional Security Framework (DMSF) which facilitates explanation and interpretation of structures, patterns and dynamics surrounding the security issues.
14 | P a g e
Chapter Three
LITERATURE REVIEW This review provides a broad critique of security with human security as a focal point while discussing privatization and the main themes for security in the Caribbean. First section attempts to summarize recurrent limitations of the concept of security, second section deconstructs security into majors pillars (referent object, nature of threats and mechanics) while the third section reviews the concept of human security as creating space for non-state security actors. The fourth section reviews the rationale and incentives behind privatization followed by the fifth section summarizing the management of coercion and various private security typologies. The final section outlines the context of the study through examining the cultural and symbolic meanings of Caribbean security as a response to vulnerability and the consistency of recent conceptions with the deepening and broadening traditions of the Welsh and Copenhagen Schools.
1. Recurrent Limitations in the concept of security
Contemporary discussions on security surround questions of from what and for whom, by whom from a standpoint that precludes absolute security. Security becomes difficult to conceptualize due to its conventional usage, contestability and the historicized nature of the academic debate. These subsequently conflate security with related concepts such as politics, raising questions of the significance of context in security studies and discourse. Vasciannie (2004; 54) argues the non value-neutral nature of security is founded on three propositions; (1) security as an important social good, (2) its importance to all societies and (3) special steps
15 | P a g e
required to preserve security. The complexity of security is thus more philosophical than empirical as a function of a continual production of questions and answers on security. First, securitys conventional usages analytically underdevelop the concept. It is viewed as one of those common-sense, pre-defined terms in international relations orthodoxy (Booth 2007, 96), that plays either a subsidiary role in theoretical debates or policy interest for particular actors or groups (Buzan, 1983). Security practices subsequently endure a take-for-grantedness in formulating threats and policy solutions. Second, despite consensus on general attributesbeing or feeling safe from threats and danger- its contestability (lack of agreement over the meaning of a concept) is continually debated. Buzan (1983) argues that security is an essentially contested concept as it generates unsolvable debates about (their) meaning and application because...... they contain an ideological element which renders empirical evidence irrelevant as a means of resolving the dispute (Buzan 1983, 6). Contrastingly, McSweeney (2004, 59) contends such concepts as contingently contested creating space for negotiable meanings between actors while Rothchild (1995, 58-59) speaks towards the concept purposefully contesting each other. Security is neither a neutral nor simplistic but has dynamic intersubjective meanings entrenched in time, understanding the relationship between stakeholders and their external contexts as well as the multiplicity of definitions revolving around core IR concepts (Griffith 2004,11; Booth 2005, 23; Balzacq, 2011;). As such when used, conditions for its justification are immediately implied (Balzacq, 2011). Third, realist strands of analysis have historicized the concept (Krause and Williams, 1997), disguising themselves as the essence of security (Guzzini 2011, 335; Booth 2005, 4-10; Smith, 2010). Hence conclusions posited on power struggles between relatively empowered
16 | P a g e
political units are privileged, favouring some in the production of a dominant-subordinate relationship. Recently, globalist deterritorialization reject state-centrism of realist orthodoxy in preference for global markets, capitalism and other forms of world society (Buzan and Waever, 2003). As aforementioned, security hence points towards an intersubjective rather than objective reality (Balzacq 2011, 6 &12). Wolfers (1952) highlights such intersubjectivity recognizing security as an aspired value and identifying the normative character of security policies in acquiring increments of security given the improbability of absolute security. The end product is security becoming an entire domain within social sciences rather than a fixed concept. Emphases on areas of concern expand conceptions of security with recognition that such expansions are perceived tautologically (Krause and Williams, 1997). The conceptual framework of the security debate encompasses; examining potential threats involving varying referent objects possessing different interest, resources and preferences. This evokes two primary images, firstly a freedom from threats and secondly its adjectival form associating the needed tangible conditions to facilitate the first image (McSweeeney 2004, 14). Securitys etymology affix its conventional meaning to the material means needed to ensure an absence of threats and an understanding of security from conditions of insecurity. Thus security becomes a human value entangled with the values of freedom, order and solidarity (McSweeney 2004, 18). Security is inherently connected with concepts of power, politics and legitimacy requiring analysis beyond solutions within these status-quos to engaging the problem of such status-quos (Booth 2005, 10). The saliency of context determines the influence of cultural and societal factors on security issues (Stritzel and Schmittchen 2011, 170-171). Arguments encompass two features; firstly the
17 | P a g e
degree to which security exists as a reality prior to language (Waever, 1995) and secondly whether such reality provides an orienting device for understandings specific contexts (Williams 2011, 214). The ad hoc synonymy of security with political and desirable ends creates infinite meanings that limits analysis across circumstances of securitizing agent and audience resulting in a disparity between theoretically described principles of security and policy practice (Rothchild, 1995). Given that context matters, its relevance influences whether debates circumvent the security conflation while understanding the specific character of security issues as distinguishable from other issues. 2. Major Pillars of the Security Discourse: Referent Object, Nature of Threats and Mechanics Booth (2007; 100, 110) simplifies security as the absence of threats and the condition of being or feeling safe. Three major implications arise from such formulation; first, the existence of referent objects (what is threatened), second, an impending or actual danger (nature of threats) and third, the outcomes of a desire to escape harmful possibilities (mechanics). These pillars categorize the inter-related flow of literature from the Copenhagen School, Critical Security Studies, Poststructuralism and Constructivist Security Studies. Each inter-disciplinary approach varies in its treatment of referent object, threats and mechanisms of threat aversion/resolution. Approaches theoretically converge at investigating securitys interwoven nature with politics and the consequence of varying interpretations on its engagement with principles of order and authority (Buzan 1983; Booth, 2007; Ayoob, 2005; McSweeney, 2004; Rothschild, 1995). Each perspective carries an epistemic epoch of broadening and deepening security agendas and threat. Buzan and Hansen (2009) develop these epistemic distinctions in categorizing each disciplines treatment of these pillars (Table.1).
18 | P a g e
Table 3: Epistemic Distinctions
Traditionally realist-neorealist employ security in a state-centric manner under conditions of the classical social contract addressing questions of identity, boundaries, authority, legitimacy and sovereignty at a state level (Buzan and Hansen, 2009; Buzan, 1983; Smith, 2010). Arguments follow Buzans assertion of the state coping with security at varying levels of analysis as the primary agent in alleviation of insecurity as well as a central actor in the international political system. Krause and Williams (1997) underline the pervasiveness of the state in neorealist tradition through its assumption of individual subjects having a self-contained instrumentally rational subjectivities used to confront an external reality to which they relate to objectively. The state therefore becomes an extrapolation and aggregation of individuals selfinterest and its actions become the rational pursuit towards such interest. Henceforth, security cannot exist in absence of the state and its citizens security becomes affixed to the state. Buzan (1993) notes security of the individuals becomes inseparably entangled with that of the state and conceptually avoids the individual as referent object given threats are very vague and the subjective feeling of safety has no necessary connection with actually being safe. Arguments indicate an ambiguity and lack of uniformity in addressing security issue through state centric platforms. Wolfers (1952; 483) though traditionally realist, cautions that the term security engages a range of goals so wide that highly divergent policies can be interpreted as policies of
