Summary: This paper serves

as a means by which to start

educating policymakers, the
NGO community, corporate
leaders, and other relevant
stakeholders about the limits
of corporate infuence over
host nations with regard to the
human rights standards of their
security forces, while highlighting
the importance of adopting
a new responsible security
operations paradigm in complex
environments. It explores and
describes some efforts under-
taken to date by industry-NGO
cooperation with respect to
infuencing host nations in
adopting the appropriate level
of human right standards and
implementing training for their
security forces. And, fnally, it
suggests some new and inno-
vative solutions or possible
fxes regarding how to change
the narrative on the issue of
responsible security operations
employed by corporate and
governmental decision-makers
and institutions infuencing host
nation behavior.
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
Changing the Narrative and Setting the
Conditions for More Responsible Security
Operations: A Policy Primer
by Daniel P. Fata
1744 R Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
T 1 202 745 3950
F 1 202 265 1662
E info@gmfus.org
October 2014
Introduction
Within the past year, a number of
reports and articles have been written
about the vast amounts of resource
wealth found in developing coun-
tries. Most of the areas of potential
resources extraction tend to be
politely called complex environ-
ments, given the internal political
and security conditions that make
foreign investment in these places
risky or outright dangerous.
1
In
a recent editorial, one watcher of
these issues made a compelling case
that there must be ways in which to
reverse or break the resource curse
that has aficted countries blessed
with vast amounts of natural extract-
able resources including oil, gas,
rare earth minerals but unable
or unwilling to use natures bounty.
Tis article highlighted the lucrative
concessions such governments can
award foreign investors to extract the
resources to the betterment of the
countries citizens and infrastructure.
2

1 Mine: A confdence crisis. Review of global trends in
the mining industry2013, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
2013, http://www.pwc.com/en_GX/gx/mining/publica-
tions/assets/pwc-mine-a-confdence-crisis.pdf, 57.
2 Daniel Runde, EITIs Silent Revolution, Forbes,
October 3, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/daniel-
runde/2014/10/03/eitis-silent-revolution/.
Tere is a related problem that has
existed for some time, which is
both wider than just the extractives
industry and which has had an efect
on foreign companies decisions to
invest in countries that are resource-
rich but sufer from weak governance,
either from lack of political will or
capability or both. Te broader issue
centers on how governments in those
countries act when hosting foreign
corporations on their soil. Discus-
sions, debates, and media attention
to date have focused on human
rights abuses being committed in the
countries of Africa, Latin America,
and Asia where resources are plentiful
and foreign multinational companies
operate and extract such resources.
Companies have borne the brunt of
media and NGO community scrutiny
during the last few decades for either
facilitating conditions ripe for crime
and abuse or at minimum turning a
blind eye to the behavior of the local
police, national military forces, or
private security contractors hired
to protect a plants operation. While
some companies may have been
complicit in committing or being
party to some abuses, many others
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
2
have made eforts to create better conditions and enforce
international standards.
To date, eforts by leading NGOs, select governments,
corporations, and other entities to change the practices
of some host nation governments have met with varied
success for a range of reasons. Some Western countries, as
well as major extractive and private security companies,
have taken it upon themselves to voluntarily adopt a set of
principles to govern their own behavior when operating in
complex environments as a means of establishing a level
of operations standards. Steps have also been taken as a
means to reduce their own legal and reputational risk. Such
voluntary schemes help encourage a more responsible use
of public security sector forces by a host nation govern-
ment in order to create a safer operating environment for
foreign investors.
Recently, an efort has begun to help change the narrative
around security operations from a primarily human rights
issue to a key issue for host nations economic develop-
ment. Tis shif recognizes a host nations own respon-
sibility to provide a secure and accountable operating
environment both for foreign investors as well as for its
own people who live and work around plants and opera-
tion sites. Te argument is shifing to one focusing on why
it should be in a host nations interest to create an invest-
ment climate, which promotes responsible security opera-
tions (RSO) throughout the country and which abides
by the rule of law and transparency. Te more foreign
investors see countries as willing to adopt either broadly
accepted international standards of greater transparency
and accountability standards throughout their territory and
across their institutions and public security sector forces,
the more likely are they to perceive investment in those
countries as risk-acceptable.
