A (VERY) BRIEF LOOK AT PHYSICAL SECURITY

In a world where unemployment is on the rise, financial institutions are in melt-down and an ever-decreasing ability of law enforcement agencies to curb crime, it is obvious that crime will escalate. Coupled to these contributors to crime are marches, protests and riots that use a mass of normally law-abiding citizens as a cover to establish a base for anarchy to flourish. The recent actions witnessed at the G20 and NATO meetings reflect this growing problem. This, in turn, creates a viable base for terrorist actions to be implemented.

Physical security is usually defined as the protection of buildings, personnel, hardware, programmes, networks, other assets and data from violent and non-violent physical actions that can cause loss (of life) or damage to a facility, company, enterprise, agency or an institution. Such violent and non-violent actions include pilfering, theft, burglary, sabotage, fire, vandalism and terrorism. But, breaching the physical security of a building or facility in order to carry out acts such as smuggling contraband, planting of false evidence, laying a bomb and so on create additional challenges to physical security.

It is in this world of growing lawlessness that Private Security Companies (PSCs) that specialise in Physical Security can play a very important role. What can be somewhat disconcerting is that there are PSCs who have no knowledge of - or experience in – providing a professional physical security service and instead rely on exploiting a potential client’s concerns.

The aim of physical security is to protect the client’s (a person, company, institution and so on) home, vehicles, buildings, offices, facilities or such like against violent and non-violent actions, including additional activities such as industrial espionage.

Unfortunately, there are those that view physical security as an irritation that needs to be implemented in order to simply “go through the motions”. Even more unfortunate is the fact that some PSCs view physical security as simply “guarding” – and the cheaper the guards, the more profit the PSC accrues.

Physical security is much like a military defensive position where every effort is made to prevent a breach into the defensive area. This requires detailed planning and is not simply a matter of guards, gates and locks, although these assets do play an invaluable role.

Developing a physical security plan for a client requires the PSC to look beyond the box and not only focus on the obvious. This can include breaking down the potential target into three distinct yet interrelated areas, all mutually-supporting, and include the:

· Area of Responsibility
· Area of Influence
· Area of Interest.

The Area of Responsibility requires the setting up of obstacles to hamper/deny and prevent any attacker from physically breaching the facility or system in order to carry out their attack. This hardening of the facility or site can include walls and electrified fences, gates and access control systems, multiple locks, restricted areas, computer programmes, trained static and roaming guards, fireproof safes, covert cameras with day/night abilities, alarms and so on.

The Area of Influence is the second line of defence of the facility or installation. This area is usually seen as covering any potential threats or access routes to the facility that lie beyond the perimeter and can include heat and motion detectors and sensors, lighting, dogs, intrusion detectors and alarms, low-light cameras, access monitoring on approaches to the facility or installation, roaming guards and so forth.

The Area of Interest lies beyond the facility or installation and requires monitoring by means of cameras or information gathering in order to provide prior warning of a pending attack.

Interlinked with this layered approach must be a method to swiftly apprehend attackers before they can succeed in their aims. This is usually done by means of a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) that can rapidly respond with the necessary means and force. This is another contribution a professional PSC can make to protect a client.

The aim of physical security is to both deter attackers and convince attackers that the likely threat of detection and apprehension exceeds the risk of even making the attack.

Hardening and securing a facility, home, building or area is expensive. But, if the physical security plan is professionally developed, the costs are well worth the effort. Not only does such a plan give peace of mind to the client, it adds to the overall safety and security of the work environment.

CONSIDERING THE USE OF A PMC OR A PSC

I have always advocated the use of a Private Military Company (PMC) or a Private Security Company (PSC) above that of the UN or a foreign armed force’s training teams. The recent revelations of UN corruption and sexual abuse towards those they have undertaken to protect has simply strengthened my thoughts on the matter.

My belief is that the professional PMC/PSC comes with no political strings attached, views its mission as a matter of honour, is subject to the laws of the contracting country and is contracted to achieve an agreed aim within a defined time.

The predicament many governments face lies in selecting the PMC/PSC - which company is professional and which is not. Which company has a credible history and not one consisting of fantasy? Which company will place its mission first – above its commercial interests? Which company will, regardless of the circumstances, deliver what it promises? Which company can substantiate its track-record with facts as opposed to bluster, false propaganda and lies? Do they subscribe to a high standard of training and advice and follow a strict code of conduct?

Adding to this problem is that there has been an unprecedented growth in PMCs and PSCs. But, as with all businesses, there are those that can add value to any contract they undertake. But there are also those companies that aspire to be PMCs or PSCs but are lacking in expertise, experience and any semblance of a reputation.

These imposters prey on vulnerable governments and/or corporations in Africa and the East. They cannot give a government sound advice on strategy or tactics. They have no real experience or expertise in the field they claim to be specialists in. Their conduct in the field is despicable. They ascribe to the lowest possible training standards. In short, they are fly-by-night con-artists who are out to make a quick buck at the expense of their client. In this process of deception and incompetence, they tarnish the reputation of the PMCs and PSCs who are able to deliver on their promises.

Some newly-established PMCs/PSCs scour the market place looking for people with a reputation to add to their list of contacts/associates/partners and directors in order to use these names to open doors for them. They believe that these names will bring in the business. They use these names to develop proposals on their behalf and then end up selling the proposals as their own work or without the permission or knowledge of the author. With this lack of honour towards those who they rope in to assist themselves, imagine their lack of honour towards their clients.

A number of PMCs/PSCs are sponsored by Western governments who have motives that are not always obvious. These PMCs become their favoured companies to use – and they act on behalf of the sponsoring government’s foreign policy and also act as intelligence fronts. They are not there to help clients but rather to advance their government’s agendas – usually to the detriment of the client-government.

I, like many others, know of some PMCs and PSCs out there, that thrive on false track records. They use the histories of companies they have never been involved with – and use the track-records of those companies on their glamorous brochures and smart websites in order to dupe governments and corporations into employing them. They claim to have “24-hour crisis response centres” – which don’t exist. The end result is that they cannot accomplish what they undertook to deliver or were contracted to do. They can (sometimes) talk the talk but are unable to walk the walk.

Perhaps the time has come to expose those companies that pose as Private Military Companies and Private Security Companies. It is time to name and shame those that make false claims to the detriment of their clients. It is time to stop those irresponsible companies that are ruthlessly exploiting under-siege governments and in the process damaging a very important industry. It is time the real PMCs stood up and cleaned up the industry, instead of waiting for the media or a foreign government to make that exposure.

I am sure that under-siege governments would welcome knowing who they can trust to deliver a professional service that will serve their interests and who to stay away from. As long as the poser companies are allowed to continue with their nefarious activities, governments will be left wondering.

Given the bad publicity that PMCs and PSCs have attracted within certain segments of the media – and not all of it has been unfair - a house-cleaning operation will not bring about much of a change. Anti-PMC/PSC sentiments will forever remain, especially by the UN, NGOs and multi-nationals with hidden agendas. But, if the industry is cleaned up from within, their calls for action against the industry will simply be hollow.