19 | P a g e
security, within an environment where state traditionally prioritize security. Wolfers furthermore criticize the resulting policy disparity, varying efforts and the indistinctness of national security. Critical Security Studies and Copenhagen School provide alternatives to state-centrism utilizing the individual or group identity as the referent object. McSweeney (1996) discussing the Copenhagen School note their conception of identity as a negotiation among people and interest groups. Krause and Williams (1997) support the alternative that security becomes a condition that individuals enjoy and as such given primacy in defining threats and object of security. Such alternative opens the state to critical scrutiny as individuals security becomes disentangled from the state highlighting the dynamics of threats as not entirely coming from anarchic structures but also from institutions of organized violence within states. Smith (2005) mentions Ayoobs reaffirmation of this argument citing situations where the state is not the guarantor but rather the greatest threat to the security of its citizens. Such theorists reject the modus tollens assumption that a secure state equates to secure people. Individualistic referent object removes the disjuncture between state and society allowing for engagement with widespread global threats. Similarly, referent objects can be the groups which individuals find their identity and through which they undertake collective projects. Usually such groups replace the states position as objects of analysis and the provision of security. McSweeney (1996) outline that such cases engage security by deconstructing the processes and practices by which people and groups construct their self-image. McSweeney furthermore problematized the cohering of a diverse range of individual choices and how identity disputes, with security implications, are settled.
20 | P a g e
Presuppositions of the referent object determine whether security is perceived as a commodity or a relationship and thus the methodology of the research (McSweeney, 2004). Williams (2008) notes these philosophies posit either an accumulation of power (commodity) or based on emancipation (relationship) calculus towards security. McSweeney firmly opposes sole emphasis on quantifying conditions required for security, favouring dual approaches in recognition of its nominative-commodity as well as the adjectival usage as a relationship. Krause and Williams (1997, 49) identifies such as an epistemic shift from abstract individualism and contractual sovereignty to a stress on culture, civilization and identity...... of that which is being secured. For this reason interpretive analyses as applied in this paper are becoming favoured to an objectivist rationalist approach towards comprehending, as Rothchild (1995, 55) notes, the changing security needs of entities. Changing conceptions of the referent object progressively require examining the nature of the threats. Krause and Williams (1996) notes three origins for shift in threat perception: a discontent with realist foundation, response to Post-Cold War security challenges and the continuing desire make the discipline relevant to contemporary concerns. Ullman (1983) acknowledges that defining security primarily in militaristic terms presents a profoundly false image of reality. Such image neglects other dangers hence reducing total security and increases the pervasive militarization of studies that can only increase insecurity. Ulman further notes, society may only recognize a threat as it attacks hence security is understood in relation to such threat, implying that we may not know what it is or how important it is until we are threatened by losing it (Ullman 1983, 132). McSweeney (1996, 86-87) observes the importance of perceptions of a collective identity and the privileged perceptions within a society towards
21 | P a g e
determining the nature of threats. Similar to Giddens (1998) manufactured uncertainty which examines humans involvement in changing the course of history and the creation of threats. Buzans People, States and Fear began an analytical trend of engaging Post-Cold War security challenges and threats by extending the nature of threats. Though subsequent works diverge (Wyn Jones, 1999; McSweeney, 1996), his overall discourse posited five major sectors that affected security; military, political, economic, societal and environmental. Rothchild (1995, 55-56) identifies four main forms of securitys extension; from state downwards to individual referent groups, from security of nations to security of international system, inclusion horizontally of different types of security and the political responsibility for ensuring security. Williams (2008, 8) stresses the importance of analysing threat construction and being cognizant of which referent objects values are threaten and by who. Pettman (2005) strengthens such arguments by asserting that security and danger are products of culturally based us versus them perceptions. Change in threat perceptions occur against warnings that notions of security invoke universal acknowledged realities within vague generalities about everything and nothing (Walker, 1997). Walker acknowledges influence of historical and structural context within demands on defining security and whose security is at stake. Bigo and Tsoukala (2008) suggestion is critical, that threat identification occurs via conditions of insecurity determined by the capacities of various societies to live and accept certain forms of violence. Finally, the mechanics of security consider its significance to the referent object simultaneously with sequences involved in establishing a security issue. Academic discourse hints at the implicit link between security and availability of opportunities. Wolfers (1952) suggests security as a value that nations aspire more of, as it indicates the absence of threats to
22 | P a g e
acquired values and absence of fear that such values are attacked. Generally authors agree to securitys importance as a fundamental public good however diverge on whether it is survival based or additional to survival. Booth (2005; 2007) asserts the instrumental value of security being survival plus as the result of its pursuits frees individuals to engage with other issues than threats to their human being. Contrastingly Buzan, Waever and Vilde (1997, 21-23) indicate its instrumental value through its mitigation of existential threats to the five sectors in Buzan previous work. McGhee (2010) subtly introduces that shared values become our yardstick for security which unites a society based on commonality, identity and belonging. Increased interdependence in various relations such as economic, technology diffusion, communication and value sharing are outcomes of relatively satisfactory level of security (Blechman, 1998). Furthermore, Blechman implicitly connects such trends as assets to maintain security and create new security frameworks. Securitys instrumental value plays out in Giddens (1998, 312) reflexivity wherein everyone must confront, and deal with, multiple sources of information and knowledge, including fragmented and contested knowledge claims. As such different reflections on the conditions of life are allowed as levels of security facilitates increasing forms of autonomy. Apart from survival plus dynamics, Booth refers to the instrumental value through the relativity of security and the subjectivity of threats as notions of insecurity become a life-determining condition. Instrumental value asserts the liberating function of security to allow persons to enjoy other aspects of life within the security mechanics. The construction of security issues is commonly referred to as securitization as pioneered by Ole Waever. Waever (1995) argues that security as a concept does not formally exist for non-
23 | P a g e
state referent objects however discourse is melded from modification and limitation of traditional national security. Hence broadening security discourse takes meaning from simply contrasting national security rather than an original academic debate. Waever posits that security at non-state levels tends to mimic various dynamics and political processes occurring at the state level. Waever deviates from the everyday and semantic meaning of security to the specific qualities characterizing security problems. Securitization details the process that an issue becomes a security issue through discursive politics (Balzacq 2011, 1). Hence, Waever asserts that conditions of insecurity and security share the security problematique where the presence of a security problem requires either a response by some measure or no response. He disputes the focus on referent objects or threats by questioning the validity of a phenomenon being treated in terms of security. Balzacq (2011, 3) launching from such a foundation defines securitization as: an articulated assemblage of practices whereby heuristic artefacts (metaphors, policy