RSO is not, and should not, be solely focused on human
rights standards. It is not meant to exclude, label, punish,
alienate, or lecture nations that exist in complex environ-
ments and struggle with competing priorities associated
with governing in complex environments. Tere are many
reasons why foreign governments, foreign investors, and
host nations should want to see positive change in how
people live and operate in particular country or area. Te
RSO concept is meant to leverage many diferent actors to
help bring about a desired and efective outcome in such
places. RSO is not a panacea but rather a framework and
concept for bringing about change.
Tis paper serves as a means by which to start educating
policymakers, the NGO community, corporate leaders, and
other relevant stakeholders about the limits of corporate
infuence over host nations with regard to the human rights
standards of their security forces, while highlighting the
importance of adopting a new responsible security opera-
tions paradigm in complex environments. It explores and
describes some eforts undertaken to date by industry-
NGO cooperation with respect to infuencing host nations
in adopting the appropriate level of human right standards
and implementing training for their security forces. And,
fnally, it suggests some new and innovative solutions or
possible fxes regarding how to change the narrative on
the issue of responsible security operations employed by
decision-makers and institutions infuencing host nation
behavior.
Background
What is the Issue?
Extractive companies operate in tough environments
characterized by communal confict or crime, poverty-
ridden societies, corrupt or at best less-than-transparent
governments, and largely untrained security forces. Te
existence of these conditions increases the risks (legal,
fnancial, physical) to which companies exposed when
operating in such environments. However, given that the
resources to be extracted are present in these countries,
companies have little choice but to set up plants and facili-
ties in these areas in order to undertake their operations.
Te issue of working closely with host nation governments
and host nation security forces has increased in impor-
tance, particularly during the past decade. It has become
increasingly clear that companies cannot shoulder the
burden to manage these risks on their own. Companies and
governments must have a good understanding of the risks
inherent in extraction and to develop cooperative means
to ensure such business activities are safe and secure for all
parties. Te RSO paradigm has applicability beyond just
the extractives industry. By insisting that RSO be part of
all foreign investment and engagement in complex envi-
ronments, the importance of changing the dynamics on the
ground may help garner attention from a broader audience.
One particular problem is the adherence of a host nations
public security sector forces to internationally recognized
human rights standards. While many companies have
sought to deal with this challenge by ensuring that hired
private security forces are appropriately trained, security
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
3
in a host nation is still largely dependent on local and
national police, and sometimes paramilitary or military
forces due to the requirements of the Production Sharing
Contracts or Concession Agreements that defne the terms
of a companys operations in a specifc country. In some
countries, companies are not permitted to hire private
security contractors. Yet despite these requirements, the
onus of efective, safe, and secure operations that respect
the human rights of local populations continues to lie
disproportionally on extractive companies and not with
the host government itself or their national and local police
forces. In the event of extraordinary security issues they
must rely on host-nation forces. Tus, if host-nation forces
step in during a security situation and do not adhere to
appropriate human rights standards, there is a tremendous
likelihood that the company could take direct or indirect
blame for the abuses. Specifcally, such an environment
poses security, fnancial, legal, and reputational risks for a
corporation choosing to do business there. While compa-
nies writ large have struggled to convince wider audiences
of the causative relationship between host-nation prac-
tices and risks, it is clear that corporations believe that the
current set of private-public institutions designed to foster
a culture of host-nation adherence to internationally recog-
nized standards of human rights has signifcant limitations,
especially within the context of providing security for the
extractive industries. Without a diferent approach, there
is little more that the private sector, non-governmental
organizations, and the international community can do to
infuence host-nation practices.
Why Is This Relevant and What Does It Mean
in a Wider Context?
