Private Security: The consequences of safety

After being in Haiti for over a month, I’m beginning to realize just how much private security companies (PSC) affect the lifestyle of ex-pats. At first glance, these PSCs are a huge relief for international organizations – especially the small ones that do not have the capacity to organize their own networks and personnel. At a minimum, most provide vehicles, intelligence, drivers and bodyguards. Many however, provide services ranging from airborne logistics, to electronic surveillance, to executive protection. It was many of these companies that were the first to arrive in Haiti after the earthquake. They performed early rescues of clients and even assisted in some aid distribution (weeks after the earthquake IPOA set up a website to list all private security providers) . 

But many take issue with the private nature of these companies. Critics link PSCs to US imperialism and label their activities as “disaster profiteering”. Defenders say that they are just filling a need of the market, since the local authorities cannot be relied upon for protection. 

Indeed, a competitive market creates quality service (and the profit to go with it). But few markets are perfect, and this one is no exception. The problem of imperfect information creates an incentive to pursue two strategies: 1) overstate the dangers of the environment and 2) encourage an extreme level of protection services. 

My awareness of the first strategy began with my debriefing from the airport, where I was sternly told by a senior staff member of our PSC that 10 expats were being kidnapped per month. Since then, I have heard from multiple sources (UN Police, British Foreign Service) that the real number is about a tenth of that.

The second strategy is obvious when you start to hear about the many strict security regimes. For instance, a few NGOs have curfew beginning at 6pm and are only able to travel to restricted areas in the city. They must always have at least four people in the car (including an armed driver) and after 4pm they need to travel in convoy with another car. There is a glimpse of more rational thinking however. My NGO is more lenient on security. We have drivers during the day (accompanied by a body guard at night), who will take us virtually anywhere before 11pm. Even more relaxed, certain Latin American embassies allow their staff to own their own cars and are simply advised to follow embassy suggestions when it comes to where and when to travel.

In any case, the result is a city where few are willing to take chances, and thus very few “blancs” (Haitian term for foreigners) can be found walking the streets. It begs the question of whether an alternative approach exists. Some say that the millions spent in private security could be spent on supporting the local police forces. In addition, relaxing security regimes might mean more foreigners could be found on the streets (albeit in safe areas of town), thereby bringing foreigners and locals more in contact.

Of course, the counter argument is clear. Who is willing to give up maximum personal security for the sake of police capacity building or cultural rapprochement? Who’s to say these are even possible given Haiti’s history of corruption, poverty and international meddling. While those of us on the ground struggle with these questions, the security companies will continue to make us feel safe with them, and fearful of what may await us should we break our curfews.

Comments? Questions?

Picture from a EODT Technologies website (present in Haiti)