tools, image repertoires, analogies, stereotypes, emotions, etc.) are contextually mobilized by a securitizing actor, who works to prompt an audience to build a coherent network of implications (feelings, sensations, thoughts, and intuitions), about the critical vulnerability of a referent object, that concurs with the securitizing actors reasons for choices and actions, by investing the referent subject with such an aura of unprecedented threatening complexion that a customized policy must be undertaken immediately to block its development
Balzacq frames securitization within three hypotheses ((i) centrality of audience, (ii) codependency of agency and context and (iii) the structuring force of the dispositif) attached to the theoretical assumptions of speech act theory. The debate connects security to the triadic
24 | P a g e
characterization of speech act theory wherein the locutionary (utterance of an expression) combines with the illocutionary (action performing in articulating the utterance) empowering the effect of the perlocutionary (consequential effects to the target audience). Waever (2011, 468) indicates the theory places power within the community with securityness being a quality of how threats are handled. Phenomena become security issues through discourse between securitizing actor and society wherein society either affirms or denies such an agenda. Waever (1995) concludes that security discussions move issues towards a security frame to achieve effects different from those that would ensue if handled in a non-security mode. 3. Human Security: Creating a Market Space for Privatization Conceptually, security has simultaneously evolved and expanded from traditional analysis. A divergence occurred from an emphasis on military threats to national territories as exemplified in nation-state realist philosophy to a new concept of human security in which human beings and their complex social and economic relations are given primacy with or over states (Williams 2001, 161). The UNDPs Human Development Report (HDR: 1994) developed this dimension of security focusing on citizens concerns in their daily lives. The report indicates that human security is not a concern of weapons; it is a concern with human life and dignity therefore transforming security into a reactive and proactive concept. Linklater (2005, 120) merging Kantian liberalism and critical theory highlights the significance of membership in an integrated political community which has an inclination to communicative policies to promoting human security. Linklater advocates political frameworks that support communicative action providing the assured material and other conditions that advance the accessibility of minority groups to self determination within dialogic arrangements.
25 | P a g e
Reinforcing the need for comprehensive models, Alkire (2003) institutional focus aptly states the objective of human security is to safeguard the vital core of all human lives from critical pervasive threats, in a way that is consistent with long-term human fulfilment. The basic tenets of human security are (1) safety from violent and non-violent threats, (2) freedom from pervasive threats (social and economic) and (3) the individual as the central point of reference without impeding long-term human fulfilment (Suhrke, 1999; Paris, 2001; Thomas, 2001; Alkire, 2003). HDR (1994) highlights the need to change the concept of security; from exclusive stress on territorial security to stress on peoples security, from security through armaments to security through sustainable human development. Dasse (2010) consequently itemized four dimensions in which security has altered from traditional analysis in terms of referent object, issue area, spatial application and the conceptualization of danger itself. Concluding that within new conceptions of security the individual supersedes the state as the main referent object while issue area shifts from solely military to include economic, environmental and humanitarian concerns. Spatial application continually transcends the nation state to include regional and international issues while simultaneously, dangers are modified to management of risk. Illustrating the progression of security conceptions; focus extends from narrow traditional perceptions to encompass the individual and from a global reference of managing risk under a humanitarian scope (Figure.1). This extension suggests that adequately supplying security becomes a task beyond the ambit of the nation state. HDR (1994) constructs the two major components of human security as freedom from want and freedom from fear. Freedom from want interpreted as economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants everywhere in the
26 | P a g e
world (Roosevelt, 1941). Consequently freedom from fear relates to world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbour-anywhere in the world (Roosevelt, 1941). Alkire (2003) summarizes human security as deliberatively protective, contained in scope and people-centred. Protection is institutionalized within the vital space of capabilities, freedoms and human activities that represent a minimal subset of human development and rights. Hence conceptually, human security simultaneously requires the prevention of violence while ensuring conditions that facilitate an abundant life.
Figure 1: Four Dimensions of Extended Security
Suhrkes (1999) argument on national interest and human security notes the difficulty in creating an authoritative and consensual definition across varying interpretations. Paris (2002) further acknowledges the difficulty in utilizing the term due to its ambiguity and the purpose of such ambiguity. Paris highlights, such ambiguity can encompass diverse perspectives and objectives hence unifying a wide range of supporters as its holism and inclusivity reflects that all
27 | P a g e
issues be equally valid. The truism that issues are fundamentally inter-related is not a convincing justification for treating all issues as equally important. Lack of precise definition and the desire of its supporters to keep the term expansive and vague reduces its practicality to research or policymaking. Sustained violence within state borders represents one of the greatest impediments to human security. Diprose (2007) indicates such violence simultaneously undoes development gains and impedes human freedom to live safely, securely and maintain poverty traps in many communities. Baker (2010) articulates the continuing trend of decreasing credibility of the state security and justice system to offer an effective and accessible service. Decline in credibility strongly merged with increase internal violence fuels the perception that it is not a question of whether to engage with private companies but rather how. Gradually the Hobbesian ideal of the state as the primary instrument for maintenance of public order and permission of civilized life is diminishing. Van Crefeld (2006) comments that whether because the government has ordered them to......or because they simply do not trust the state to provide them with reasonable security, individuals and private industry have, in fact, been looking after themselves to a growing extent and on a constantly increasing scale. Human security is indivisible and cannot be pursued by or for one group at the expense of another, therefore requiring conditions that combat insecurity resulting from existing power structures that determine who enjoys the entitlement of security (Thomas, 2001). Thomas underlines that state-society relations come under the spotlight with the demands of human security with emphasis on fundamental questions of state capacity, legitimacy and collapse. Theoretically, human security ensures that security remains a public
28 | P a g e
good however the required services from private actors create a privilege available to those who can afford it (Brabant 25, 2002). A strong implication is encouraged by shifting the focus of security from the nation state to the individual. It supports the individual liberty to evaluate the states capacity to provide security and the ability to choose ones security provider. Suhrke (1999, 271) utilization of vulnerability as a defining concept of human security promotes initiatives for immediate protective measures and/or long-term investments required for minimal stability and development. The eminence of human security issues requires specializations usually exclusive of state bureaucracy and public authorities. Paris (2001, 94-95) illustration of the source of threats as military and non-military affecting societies, groups and individuals shifts the paradigm for security providers. These implications concentrate societys focus on security and create an environment whereby non-state actors can provide security as a service available on the market. 4. Rationale for Privatization and Privatizing Security
This paper reviews the historicized interaction between state and non-state actors as it pertains to the provision of security and the gradual commoditization of social control. Private security research commonly follows Argueta (2010, 6) methodology of focusing on historical delegation of security functions by the state to privates security organization and the continuity of control mechanisms. Analysis commonly surrounds three overarching themes; (1) the meaning and incentives of privatization, (2) management and application of coercion and (3) the nature of the relationship between security providers as models of collaboration. The privatization paradigm has spread like wildfire within the last three decades, often emphasizing