As noted above, the issue goes beyond any particular
companys actions in any particular country. Te real issue
is the treatment of foreign investors, notably extractive
companies (but not limited to this sector only), by host-
nation governments. Ofentimes, these companies choose
to assume a signifcant level of risk in order to engage in
mining or other operations in a country with little or some-
times no legal protections or guarantees for the security of
the companys workforce, let alone a promise to protect the
local population from wanton abuse. Te less helpful and
understanding a host nation government is to the inter-
ests and concerns of a foreign corporation as it prepares
to build facilities and undertake operations in a countrys
development, the increasingly less likely it is that such
companies will view making signifcant investments in that
country as a worthy endeavor. Tis is increasingly true as
countries like the United States and U.K. develop increas-
ingly higher legal accountability thresholds, and therefore
greater legal risks, to companies for incidents that occur in
relation to their overseas operations.
Nations that do not adhere to internationally recognized
human rights and other legal protections will certainly seek
to fll the gap created by those companies refusing to invest
and operate in lawless countries, thus further decreasing
the chances that 1) the host country will ever fully develop
economically, politically, and socially, and 2) that the host
country will remain merely a location for which its best
resources are extracted and for which it will have very little
say as to what happens within its borders. For a commu-
nity built on common values, principles, and laws, as well
as the desire to see peoples develop and prosper, allowing
such actions to impede the development of impoverished
countries is an unacceptable outcome. Tis negative trend
must be reversed. Moreover, companies willing to fout
their responsibilities to respect human rights should not be
allowed to adhere to much lower standards in some host
nations where human rights issues are not as important for
the host governments.
What Has Been Done to Date
Almost 15 years ago, a movement originated at a meeting
of Te Fund for Peace that saw extractives companies
(mining and oil/gas), governments, and NGOs signing
up to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human
Rights a set of principles designed to guide compa-
nies in maintaining the safety and security of their opera-
tions within an operating framework that encourages
respect for human rights. Te Voluntary Principles are a
set of guidelines focused on security and human rights
specifc to governments, corporations, and NGOs in the
extractives sector.
3
Mainly focusing on good practices to
encourage high standards of conduct by security forces,
and conducting appropriate risk assessments, the Volun-
tary Principles demonstrate that business and civil society
can play a constructive role in advancing these ends. In
essence, promoting these practices simultaneously miti-
gates risk and promotes human rights. Current government
participants include the governments of the United States,
Norway, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada,
Switzerland, Colombia, Australia, and most recently
3 Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights: Fact Sheet, March 2010, http://
voluntaryprinciples.org/fles/VPs_FactSheet_Mar2010_US.pdf.
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
4
the government of Ghana. NGO participants include
the Fund for Peace, Partnership Africa Canada, Global
Rights, and a number of other organizations that ofen
serve as important implementing partners in the security
and human rights space in host countries. Te corporate
participants represent more than 20 mining and oil/gas
companies, ranging from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP, to
Newmont, Rio Tinto, and BHP Billiton. Finally, a number
of observer organizations participate in Voluntary Prin-
ciples dialogues, including the International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Institute for Human Rights
and Business.
4
Western governments have not agreed to
uphold these principles, but instead feel their role is to
encourage other governments to uphold them and spend
the vast amount of their time in the Voluntary Principles
on recruitment via political delegations.
Te International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association (IPIECA), the gas and oil
industrys leading association for environmental and social
issues, has initiated steps to address the nexus of human
rights and operations security.
5
Specifcally, it has launched
a Responsible Security Task Force to provide a forum for
member companies to share best practices around compa-
nies approaches to managing and engaging with public
and private security forces, and to identify lessons learned
from past incident management.
In late 2010, the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control
of Armed Forces (DCAF) successfully led an initiative to
get private security companies to adopt the International
Code of Conduct (ICoC). Te International Code of
Conduct for Private Security Service Providers is a Swiss
government-convened, multi-stakeholder initiative to
both clarify international standards for the private security
industry operating in complex environments and improve
oversight and accountability of these companies.
