Paranoid… or is someone out to get us?

[curious george]

Written by defenceWeb Friday, 15 June 2012 11:28




There are strong parallels between government’s plans to amend the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority Act and the draft Defence Review.

Business Day this week reported the amendments would restrict foreign ownership of private security companies in the interest of national security. It is unclear what the threat is, or how severe, as this was not explained.

Chapter 13 of the draft Defence Review calls for similar restrictions on the ownership of the local defence industry, for the same reason. While the amendments to the private security act has excited some comment - in a separate editorial the paper called the move “paranoid and insecure” – the plans articulated in the draft Defence Review has not yet attracted public comment. One understands there’s alarm and concern in the industry, much of which is foreign owned or owned by foreigners, but where that is being directed is a good question.

On the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority Act the paper’s editorial writer had the following to say: “While some of the provisions in the Bill make some sense … others are downright bizarre. One of the key objectives is to place limitations on the foreign ownership and control of private security businesses in SA, as well as to regulate the operations of security firms outside SA’s borders. One can only presume that in the eyes of the government, foreign investment in private security is motivated by the desire to execute a coup rather than extract a profit.

“Within the broader context of continuing police and spy wars that have become commonplace, this legislation looks not only obstructive to an effective and necessary sector but also petty and insecure. Perhaps the organs of state security are fearful of a private militia developing under the cloak of private security companies. Some regulation of the private security industry may be advantageous, but it is simply outrageous to pretend that these services, or the involvement of foreigners in the sector, are threats to state security.

Whether one can say the same for foreign ownership in the defence industry is a question readers must ponder and answer for themselves – the Review does not give much insight on this point. Foreign ownership in itself and the conduct of these owners and managers are not beyond criticism. There are many who believe that foreign owners asset strip and have failed to invest in either new technology or skills. Can they prove this? By contrast, is autarky and secrecy viable in the 21st Century? Maybe in the United States, but by a country as small as South Africa? The local military, police and intelligence services, even collectively, are a small market and exports are a must – even North Korea knows this. So, there goes secrecy. Exports mean marketing and disclosure to (potential) clients.

Marketing is expensive, particularly when ten Rand buys little more than one Euro. So government (or was it just then Public Enterprises minister Alec Erwin) part-justified foreign investment in the state-owned Denel as gaining necessary access to the marketing organisations of the global parents. Private industry has done the same. Trouble is many in government and the military who favour this new autarky have, perhaps rightly, gotten noses out of joint when local equipment gets showcased abroad under foreign flags. Some companies have gone further … at least one, based in Midrand, has posed as foreign flagged. This was noticed and caused offence in high circles. Truth be told, it upset in low circles too. I was certainly affronted.

Is this anger fuelling “national security concerns” and should that trump an open market?
Some believe national security is a convenient cover for transferring ownership to favoured connected political elites. Evidence of this is visible elsewhere in the economy, so why not in defence?

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.ph...:Editor Column



*One also has got to wonder how much/little faith these "security" agencies have in their own (lack of?)ability then?They're getting paranoid about shit like this?So scared of their own citizens?FCA,all these new "info" legislation?And/or,is it all about the money,or is it tinfoil hat time?*

[ady]

If you suspect someone is out to get you, then they probably are.

Nice article thanks CG.

[curious george]

Some related thoughts re:"...bizarre. One of the key objectives is to place limitations on the foreign ownership and control of private security businesses in SA, as well as to regulate the operations of security firms outside SA’s borders."

Some of us super paranoid/cynical types kinda wondered about the airtime/role of the "kommando korps" w***ers,who very vocally claims to register as private security companies,getting access to weapons through that,blah blah.Pushing it,or would it be that far-fetched in the context of the current lunacy:maybe as excuse to curb/ curtail civilian f/arm ownership even more?



PMC's or any security operation in a conflict zone gives those particular bodies experience/ expertise thats deemed a threat.

No more meak and mild sheep,a though to scary for greedy, paranoid and inept kleptocrats....?

[curious george]

Some of us super paranoid/cynical types kinda wondered about the airtime/role of the "kommando korps" w***ers,who very vocally claims to register as private security companies,getting access to weapons through that,blah blah.Pushing it,or would it be that far-fetched in the context of the current lunacy:maybe as excuse to curb/ curtail civilian f/arm ownership even more?

http://bit.ly/MkX5cO

http://southafricanews.wordpress.com...e-nazi-agente/

[ikor]

It's not paranoia if everyone really IS out to get you!

[ikor]

It's not paranoia if everyone really IS out to get you!

[Flossy]

just because im paranoid it dosent mean im not being followed.

[h0stag3]

http://bit.ly/MkX5cO

http://southafricanews.wordpress.com...e-nazi-agente/

Sad state of affairs CG.

[curious george]

Hijacking the thread now,with some 80's dejavu....

Think most people didnt comprehend,or are too young,to get an idea of how really bizarre,sometimes even farcical, things use to be towards the end of apartheid and how history seems to be repeating itself with this collapsing regime.

The m/o hasnt changed either:

Front companies,slush funds,zero accountability,hit squads,"dirty tricks",agent-provocateurs setting up "anti-" organisations,agencies spying on everyone/each other, all sort of dubious legislation,"hits" on political opponents,even killing some your own, incl planting bombs,to create "incidents".This to rally the sheep,to justify crackdowns......,some very obvious,some seemingly unbelievable.