29 | P a g e
better efficiency and effectiveness being viewed as a solution to clumsy and cost-intensive public administrations (Branovic, 2011). The privatization of security8 embodies liberal thinking of simultaneously creating and limiting power (Starr, 2007). Mandel (2001) identifies the legitimate authority to use physical coercion in pursuit of security as a fundamental theoretical question to understand core probable reasons for the proliferation in private security providers. Literature corresponds with Feigenbaum and Henigs (1984) broad definition of privatization as the shifting of a function, either in whole or in part, from the public sector to the private sector; involves the increased reliance on private actors and market forces to pursue social goals. Starr (1988) categorical construction of privatization as an idea, theory and rhetoric and a political practice9 provides a dynamic view of privatization. Decisions on privatization merge debates on the interconnectedness of (1) economic efficiency and societal equity with that of (2) adequate governance. Efficiency and equity debates emphasize neoclassical wisdom of limiting state power while enabling the state to become more powerful within such limits, it considers the theory of market failure to illustrate where and why market fails as the incision points for public ownership and regulation (Starr 1988; & 2007, 53). Krahmann (2003) suggests that the progressive fragmentation of political authority with privatization is linked to budgetary pressure, the growing awareness of new security threats and the possible exacerbation or creation of these threats by the process of globalization.
This paper emphasizes Branovic (2011) top-down privatization model with focus on commercial entities that offer security services for profit usually based on a contract format. 9 Starrs framework of privatization argues beyond return of services to their original location in the private sphere. As an idea firstly refers to ideological public-private distinction with the withdrawal from the state ensuring the pursuit of private gain serves the larger social order as well as the political consequences. Theory and rhetoric refers to normative justification of privatization as a policy directive based on various visions of a good society. Starrs discussion on political practice refers to the meaning of privatization to respective nations acknowledging that altering the public-private balance.
30 | P a g e
Sappington and Stiglitzs (1987, 568) argument for efficiency and equity utilize similarities in private and public organizational structure to question privatization. Their discussion on economic efficiency incentives to privatization focus on when certain conditions are satisfied, government involvement cannot improve upon the performance of the private market. Given an avenue of production (public/private) and degree of government intervention, privatization becomes driven by the probability of a Pareto-efficient10 being established. Starr (1988) purport privatization alters the institutional framework in which citizens interact hence becoming political in nature affecting the equity amongst groups (Feigenbaum and Henig, 1984). Similarly Avant (2005) utilizes private to indicate non-state actors, acknowledging the blurry public/private divide somewhat distinguished through collective ends or profit maximization pursuit. Starr (1988) notes that privatization serves as a direction change in accessibility and distribution without denoting the destination such that both good(s)/service(s) and stakeholders becomes embedded within the context. Williamson (1999, 307) and Starr (1988, 9) similarly concur that public agencies are well suited for some purposes and inadequate for others, furthermore admitting that private agencies cannot replicate public agencies as all feasible organizational modes have flaws in terms of governance. Adequately providing human security requires a governance system mindful of markets however equally able to regulate. The importance of governance depends on the right to intervention and the type of adaptation adequate for the transactions cost of respective organizations. Governance, contextually, refers to the means by which order is accomplished in a relation in which potential conflict threatens to undo or upset opportunities to realize mutual gains (Williamson 1999,
An allocation is Pareto efficient if there is no other allocation in which some other individual is better off and no individual is worst off. Not a guarantee of equity, Pareto efficiency calculus provides policy solutions and institutions that strive to make at least one person better without hurting anyone.
10
31 | P a g e
312). Sappington and Stigiltz (1984) indicate the extremely limited ability of government to intervene directly in private companies. Their argument focuses on incentives to intervention and the ability to commit to intervene in light of the diverging cost of intervention between public and private companies. Hindrances to public intervention negatively affect accountability as unconventional measures are created as highlighted by Michaels (2010, 719) workarounds11, that privatization can directly change the outcome of regulatory rulemaking and enforcement proceedings. Avant (2005) concurs that privatizations inevitable redistribution of control of violence between state and non-state actors requires re-examining who guards the guardians. Utilizing constitutional liberalism, Starr (2007) acknowledges the differences in transparency and accountability values between private and public companies, affirming the liberal perception of private companies protection from unreasonable demands unless violating laws. Privatization within liberalism surprisingly serves a regulatory purpose of specialized functions and divided powers similar to the checks and balances of the separation of powers (Starr, 2007). Consequently privatizing security confirms a traditional liberal belief in the individuals obligation to ensure living conditions that enable persons the opportunity of success in life with minimum standard of security being one such standard. Considering the discriminating alignment thesis12, the type of adaptation required influences governance. Williamson (1999, 312), emphasizing autonomous and cooperative adaption, argues that while markets benefit from autonomous while hierarchical systems benefit from cooperative adaptation thus the decisive factors for adaption relate to the associated transaction cost. Structures featuring
Michaels used the term workaround to refer to government contracts or provisions within contracts that provide the outsourcing agency with the means of achieving distinct public policy goals that are improbable or difficult to attain through ordinary public administration. 12 Williamson (1999, 2005) posits according to which transaction, which differ in their attributes, are aligned with governance structures, which differ in their cost and competence so as to affect an economizing result.
11
32 | P a g e
autonomy encourage independence and enterprise while those of cooperation reinforce compliance and stronger mission orientation. Increased confidence in privatization represents a reduction in governments responsibilities while promoting the relocation of service implementation activities from public to private for-profit or non-profit venues (Auger, 1999). Benson (1998) comments that publicsector production of crime control is inefficient and advocates for putting faith in the market. Overall, public insecurity intensifies the security agenda as privatization engenders an alternative mechanism to statecraft through displacing state security functions due to the political context and necessities (Argueta, 2010). Momentum for alternative mechanisms emerges from the perceived erosion in the states legitimacy and capacity to provide protection from internal danger as Townsend (2009) highlights that locally fewer than 20 percent of violent crimes are solved. Concomitantly, public perception fuelled by sensationalist mass media combined with a growing sense of personal responsibility for individual protection tends to increase the demand for private security (Thumala, Goold & Loader, 2011). Mandel (2001) argues in wealthy countries people believe that public police are inadequately staffed to provide all of their demanding security needs, and in many Third World countries, the widespread corruption of the police all but eliminates the possibility of official government protection from these dangers. Privatizations combination of high powered incentives with little administrative control and legal dispute resolution mechanism encourages independence and autonomy (Williamson 1999, 312-313). Agrueta (2010, 9) warns that excessive confidence in private security can undermine government services leading to an unequal security distribution and access to public services as well as creating a false security
33 | P a g e