6
Te code
establishes human rights based principles for the respon-
sible provision of private security services, which include
rules for the use of force, prohibitions on torture, human
trafcking and other human rights abuses, and specifc
commitments regarding the management and governance
of companies, including how they vet personnel and
subcontractors, manage weapons, and handle grievances
4 Ibid.
5 Social responsibility, The International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conserva-
tion Association, http://www.ipieca.org/focus-area/social-responsibility#activities.
6 About, International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, http://
www.dcaf.ch/Project/International-Code-of-Conduct-for-Private-Security-Service-Provid-
ers.
internally. Te ICoC was initially signed by 58 private
security companies from 15 countries. By signing, the
companies publicly afrm their responsibility to respect
the human rights of, and fulfll humanitarian responsibili-
ties toward, all those afected by their business activities.
Tey also commit to operate in accordance with the code.
Te ICoC has remained open for signature since the initial
signing, and by February 1, 2013, the number of Signatory
Companies had risen from 70 to 708.
7
Best Practices Cameroon Case Study
By no means will changing the narrative or adopting
change on the ground be easy, quick, or irreversible. It will
require commitment, sustained resources, a willing host
nation government, and a capable segment of the public
security sector.
Interestingly, the Fund for Peace ofers a compelling, real
world example of starting down the path of bringing about
real change in a complex environment. Te organizations
recent work in Cameroon vis--vis the Voluntary Principles
serves as a good case study.
8
Te Fund for Peace began
working in Cameroon in 2013 afer a major foreign corpo-
ration, Cosmos Energy, signed an exploration contract
with the government. Cosmos Energy recognized the
importance of establishing a responsible security environ-
ment and contracted the Fund for Peace to help develop
and implement a training regime geared toward making a
diference in the culture of the nations security force.
Te Fund for Peace put together a curriculum to better
train security forces, integrating a human rights element
into existing training rather than reinventing the way forces
were trained. As part of the training, Fund for Peace deter-
mined that a compelling delivery method would be comic
book materials that illustrated a wide array of possible
scenarios. Importantly, they recognized that human
rights mean diferent things in diferent contexts. Rather
than focusing on human rights explicitly, the curriculum
focused on community respect and the potential of endan-
gering personal security through irresponsible actions.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that security incidences
decreased remarkably. Employees noted considerable
7 International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers, http://www.
icoc-psp.org/.
8 J. J. Messner, Human Rights Training for Security Forces in the Extractive Indus-
try, The Fund for Peace Commentary, October 18, 2013, http://library.fundforpeace.
org/20131018-cameroon.
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
5
diferences in how the assigned soldiers interacted with the
company.
While the Fund for Peaces operation in Cameroon was a
success and helped increase responsible security practices
within the country, the project ultimately ended due to lack
of funding from the original sponsor and the host nation.
Despite its decision to leave Cameroon because of unsuc-
cessful drilling operations, Cosmos Energy did continue to
fund the training initiative for some time. Some key take-
aways should be highlighted as they may well be relevant to
future endeavors in other countries and by other entities.
Funding Consistency: Reliance on funding streams
(e.g. potential projects) that may not last is a serious
challenge. Continuity is essential for the success of these
programs.
Rapid Response: Keeping in mind consistency of
funding, there needs to also be a conversely fexible and
rapid response when contracts are awarded.
Host-Government Experiences and Consent: Given
that those in government had experiences abroad
(training at West Point, etc.), there was an openness to
the Western NGO standards that might not always be
present.
Forum for Conversation: More than merely a comic
book, the medium provided a catalyst for conversa-
tion. It allowed for greater discussion of the scenarios
presented and allowed individuals to ask questions on
how to conduct themselves.
No One-Size-Fits-All: All eforts of this kind must be
customized to the specifc environments in which they
are to operate.
Emphasize Security and Risk: In many of these coun-
tries, there is an aversion to focusing on human rights.
