A private security panacea? A specific response to mean times

Abstract

The Mean Times report asserts that humanitarians should rely on private security companies (PSCs) to provide security for humanitarians and/or their operations which, despite the growing need, state militaries and international peacekeeping forces are increasingly unable or unwilling to provide. However, does the potential exist for PSCs to take the place of public security providers? Can PSCs secure the “humanitarian space"? The author argues that while PSCs have been seemingly proficient in recent tasks, the industry to date does not have the requisite organizational structure, material capacity, or legitimacy. Spearin also asserts that in the long term, while PSCs might arguably solve some security concerns for humanitarians, they raise a host of other problems. Namely, PSC/humanitarian interaction might 1) limit the provision of humanitarian assistance on the basis of cost; 2) subject humanitarians to the financial demands and business pursuits of PSCs and; 3) provide an excuse for other parties to free themselves from humanitarian obligations and to disengage from the search for political solutions to the root causes of humanitarian crises. In sum, the private security option, while having some beneficial aspects, is not a panacea for humanitarians due to its unique effects on securing the humanitarian space and its consequent impact on the humanitarian ethic.