perception and an inappropriate evaluations of real security necessities. Hence it is with concern to access and equity that the commoditization of security services should progress. 5. Historical Management of Force and Typology of Private Security Companies
Privatizing security alters the control, sanctioning and use of force such that the monopoly of coercive abilities is redistributed. Avants discussion merges the political (who gets to control), the functional (capabilities) and the social (degree to which use of force is integrated) aspects of control, highlighting that control of force has been most stable, effective and legitimate when all three aspects have reinforced each other (Avant 2005, 6). For Avant, the capacity of the state becomes the intervening factor in determining the distribution of force within privatization. Arguing that stronger public bureaucracy facilitates increase risk management however multiplies the negative impact if privatization undermines the state. Contrastingly weak public bureaucracies have the most to gain from privatization but are least able to manage its risk. In strong bureaucracies there is a higher probability of ensuring security remains public than weak bureaucracies. States differing capacities in light of the growing recognition for PSCs marks a shift in the norm of state monopoly on violence in Western democracies. Authors argue private actors ability to provide services beyond the states capability or in which the state is inefficient, erodes its monopoly on force (Avant, 2005; Singer, 2001; Mandel, 2001; & Baker, 2010). Privatization of security is part of a larger historical trend within the longue dure of security and use of coercion. Thompson (1994) historical analysis suggests that organization of violence is neither timeless nor natural but distinctively modern representing the transition from heteronomy to sovereignty. Thompsons analytical framework for control utilizes decision-
34 | P a g e
making authority, allocation and ownership as distinct dimensions of control13 (Table.2). Distribution of coercive authority between state and non-state actors decides the ends of violence as well as ownership of the means of violence. Fluctuating trends of state and private control of coercion reject realist traditional state-centric assumptions of sovereignty and challenge the ability of realist paradigms to adequately account for these contextual changes. Global proliferation of PSC contradict conclusions that shift in power towards private interest occurs primarily in less developed states (Brayton, 2002), as Ungar quotes increases in developed countries of 7-9% in industrialized countries and 11% in developing region (Ungar, 2007; & Frigo, 2003:2).
Table 4: Thompsons Analytical Framework for Organization of Violence
Contesting views on private security, Gumedze (2007; 195) expound that as a concept it can mean mercenaries, official companies or even vigilantes. Discussions on private security consequently often focus on regulatory frameworks (Gumedze, 2007: Ungar, 2007: Mandel, 2001 & Auger, 1999). Mandel (2001:133) aptly identifies the core questions of who has, and
13
Decision making authority decides the ends to which violence is deployed. Allocation considers the way in which such authority distributes its coercive abilities while ownership addresses control over the means of violence (Thompson, 1994).
35 | P a g e
who should have, the legitimate authority to use physical coercion in pursuit of security. Mandel further argues that perceptions combined with:
public fears about the seemingly uncontrollable spread of violence, crime, and social decay, the absence of visibly effective state protection the resistance to government intrusion in peoples daily lives stemming from the spread of individualistic democratic values, and the rise in power of unruly groups serve to accelerate questioning the value of state monopoly on instruments of violence
Thus ideas on private security are rooted in a larger public narrative on state responsibility and the extent to which citizens can take their security into their own hands. Critical analysis of this narrative requires comprehension of private security actors and the links created through their services. Ungars two dimensional typology (2007) serves as a foundation for analysing private security actors. First dimension relates to the mission of the actor encompassing the stated and non stated services of non-state agencies, reflecting a wide range of activities from specific to mandates to maintain public order. Services are categorized into four main categories; (1) technical and physical, (2) control of physical access, (3) training, consulting and information services and finally (4) management of emergencies or high-risk situation. The second dimension questions the level of state involvement in private security, recognizing the recurrent overlapping of private and public security spheres amidst industry growth. Ungar warns against trends where diminished state capacity to reassert authority undermines the legitimacy and relevance of state problems and law among citizens. To counteract the state and public officials become entrepreneurially invested in private companies at increased levels. Baker (2010) illustrates the necessity for state and non-state security providers to build links to properly address public safety concerns. The proliferation of PSC as aforementioned
36 | P a g e
cannot equate to complete replacement of state responsibilities. Investing in human security requires partnership between state and non-state actors as, Daase (2010) comments, the concept endures the conviction that human beings, not states, have an intrinsic value and should be protected. Market involvement fragments the states monopoly of violence and security but cannot abdicate the states stake within it. Market mechanics alter the institutional framework through which citizens normally articulate, mediate and promote their individual and shared interest (Feigenbaum & Henig, 1984). This alteration cannot be independent of the states inputs and regulation thus creates inherent connections between actors in security governance.
Figure.2: Tip of the Spear Typology: PMFs Distinguished by Range of Services and Force Levels
The interaction of actors in security governance can be scrutinized through their features and scope of their mission. Baker (2010) framed four wide-ranging features being mentalities (ways of thinking about the security concerns they seek to govern); technologies (methods for exerting influence over security events); resources; and institutions (habitual organised forms that mobilise resources, mentalities and technologies). Similarly most writers utilise the
37 | P a g e
Singer(2001) tip of the spear (Figure.2) typology which units of the armed force are distinguished based on their location in the battle space in terms of level of impact, training, prestige and so on (Singer 2001, 201). Avant (2005) summarize this typology as operational support, military advice and training, and logistical support. Brayton (2002) identifies three similar functional types being directly applicable military skills, general military staff skills and highly specialized services with military application. Mandels taxonomic breakdown (Table 3) represents the scope of privatized security and its different forms respectively. The characteristics of actors within the taxonomy are influenced by Bakers features and define their function within the space of security governance.
6. Caribbean Security Agenda: A Response to Vulnerability
Griffith (1995; 1996; 2004) discussions on Caribbean security emphasize four themes subsumed under the umbrella of vulnerability. Vulnerability is viewed as a multidimensional phenomenon wherein geographic, political, economic or other factors compromise the security of states (Griffith 1995, 3). Branching from vulnerability are themes of geopolitics, militarization, intervention and instability within a context of existing deficiencies. Caribbean nations consequentially possess structural features of smallness which heighten their vulnerability as external and internal issues are aggregated within expanding security concerns emphasizing the link between security and development (Griffith 2004; 5). The complexity of security in the region is increased by the observation that challenges facing one or a few states does not automatically qualify as challenges of the region. Securitization of these challenges becomes a political choice rather than objective fact as concerns exceed simple military-political terms to connect with development. Structurally, the
38 | P a g e
Table 5: Scope, Purpose and Forms of Privatized Security
Scope of Privatized Security Foreign Assistance Vs Domestic Substitution Privatized Foreign Security Assistance; Non-governmental sources in one state provide privatized security services to either governmental or nongovernmental parties. Top-Down Vs. Bottom-Up Privatized Top Down Security Services; Governments hire out their
Purpose and Form of Privatized Security Direct Combat Vs Military Advice Direct Combat; Private providers either supply Defensive Vs. Offensive Privatized Defensive Services; Recipients receive private security so as to keep order, guard against threats and maintain the status-quo Military Advice; Private providers supply classroom education on fighting strategy and tactics or no-site battle training. Privatized Offensive Services; Recipients obtain private security services so as to overthrow legitimate governments.