Instead, the security component should be the center-
piece. If security is managed well, adherence to human
rights standards will improve. It is also important to
recognize that the unit that was engaged in the FFP
training was a specially recruited, trained, and equipped
force that had the personal endorsement of President
Paul Biya. For RSO-type initiatives to work, there must
be a capable, well-led unit that can be trained that has
genuine, sustained support of the host nation.
During the past year, DCAF, working along with the ICRC,
has developed two products to be used by practitioners
on the ground in complex environments. Te Knowledge
Hub is a web platform that brings together guidance
documents, tools, and case studies that address security
and human rights issues.
9
DCAFs other product is called
the Toolkit, which ofers good practices and recom-
mendations on addressing real-life security and human
rights challenges, complemented by practical tools such as
checklists can case studies.
10
Both oferings are based on
real-world experiences derived from best practices by those
operating on the ground around the globe.
Proposed New Solution
In most weak and failing states, there are limits to corpo-
rate infuence over host-nation adherence to human rights
practices, and cooperation between a companys security
personnel and host government forces is ofen futile as
a result of failed engagement, improper training, and
inefcient command and control. Terefore, a diferent
approach needs to be taken in order to bring about a
change to the status quo. How can this be done? How can
the eforts of corporations, NGOs, governments, and indi-
viduals truly result in better operating conditions for those
companies willing to invest in complex environments?
More importantly, how can such eforts be seen frst and
foremost as an essential aspect of a national development
program to be embraced by host nation governments?
Arguably, the frst step is to reach agreement among a core
group of interested parties that the issue of encouraging
responsible security operations by host nations in complex
environments needs to be addressed and is in the interest
of the U.S. government, foreign governments, corporations,
NGOs, and willing host nations.
Te second step is to educate stakeholders on why the issue
of responsible security operations in complex environ-
ments is less a human rights issue and more of a develop-
ment issue, and why it is important. Te aim here is to
change the narrative so as to persuade host-nations that
investing in proper training protocols for its public secu-
rity sector forces is an important catalyst to creating the
enabling environment for the future. As noted above, if
there is no appetite to change the status quo, then the task
9 Toolkit, Addressing Security and Human Rights Challenges in Complex Environ-
ments: Knowledge Hub, http://www.securityhumanrightshub.org/content/toolkit.
10 Ibid.
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
6
of precipitating a change of approach by the host nation
becomes nearly impossible.
Te third task is to recognize that, based on past eforts
by some organizations like the Fund for Peace and others,
there are specifc ingredients for success. Tey include:
Need to have a willing host nation government that
understands the benefts of adopting a more responsible
approach toward providing for a stable, secure security
environment based on the rule of law, both for foreign
companies and, more importantly, for its own citizens.
Need to determine the roles of all of the stakeholders
involved: host nation governments, foreign govern-
ments, corporations, and NGOs.
Need for a supportive (and stable) funder of the needed
training.
Need to identify units (specialized and highly trained)
who will be responsible for carrying out the new
mission.
Need to identify which tools are best suited to train
diferent public sector security forces.
Who Are the Key Players and What Should
their Roles Be?
Given that the components of a successful model for
enhancing responsible security operations in sub-optimal
environments all have their challenges, what should be the
role of the host nation governments, U.S. and other foreign
governments, corporations, and NGOs?
Role of the Host Government: Te key component to
changing the narrative and conditions on the ground is
the openness of the host nation government to candidly
embrace a change and adopt reforms, in small or large
components over time, of the local or regional forces
responsible for security operations. Te issues with public
security forces and the understanding and desire for
change must be the focus of conversation with host govern-
ments, which will then provide top-cover for these eforts
in order to make those arrangements more than just a
piece of paper. Beyond the specifc role of a host govern-
ments willingness, there might also be a desire to change
any institutionalized apathy or aversion in some countries
to the human rights and security question. Tis efort must
be made a priority and extend all the way from the capital
city to the local regions of the country and throughout all
the governmental and military institutions responsible for
adopting such changes.