(Add fracturing party/splinter opposition political organisations,daily protests,economic woes....)

The question I think will be "how far will they go, and how long will it take?"

[curious george]

ISS: Are foreign-owned private security companies a threat to South Africa's national security?

Written by ISS Africa, Tuesday, 15 April 2014




The South African Minister of Police, Nathi Mthethwa, is on record as saying that foreign ownership of private security companies is a threat to national security. However, to date there has been no substantive explanation to show how this may be the case.

The idea that foreign-owned private security companies are a threat to national security emerged in a debate over the recently adopted Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill. Indeed, the private security industry faces various shortcomings. These include the non-registration of personnel and businesses, poor training, inadequate vetting and background checks, the issuing of firearms to persons who are not competent to use them and the failure to pursue criminal or disciplinary action against security personnel who break the law. These are all credible and legitimate reasons for improving regulation.

Currently, there are 445 000 registered active private security ‘guards’ in South Africa. This means that private security officials far outnumber the 270 000 public security officers, a number that includes those working for the South African Police Service (SAPS) and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). Given the large number of people that the private security industry employs – many of whom are armed – it is important that it should be well regulated.

The minister also argued that the growth of the private security industry in South Africa ‘has outstripped other countries.’ However, according to a 2011 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) that compares civilian private security services internationally, South Africa is not that different to many other countries. In fact, South Africa’s ratio of private security officers to police officers (2,87:1) did not differ much from that of developed countries (the USA has a ratio of 2,26:1 and Australia 2,19:1). It also compares favourably to other middle-income or developing countries (Honduras has a ratio of 4,88:1, India 4,98:1 and Guatemala 6,01:1).

The 2013 draft Green Paper on Policing referred to another threat when it expressed concerns about the private security industry’s ‘ability’ to ‘destabilise any security situation’ in South Africa. This was ostensibly due to the involvement of ‘former military and police officers at management level,’ and the deployment of ‘highly trained, legally armed operatives’ within this industry. However, most of these former security officials are South African citizens, which therefore does little to support concerns relating to foreign ownership. READ MORE

Justice, Crime Prevention and Security (JCPS) cluster media briefing

private security


The Green Paper also alleged that the private security industry is ‘increasingly performing functions which used to be the sole preserve of the police.’ However, the growth of the private security industry is directly linked to high levels of crime and violence, along with public perceptions that police officers are unable to provide adequate security. The Green Paper also contradicts itself by pointing out that private security companies have no special powers beyond those of private citizens. It is therefore difficult to see how these companies can be seen to undermine the state’s law enforcement power.

Once again – as has been the case with the Protection of State Information Bill and the security ministers’ attempted cover-up of the exorbitant amount of public money spent on the president’s private Nkandla homestead – the term ‘national security’ is being used to justify government decisions or behaviour that cannot be properly explained. It is for this reason that Barry Buzan, in his 1991 book titled People, states and fear, says that elites in weak states more readily view various threats as ‘national security threats’ – especially when they seem to have negative implications for the power of those elites.

Similarly, much of what the current administration refers to as national security threats, appears to have more to do with removing the duty to account for political decisions, rather than any real danger to South African sovereignty.

Craig Snyder, in his 1999 book titled Contemporary security and strategy, says that ‘national security’ should be about freeing people from constraints such as poverty, poor education, political oppression and war. This is why, both internationally and locally, there has been a move away from the term ‘state security,’ which often narrowly equated a nation’s security with 'regime security.'

Indeed, South African policy has largely been in line with progressive understandings of ‘national security.’ For example, the South African White Paper on Defence (1996), states that (in the absence of any external or military threat), ‘the greatest threats to the South African people are socio-economic problems like poverty and unemployment … as well as the high level of crime and violence.’

National security, therefore, can best be described as freedom from external and internal threats, which may manifest as military, political, economic, societal and environmental threats, crime and violence and the threat of anarchy.

It is therefore difficult to see how foreign ownership or majority shareholding of private security companies by foreigners can be a threat to South Africa’s national security. Many businesses operating in South Africa have foreign ownership, including those in the field of information technology, which could be perceived as a potential threat. So why single out the private security industry?

Less than 10% of the local private security industry is foreign owned, and the 445 407 security officers that are registered as active are all South African citizens or have permanent resident status. They do not constitute a coherent, well-organised semi-military force ready for deployment against a particular target. Rather, they're spread across 9 031 registered businesses, providing more than 20 different categories of security and services as locksmiths, car guards, body guards and armed reaction teams. So, where is the threat?

Surely, limiting foreign investment and the jobs it may bring is more of a threat to our national security than the mere foreign ownership of a small number of companies. Most of these companies are listed on stock exchanges and are therefore subject to rigorous oversight. Unfortunately, given the absence of a rational, evidence-based argument to explain why foreign ownership of security companies is a threat to national security, questions now arise as to the real reason behind the controversial clause in the Private Security Industry Regulation Amendment Bill.

Written by Johan Burger, Senior Researcher, and Gareth Newham, Head, Governance, Crime and Justice Division, ISS Pretoria

Republished with permission from ISS Africa. The original story can be found here.
....