internal and external security functions the fighting force themselves or to private foreign or domestic providers. the tools of violence
Privatized Domestic Security Substitution; Privatized security services provided by unofficial individuals or groups indigenous to a given society replace national government police services responsible for maintaining internal order
Bottom-Up Security Services; Individuals or loosely organized societal groups (vigilantes, militias, neighbourhood watches and gangs) initiate provision of security services to themselves or others.
39 | P a g e
limited resource availability14 of Caribbean small states contributes to their relative weakness and subordination to extra-regional countries. As such policy reprioritizations of states with traditional interest as well as establishing new relationships become critical to mitigating the regions vulnerability. PSC find markets in the Caribbean mainly due to varying impact of threats and the limited responses available to states within the region. The regions vulnerability outlines the framework for major security discourses and trends. Traditionally, US relations shaped the regions security agenda through leveraging its vulnerability within the context of Cold-War anti-communist geopolitical rivalries (Verasammy, 2009). At the end of the Cold-War reduced the regions strategic significance to the US while facilitating increased authoritative involvement by technocrats and statesmen to redefine security. Broadening and deepening accompanied with the redefinition of security may adjust the focus however the regions inherent vulnerability remains constant denominator. Instituto De Altos Estudios De La Defensa Naccional (1998) incorporated these realities in defining the regions security as,
based on democratic stability, observance of human rights, environmental protection,
the promotion of development and peace, collective coexistence, regional integration, the resolution of domestic socio-economic problems and the reduction of domestic social conflict
Versammys analysis furthered the notion of the regional shift towards human security with emphasis on principles of solidarity and emancipation. In relation to this study, the political and
14
Ivelaw Griffith emphasized that the few limited valuable natural resources of the Caribbean connects to its economic vulnerability and narrow economic bases focusing on (a) agriculture, (b) mining and manufacturing and (c) services.
40 | P a g e
normative act of securitization influences the intensity and specificity of the security services demanded. Following Griffiths DMSF and salience factor assessment, an indirect result of expansive securitization is the reconfiguration of roles within the security landscape amongst its stakeholders.
Chapter Four METHODOLOGICAL OVERVIEW The research questions focus on utilizing PSC for defensive services to protect against physical violence (personal and community security) towards individuals and property. Personal security emphasizes the individual whilst community security refers to the freedoms associated with membership to a particular group. Security services to protect against such groups are tailored to respective needs hence creating a demand for security services that the state may not be able to provide. Consequently this study tries to map possible changes to the security landscape in Trinidad and Tobago caused by the statistically significant increase in PSC. Emphasis is placed on the internal actors of Trinidad and Tobagos security landscape and neglects the influence of international organizations and external forces. It is acknowledged that external forces and actors exert influence on the configuration of the national security landscape however the focal point is the landscapes internal reaction to the increase in PSC. Internal actors encompass three categories: (1) public authorities inclusive of constabulary, supplementary police officers and the Ministry of National Security (MONS) officials, (2) civil society inclusive of NGOs, interest groups and the media. Finally (3), PSC form a distinct category in data collection and analysis. Trinidad and Tobago does not manufacture firearms hence armament
41 | P a g e
corporations are not included however the distribution of arms through the Police Commissioner is considered. Data collection was divided into two aspects utilizing a mixed methodology design; (1) empirical review of secondary data related and (2) semi-structured interviews with relevant internal actors. Quantitative secondary data was analyzed from surveys, reports and statistics from the United Nations, International Relations and Security Network, Uppsala University (Department of Peace and Conflict Research), Small Arms Survey, Confederation of European Security Services (COESS), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Private Security Database (PSD) and the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with officials from the Ministry of National Security (MONS), CARICOM IMPACS, Private Security Network Association of Trinidad and Tobago and officials from well known local PSCs. Semi-structured interviews were based the indicators and survey instruments from the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) working paper Safety and Security: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable. Interviews incorporated three indicators15of the working papers comprehensive survey module on physical safety and security. These indicators provide a measure of the security risk in Trinidad and Tobago and the capacity of state agencies to protect individuals under the demands of human security. Interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data on the composition of the security landscape and perceptions of the current/suggested roles of the major actors to create a case study of Trinidad and Tobago. The use of the indicators followed the rationale of the OPHI report:
The four parts of the module are: (1) indicators of threats to physical safety and security against property, (2) indicators of threats to physical safety and security against person and (3) perceptions of safety and threats of violence
15
42 | P a g e
Indicators of incidents of threats to physical safety and security; against property Diprose (2007) notes that property based crime regardless of whether assault occurs can be debilitating for the poor and contribute to their feelings of security and safety. Central Statistical Office (CSO) crime data statistics illustrate a steady increase in property crimes16 between the periods of 1998-2008. In relation to the security landscape, interview focused on the extent property crime was perceived to be a serious concern in Trinidad and Tobago as well as the compatibility of PSC to provide security services in such a capacity. Indicator emphasizes six sub-types of property related crimes that can be connected across rural and urban contexts and include threats to human security. The first two types refer to burglary and attempted burglary in the home while the third type pertains to serious robbery which presents a more serious threat to personal safety given that the person is threatened or harmed during the crime. The fourth type encapsulates theft of property from outside the home and includes types of thefts typical of rural contexts. The fifth type refers to praedial larceny which is common to rural areas and the final type addressing the frequency of property destruction which can be considered a form of crime. Indicators of incidence of threat to physical safety and security; against persons Similarly, six sub-categories were used to determine such incidents which by their very nature exert violence against a person. Trinidad and Tobago has an increasing murder rate and other crimes involving violence against persons. Sub-categories hence includes assault without a weapon, assault involving weapons, shootings, injuries involving explosive devices, kidnappings
Central Statistical Office cites (1998 data set, 2008 data set); breaking and burglary (6112, 4855), robbery (2780, 5043), larceny (2686, 6159) and other property crimes (553, 897).
16
43 | P a g e
and sexual assault. Sexual assault was not made a focus as protection from such is difficult and PSC may not provide services for victims but may be under the ambit of social services. Perceptions of Safety and Threats of Violence Perception questions can produce answers that are situated in time and related to psychological factors not related to real threats to security and safety. Human Security Report (HSR, 2005; 47) notes that human security is based on perceptions as well as realities. In determining at risk communities and facilitating individuals right to participate in decisions directly affecting the safety of their communities especially in circumstances of scare resources that necessitate difficult trade-offs between different security goals (HSR, 2005). Increasing demand for PSC stems from strong perceptions of various security threats, their significance and agencies to address them. Similarly, perceptions may indicate future instances of violence and crime.