Tose required to bring about such change in practice need
to be given appropriate incentives. Te more individuals
recognize it is in their interest to reform past practices and
create a more respectful, responsible, secure, and trans-
parent operating environment for citizens and foreign
investors, the more personal, professional, and unit devel-
opment rewards they should receive. Such actions have
the potential to make not only the eforts within a coun-
trys borders succeed but also have the potential to make
the overall initiative spread to other countries and areas
around the world.
Role of the U.S. Government: Tere is a signifcant role
for the U.S. government to play in helping to adopt a new
narrative but also to help foster real change in some parts
of the world. In the past, much of the specifc USG assis-
tance has been ofen too closely tied to human rights and
sometimes at odds with the harder security discussions and
consideration surrounding reform and investment. As part
of the desire or need to change the narrative, perhaps it
may make sense for companies to make their case directly
to the U.S. government and encourage more deliberate
involvement in this regard.
Te U.S. Armed Forces also have a role to play either in
helping to build security sector reform plans for specifc
countries, assisting in training those local forces respon-
sible for carrying out such reforms, or some other areas.
During the past decade or so, the U.S. military has
demonstrated increasing interest in building partner
capacity among foreign militaries to help train them to
take on wider mission sets and to be able to partner more
efectively with the U.S. and other foreign militaries. Te
U.S. Armys Regionally Aligned Forces or U.S. Pacifc
Commands Pacifc Pathways are two examples of current
initiatives that have some degree of applicability to the
greater RSO concept.
Military training is not necessarily the right answer for
every country. Western militaries are not always good
at training foreign public sector security forces, such as
police. Moreover, military troops may not necessarily be
the appropriate tool for some complex environments.
Decisions about using the military for training should be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Local and state-level
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
7
police forces could also play a role in helping to train public
sector security forces. European gendarme-type training
might be appropriate as well.
One of the best potential tools the U.S. military has to
ofer is in the form of its National Guard State Partnership
Program. According to the National Guard,
Te State Partnership Program (SPP) has been
successfully building relationships for over 20 years
that includes 68 unique security partnerships involving
74 nations around the globe. SPP links a unique
component of the Department of Defense a states
National Guard with the armed forces or equivalent
of a partner country in a cooperative, mutually benef-
cial relationship
Tis low-cost program is administered by the National
Guard Bureau, guided by State Department foreign
policy goals, and executed by the state adjutants
general in support of combatant commander and U.S.
Chief of Mission security cooperation objectives and
Department of Defense policy goals.
Trough SPP, the National Guard conducts military-
to-military engagements in support of defense security
goals but also leverages whole-of-society relationships
and capabilities to facilitate broader interagency and
corollary engagements spanning military, government,
economic, and social spheres.
11
Te SPP might serve as an interesting vehicle for helping
to identify key units and leaders to be trained as well as to
catalyze a broader spectrum of collaboration between U.S.
state governments and foreign governments, resulting in
connections such as investment and university exchanges.
As efective as the SPP is, it is limited in its capacity to
reach into many countries where RSO is badly needed.
Greater funding as well as expansion of SPP to include
more countries as well as military-to-civilian programs
(rather than exclusively military-to-military programs)
could be an interesting concept to test and tool to apply.
Role of Other Foreign Governments: Te role of non-U.S.
Western governments is not that dissimilar from that of the
U.S. government. Tey can support and foster sustained
change in countries where their national corporations are
11 State Partnership Program, National Guard, http://www.nationalguard.mil/Leader-
ship/JointStaff/J5/InternationalAffairsDivision/StatePartnershipProgram.aspx.
investing. Some foreign governments have the additional
ability to rally regional entities such as the EU to assist in
aid making and commitment enforcement.