44 | P a g e
Chapter Five PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS
Recent Trends in Private Security Companies
In regards to Question 1, data collection suggests that a global increase the number of PSCs, their personnel and activities. Singer (2001) highlighted that between 1991-2001 private military industry activity expanded globally through Western democracies, Central and SubSaharan Africa as well as Eastern Europe. Small Arms Survey (2011) indicates that the total number of PSC personnel outnumber police officers by a ratio of 1.8:1 and increasing given large markets such as China, India and the United States. Despite consensus on the growth of the industry, the lack of global data collection and monitoring systems impedes accounting for the total number of PSCs and their personnel.
Figure 3: Global Activity of Private Military Industry
Argueta (2010) demonstrates this trend in Latin America through the increasing number of PSC personnel (Table.6) as well as their ratio to the population. Krahman (2009) noted that in UK,
45 | P a g e
Poland, the US and Turkey PSC personnel is nearly twice of public forces while figures in France and Germany suggest PSC size as two-thirds of state police (Table.7).
Table 6: Private Security Personnel in Latin America
Table 7: Private Security Personnel in the US and Europe
Confederation of European Security Services noted a yearly turnover of approximately 35 billion with annual market growth of 13.30 per cent in the private security industry and an average of 52, 300 PSCs. Small Arms Survey Research Note (2011) outlines that increasing
46 | P a g e
trend of PSCs is related to their high firearm usage within different contexts (Appendix 2). The rising range of security services (Appendix. 3) facilitates an increased turnover such as occurring in the UK.
Figure.4: UK Security Industry Turnover
Private Security Database (PSD) accounts for instances of military outsourcing by public actors in the period 1990-2007. DISCUSSION The Montreux Document and Regulation
The principles outlined in the Montreux document provide guidelines to assess the adequacy of national legal and policy framework though designed for situations of conflict within the competence of humanitarian law. In the national context, focus should be placed on legislative as well as contracting and procurement practices for utilizing PSC especially in law enforcement and protective capacities. The document outlines good practices for the operation of
47 | P a g e
PSC within three categories17 which are applicable to Trinidad and Tobago in respect to determination of services, legal jurisdiction and accountability. Non-transferrable responsibilities and the liberty of states to create the market environment for services are crucial to regulating security services. Regardless the category, states are required to outline the services which may or may not be contracted as well as carried out. States are cautious about the level of involvement required in providing particular services especially given the cross sectional nature of human security. The selection criteria for companies should include indicators relevant to ensuring respect for national and international law such as past conduct, financial and economic capacity, authorization and training as well as organization structure. Legal jurisdiction provides avenues of accountability for the selection and actions of PSC. This includes providing criminal jurisdiction and non-criminal accountability mechanisms for improper and unlawful conduct of private security personnel. In adapting to the changing security demands, public authorities should ensure that PSC is continuously in conformity with national and international law.
Bibliography Alkire, Sabina. 2003. A conceptual framework for human security. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity. University of Oxford. Auger, Deborah A. 1999. Privatization, Contracting and the States: Lessons from State Government Experience. Public Productivity and Management Review 22(4): 435-454.
These categories are contracting, territorial and home states; contracting states are states that directly contract for the services of PMSCs, including, as appropriate, where such a PMSC subcontracts with another PMSC, territorial States are States on whose territory PMSCs operate. Home States are States of nationality of a PMSC, i.e. where a PMSC is registered or incorporated; if the State where the PMSC is incorporated is not the one where it has its principal place of management, then the State where the PMSC has its principal place of management is the Home State.
17
48 | P a g e
Avant, Deborah D. 2005. The Market for Force. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Aydinli, Ersel,. and Rosenau, James N. 2005. Globalization, Security and the Nation State: Paradigms in Transitions. #90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207: State University of New York Press. Ayoob, Mohammed. 2005. Security in the Age of Globalization; Separating Appearance from Reality. In Globalization, Security and the Nation State: Paradigms in Transitions edited by Aydinli, Ersel,. and Rosenau, James N, 9-26. #90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207: State University of New York Press. Baker, Bruce. 2010. Linking State and Non-State Security and Justice. Development Policy Review, 28(5): 597-616. Balzacq, Thierry. 2011. Securitization Theory: how security problems emerge and dissolve. Talyor and Francis. Biais, Bruno., and Perotti, Enrico. 2002. Machiavellian Privatization. The American Economic Review, 92(1): 240-258. Bigo, Didier and Tsoukala. 2008. Understanding (In)Security. In Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal practices of a liberal regime after 9/11 by Bigo, Didier., and Tsoukala, Anastassia, 1-10. 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Routledge Publishers Limited Bigo, Didier., and Tsoukala, Anastassia. 2008. Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal practices of a liberal regime after 9/11. 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Routledge Publishers Limited
49 | P a g e
Blechman, Barry B. 1998. International Peace in the Twenty-first Century. In Statecraft and Security: The Cold War and Beyond by Booth, Ken (ed), 289-307. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Booth, Ken. 1998. Statecraft and Security: The Cold War and Beyond. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Booth, Ken. 2005. Two Terrors, One Problem. . In Globalization, Security and the Nation State: Paradigms in Transitions edited by Aydinli, Ersel,. and Rosenau, James N, 27-48. #90 State Street, Suite 700, Albany, NY 12207: State University of New York Press. Booth, Ken. 2005b. Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Booth, Ken. 2007. Theory of World Security. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Branovic, Zeljko. 2011. The Privatization of Security in Failing States- A Quantitative Assessment. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, no.24. Buzan, Barry and Hansen, Lene. 2009. The Evolution of International Security Studies. The Edinburgh Building Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzan, Barry. 1983. Peoples, States and Fear. #16 Ship Street, Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books Limited. Buzan, Barry., and Waever, Ole. 2003. Regions and Powers: The structure of International Security. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Daase, Christopher. 2010. National, Societal and Human Security: On the Transformation of Political Language. Historical Social Research 35(4): 22-37.
50 | P a g e
Diprose, Rachael. 2007. Physical Safety and Security: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators of Violence. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4): 431-458. Edwards, Alice., and Ferstman, Carla. 2009. Humanising non-citizens: the convergence of human rights and human security. In Human Security and Non-Citizens: Law, Policy and International Affairs by Edwards, Alice and Ferstman, Carla, 3-46. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press Edwards, Alice., and Ferstman, Carla. 2009. Human Security and Non-Citizens: Law, Policy and International Affairs. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Feigenbaum, Harvey B., and Henig, Jeffrey R. 1994. The Political Underpinnings of Privatization: A Typology. World Politics, 46: 185-208. Giddens, Anthony. 1998. Affluence, poverty and the idea of the post-scarcity society. In Statecraft and Security: The Cold War and Beyond by Booth, Ken (ed), 308-322. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press. Griffith, Ivelaw L. 1995. Caribbean Security: Retrospect and Prospect. Latin America Research Review, 30(2):3-32 Griffith, Ivelaw L. 1996. Caribbean Security on the Eve of the 21st Century. McNair Papers 54:1-74. Griffith, Ivelaw L. 2004. Understanding Caribbean Security: Back to basics and building blocks. Social and Economic Studies 53(1): 1-33. Griffith, Ivelaw L. 2004b.Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror: Challenge and Change, Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Gumedze, Sabelo. 2008. Regulating the Private Security Sector in South Africa. Social Justice 34(3-4): 195-207.