Role of Corporations: As it is corporations that make the
decision to invest in complex environments, their collec-
tive concerns and resources to address risk mitigation are
immense. Corporations will continue to be a driving force
for bringing about a more responsible security environ-
ment in areas where they are interested in investing and
operating. Apart from seeking their help in funding these
eforts, approaching larger entities, such as the Corporate
Council on Africa, would be hugely benefcial. According
to its own mission statement, the Corporate Council on
Africa (CCA) works closely with governments, multilat-
eral groups and businesses to improve Africas trade and
investment climate and to raise the profle of Africa in the
U.S. business community. Given its wide-ranging corpo-
rate membership, organizations such as CCA, have a high
degree of infuence on U.S. policymakers and, more impor-
tantly, African host nation governments. It would demon-
strate a larger endorsement from a reputable organization
of corporations, while ensuring more sustained funding.
Role of NGOs: As has been noted previously, NGOs such
as the Fund for Peace and DCAF have led the charge in
helping to improve the ability of foreign companies to
operate responsibly on host-nation soil. Not only have
such organizations pushed for the creation and adoption
of voluntary codes of conduct, they have also proactively
engaged with investor nations to raise awareness of the
issue and to enlist their support. Te Voluntary Principles
and the ICoC are not conventions or human rights trea-
ties, but rather practical frameworks for getting opera-
tions right in host nations. Te Voluntary Principles and
the ICoC attract the attention of NGOs that really want to
make a diference on the ground. Moreover, such organiza-
tions have also spearheaded training routines funded by
corporate donations to help work with host nations such as
Cameroon and elsewhere to bring about change and adopt
new practices by public sector security forces. NGOs would
play a crucial role in any future initiative.
Role of Private Security Companies: As local public secu-
rity forces have not been reliable in many cases, this has
led to an increased reliance on private security contractors.
Companies can require private security contracts to adhere
to high human rights and security standards, as they can
be written into contracts (including training, vetting, and
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
8
auditing requirements); however, that same degree of
leverage does not exist with public local forces. Rather,
governments must buy into the eforts of other actors, as
well as fully support these initiatives on their own, from
the highest levels of the chain of command. Private security
forces could still play a meaningful role in this area for
instance, acting as consultants to public security forces.
Moreover, high standards are more widespread given the
International Code of Conduct for Private Security Forces
and standards imposed through contractual arrangements.
Models for Funding Responsible Security
Operations Efforts
Based on the experiences of DCAF and the Fund for Peace
in particular, there are a few diferent models that could be
considered:
Host-nation funded: One means by which to experi-
ment with bringing about a more responsible security
operating environment is for a host nation to self-fund
the training of its security forces. Funds could come
from national cofers, from a percentage of the conces-
sions awarded to foreign corporations, or from other
local means. Such funding would demonstrate to
foreign investors, foreign governments, and others that
a nation is truly serious about reforming the practices
within its borders and wants to be seen as a country
that welcomes and protects foreign investors while at
the same time working to create a better economy and
social infrastructure for its own people. A host nation
government could execute a program on its own or
it could contract an NGO or other entity to initially
administer the program.
U.S. or foreign-government funded (either direct or
via an NGO): A more standard approach would be for
foreign governments and/or international organizations
to award contracts to NGOs or other entities to develop
and conduct a training program with the host nation.
Alternatively and where appropriate, foreign militaries
or police/gendarme forces could serve as the imple-
menting trainer and provide the toolbox to be deployed.
One of the goals would be to train the trainer so that,
over a reasonable period of time, those being trained
by U.S. and other foreign instructors would be able to
assume responsibility for training future units so U.S.
and other foreign trainers could move to a supporting
role and simply monitor the education eforts.
Corporate funded: As has been demonstrated in a few
examples, the opportunity exists for corporations to
fund training and education eforts in the countries in
which they invest and operate. Again, through a third-
party agent, such as a NGO or even a private security
frm, corporations have the ability to start to turn the
tide in host nations on a smaller scale. Such activi-
ties are only possible with host-nation support. An
interesting twist on the corporate-funded model is for
host nations to require an ofset or an obligation by the
foreign investor to train public security sector forces for
a set period of time as a part of the concessions contract.