51 | P a g e
Guzzini, Stefano. 2011. Securitization as a causal mechanism. Security Dialogue 42(4-5): 329341. Human Security Report Project. 2010. Human Security Report 2009/2010: The Cause of Peace and the Shrinking Cost of War. Simon Fraiser University: Oxford University Press. Krahman, Elke. 2003. The Privatization of Security Governance: Developments, Problems, Solutions. Lehrstuhl Internationale Politik, Universitat zu Koln. Krause, Keith., and Williams, Michael C. 1996. Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods. Mershon International Studies Review 40(2): 229-254. Latin America and the Caribbean Region of the World Bank. 2007. Crime, Violence and Development: Trends, Cost and Policy Options in the Caribbean. World Bank Publications. Linklater, Andrew. 2005. Political Community and Human Security. In Critical Security Studies and World Politics edited by Ken Booth, 113-127. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Mandel, Robert. 2001. The Privatization of Security. Armed Forces and Society, 28(1):129151. McGhee, Derek. 2010. Security, Citizenship, and Human Rights: Share Values in Uncertain Times. 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmilian. McSweeney, Bill. 1996. Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School. Review of International Studies 22(1): 81-93. McSweeney, Bill. 2004. Security, Identity and Interest: A Sociology of International Relations. The Edinburgh Building: Cambridge University Press.
52 | P a g e
Michaels, Jon D. 2010. Privatizations Pretensions. The University of Chicago Law Review 77(2): 717-780. Otto, Argueta. 2010. Private Security in Guatemala: The Pathway to its Proliferation. GIGA Research Unit: Institute of Latin American Studies 144: 5-35. Paris, Roland. 2001. Human Security: New Paradigm or Hot Air? International Politics, 26(2): 87-102. Peoples, Columba., and Vaughan-Williams., Nick. 2010. Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. #2 Park Square, Milton Park: Routeledge Publishers. Pettman, Jan Jindy. 2005. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. In Critical Security Studies and World Politics edited by Ken Booth, 159-177. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Pram Gad, Ulrik., and Petersen, Karen Lund. 2011. Concepts of politics in securitization studies. Security Dialogue 42(4-5): 315-328. Prenzler, Tim., Earle, Karen., and Sarre, Rick. 2009. Private Security Issues in Australia: trends and key perspectives. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No.374: 1-7. Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1941. State of the Union Address Four Freedoms. Congressional Record 87. Rothschild, Emma. 1995. What is Security? Daedalus 124(3): 53-98. Sappington, David E.M., and Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1987. Privatization, Information and Incentives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 6(4): 567-582. Singer, Peter Warren. 2001. The Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry and its Ramification for International Security. International Security 26(3): 186-220.
53 | P a g e
Smith, Steve. 2005. The Contest Concept of Security. In Critical Security Studies and World Politics edited by Ken Booth, 27-62. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Starr, Paul. 1988."The Meaning of Privatization". Yale Law and Policy Review 6: 6-41 Starr, Paul. 2007. Freedoms Power: The History and Promise of Liberalism. 387 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016-8810. Basic Books. Strizel, Holger., and Schmittchen, Dirk. Securitization, Culture and Power: Rogue States in US and German Discourse. In Securitization Theory: how security problems emerge and dissolve. Talyor and Francis. Suhrke, Astri. 1999. Human Security and the Interest of States. Security Dialogue, 30 (3): 265276. Sundberg, Ralph. 2009. Revisiting One-sided Violence - A Global and Regional Analysis. UCPD Paper No.3, Uppsala Conflict Data Program. University of the Uppsala. Tavits, Margit. 2007. Clarity of Responsibility and Corruption. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1):218-229. Thomas, Caroline. 2001. Global Governance, Development and Human Security: Exploring the links. Third World Quarterly 22(2): 159-175. Thompson, Janice E. 1994. Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns. #41 William Street Princeton: Princeton University Press. Townsend, Dorn. 2009. No Other Life: Gangs, Guns and Governance in Trinidad and Tobago. Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies; #47 Avenue Blanc, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland.
54 | P a g e
Turbiville, Graham Hall Jr. 2006. Outlaw Private Security Companies: Criminal and Terrorist Agendas Undermine Private Security Alternative. Global Crime 7(3-4): 561-582. Ullman, Richard H. 1983. Redefining Security. International Security, 8(1): 129-153. Ungar, Mark. 2008. The Privatization of Citizenry Security in Latin America: From Elite Guards to Neighborhood Vigilantes. Social Justice 34(3-4): 20-37. United Nations. 1994. New Dimensions on Human Security. United Nations Development Report: 23-46. United Nations. 2004. A more secure world: Our Shared Responsibility. Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. van Brabant, Koenraad. 2002. Humanitarian action and Private Security Companies. Humanitarian Exchange Magazine 20:24-26. van Creveld, Martin. 2006. The Fate of the State Revisited. Global Crime, 7(3-4): 329-350. Vascianne, Stephen. Security, Terrorism and International Law: A SKeptical Comment. In Caribbean Security in the Age of Terror by Griffith, Ivelaw L., 52-71. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers. Verasammy, Gail D. 2009. Toward a Reconceptualization of Caribbean Basin Security. InSpire Journal of Law, Politics and Societies 4(1): 61- 82. Waever, Ole. 1995. Securitization and Desecuritization. In On Security by Lipschutz, Ronny (ed): 46-86. New York: Columbia University Press. Waever, Ole. 2011. Politics, Security, Theory. Security Dialogue 42(4-5): 465-480. Walker, R.B.J. 1997. Subject of Security. In Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases edited by Williams, Michael C., and Keith, Krause, 61-81. #1 Gunpowder Square, London EC4A 3DE: UCL Press Limited.
55 | P a g e
Williams, Michael C., and Keith, Krause. 1997. From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies. In Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases edited by Williams, Michael C., and Keith, Krause, 33-59. #1 Gunpowder Square, London EC4A 3DE: UCL Press Limited. Williams, Michael C., and Keith, Krause. 1997. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. #1 Gunpowder Square, London EC4A 3DE: UCL Press Limited. Williams, Paul D. 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction. In Security Studies: An Introduction by Williams, Paul D, 1-12. 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Routledge Publishers Limited Williams, Paul D. 2008. Security Studies: An Introduction. 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016. Routledge Publishers Limited Williamson, Oliver E. 1999. Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economic Perspective. Journal of Law, Economics and Organizations, 15(1): 306-342. Wolfers, Arnold. 1952. National Security as an Ambiguous Symbol. Political Science Quarterly, IIXVII (4): 481-502. Wyn Jones, Richard. 1999. Strategy, Security and Critical Theory. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301.Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Zwierlein, Cornel. and Graf, Rudiger. 2010. The Production of Human Security in Pre-modern and Contemporary History. Historical Social Research, 35(4): 7-21
56 | P a g e
Appendix 1
Discrete Multidimensional Security Framework
P a g e | 57
Joshua Hamlet Turning to the Market for Human Security: Impact of Privatization on Security
Appendix 2
P a g e | 58
Joshua Hamlet Turning to the Market for Human Security: Impact of Privatization on Security
Appendix 3

Turning To The Markets For Human Security: Impact of Privatization On The Security Landscape (Incomplete)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turning To The Markets For Human Security: Impact of Privatization On The Security Landscape (Incomplete)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turning to the Market for Human Security The Impact of Privatization on the Security Landscape

of the University of the West Indies

by Joshua Hamlet 807006371 15th July, 2012

Tables and Figures

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

4582 4973 4958 4855 5765 5226 4221

Table 3: Epistemic Distinctions

Figure 1: Four Dimensions of Extended Security

Table 4: Thompsons Analytical Framework for Organization of Violence

Table 5: Scope, Purpose and Forms of Privatized Security

Chapter Five PRESENTATION OF DATA AND ANALYSIS

Recent Trends in Private Security Companies

Figure 3: Global Activity of Private Military Industry

Table 6: Private Security Personnel in Latin America

Table 7: Private Security Personnel in the US and Europe

Figure.4: UK Security Industry Turnover

Discrete Multidimensional Security Framework

You might also like