Such an obligation could be led or at least monitored by
an experienced NGO.
Trust Fund: Perhaps an entirely new approach would
be to establish a trust fund with capital and in-kind
services provided by foreign governments, corporations,
international organizations, and even host nations to
develop and implement tailored, scalable programs and
solutions that provide stable funding and long-term
viability. Tis would be a public-private global partner-
ship to help bring about the kinds of changes needed
in some host nations struggling in marshalling the
required resources. Te trust fund could identify a few
key countries around the world and work to implement
a few diferent models to bring about public security
sector reforms. Te trust fund could be fnanced entirely
by corporations at a relatively low individual buy-in
rate. Here, too, an NGO could be contracted to imple-
ment the training program.
Path Forward
Te path forward for those seeking to make a diference
should, in essence, include the following actions:
First, it is crucial to educate key stakeholders in the
U.S. and other foreign governments, key host nation
governments, corporate leaders, and NGO community
in order to get a sense of where these entities are willing
to invest.
Second, it is important to identify three to fve nations
where models could be applied. As part of this, a deter-
mination should be made as to which host nations will
self-fund such projects and which will ones will require
outside foreign government assistance. Equally impor-
tant will be identifying which ones would be willing to
Foreign Policy Program
Policy Brief
9
allow foreign militaries, police forces, or NGOs train
their security trainers, as a means of testing multiple
models.
Tird, a time horizon of two to three years should be
implemented, followed by an evaluation of how well
the project worked. Tis should involve developing
metrics for success for each of the difering approaches.
Such metrics should be reviewed annually to determine
progress.
Fourth, assuming at least one of the models of training
will yield some degree of success, entities should market
such successes widely and attempt to replicate the
approach with other willing host nations.
Finally, it would be benefcial to consider creating a
Trust Fund or a form of public-private partnership to
carry out some activities on varying scales in select
countries. Activities could include, among others,
training, monitoring of existing training, and lessons
learned analysis.
Conclusion
For too long, the extraction of natural resources has been
a wasted opportunity for too many of the worlds poorest
nations. A new narrative needs to be developed to help
leaders understand that the long-term security, economic,
and political benefts derived from being a responsible
partner to foreign/multinational companies and govern-
ments is exponentially more valuable than short-term,
lucrative but self-destructive contract concessions with
investors from countries that do not prioritize human
rights considerations. A greater partnership between
industry, host governments, host-nation security forces,
and the national governments from the industrys leading
companies is needed in order to highlight the risks
inherent in operating in certain locations, to ensure opera-
tions are completely legal and as safe and secure as possible,
and to reduce corporate exposure to unnecessary litiga-
tion, public pressure, and economic loss incurred during
the process of their business operations. Te extractive
industries can be a partner for the U.S. government and
other governments seeking to encourage more responsible
security forces and more stable countries globally.
Te views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the
views of the author alone.
About the Author
Daniel P. Fata is vice president for Europe and Americas in the Wash-
ington Operations division of Lockheed Martin. From 2008-14, he
served as a non-resident transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall
Fund of the United States. He is currently a consultant to GMF and
served as the project lead for GMFs Responsible Security Operations
initiative.
About GMF
Te German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) strengthens
transatlantic cooperation on regional, national, and global challenges
and opportunities in the spirit of the Marshall Plan. GMF does this by
supporting individuals and institutions working in the transatlantic
sphere, by convening leaders and members of the policy and business
communities, by contributing research and analysis on transatlantic
topics, and by providing exchange opportunities to foster renewed
commitment to the transatlantic relationship. In addition, GMF
supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded
in 1972 as a non-partisan, non-proft organization through a gif from
Germany as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF
maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition
to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has ofces in Berlin,
Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, Bucharest, and Warsaw. GMF also
has smaller representations in Bratislava, Turin, and Stockholm.