In August of this year Michael Grunberg was contacted by International Alert and asked if he would like to speak at a conference to take place at Wilton Park (an Executive Agency of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) in November and which is focussing on 'The Privatisation of Security'. The subject of his session would be 'National legislation: the development of 'best practice''.
Mr Grunberg said he would be pleased to participate and was sent a formal invitation letter on 19 August written by Dr Richard Latter, the Deputy Director of Wilton Park. Accompanying the letter was a programme 'preview' which incorporated his name. Other provisional speakers on the programme included Bernard Miyet, Vieira de Mello and Enrique Ballesteros of the UN, Daniel Antonio of the OAU, Yves Sandos of the ICRC, David Bryer of Oxfam, David Rice of BP, Will Reno and Kevin O'Brien.
Mr Grunberg then contacted Damian Lilly of International Alert to say that he had received the programme and would be happy to speak - but not as a representative of a mining company - as was stated in the programme, as it would be more appropriate for him to represent Sandline as a consultant to them on, amongst other things, regulatory issues. He also suggested that it may be more appropriate for Tim Spicer to talk on the subject. However, Mr Lilly said that as he understood Mr Grunberg had authored Sandline's papers on regulation and transparency it may be more desirable for him to speak but he would consult with others involved in the conference planning and firm up on this.
Mr Grunberg subsequently contacted Mr Lilly on three occasions to ask whether they had decided who should speak as either Col Spicer or he wanted to begin work on the talk content. Mr Lilly said he was unable to give an answer as he was waiting for responses from others, probably including government representatives. The last time Mr Grunberg spoke with Mr Lilly on the issue of who should speak was around the end of September when he explained that he did not know when such a response would be forthcoming.
It was with surprise, therefore, that Mr Grunberg received a letter from Dr Latter of Wilton Park, dated 6 October which stated: 'You have kindly agreed to take part in a conference in November on "The Privatisation of Security" being convened at Wilton Park ..... Since I wrote to you in August a number of changes to the conference have occurred. In particular it has been decided that the meeting should be targeted at policy makers. We would like to facilitate a frank discussion on the foreign policy issues for governments which are raised by the activities of private military and security companies, and the options for addressing them. We do not believe that this would be possible if the industry itself, or companies closely associated with it, are present. I regret therefore to have to tell you that I have to withdraw the invitation extended to you to participate in the November conference.'
How can such a conference be balanced and the content of the discussion 'frank' if the very companies involved in the provision of the services are not able to express their viewpoint? How can 'policy makers' develop a balanced perspective if they are unable to probe the views of the industry itself? Furthermore, it is companies like Sandline who have been at the forefront of the discussion on regulation and were amongst the first to publish papers on the subject, yet are now excluded from an important component of the overall debate.
We would like to put our viewpoint in the context of the fact that the US Defence Intelligence Agency hosted an invitation only conference around three years ago at which PMCs, including Sandline, were invited to not only attend but also to speak, resulting in an open and very frank exchange of views. In fact, the talks delivered by the three PMCs present at that conference were by far the best attended of all the sessions. In comparison to this, and three years' down the road, the Wilton Park/International Alert approach to the subject is close-minded and in no way can its conclusions offer up a balanced perspective as a precursor to the drafting of any national legislation.
How the conference organisers can conclude that it is in everyone's interest that a debate on the question of the privatisation of security and all the issues surrounding the use of PMCs is best conducted in the latter's absence is entirely beyond us. Surely they do not feel that delegates will hold back because the feelings of the representatives of PMCs would be hurt if people expressed contrary views or that these delegates, including 'policy makers', would feel otherwise inhibited?
As a consolation to the decision taken to exclude PMCs, Dr Latter closed his letter to Mr Grunberg by saying,'I understand that International Alert are in discussions with other organisations about the feasibility of there being another event early in the New Year with a wider range of participants.'This is too little, too late - the 'policy makers' will have already formulated their opinions and these will not have been founded on a balanced perspective of the very important issues at stake here.
When Mr Grunberg telephoned Mr Lilly on 19 October to talk through Wilton Park's dis-invitation with him he was apologetic but said that a decision had been made and that it would have to stand. However, it was not clear to Mr Grunberg who, in fact, had made the decision. Mr Grunberg explained that he had already mapped out his talk and had intended to cover, for example, the difference between PMCs and commercial security companies - something that did not appear to have been taken up in the programme's outline - and also to discuss the potential pitfalls of national legislation as compared with international regulation. He pointed out that these and other pertinent issues were of material relevance and needed coverage.
He also reminded Mr Lilly that the DIA had been more that willing to invite PMCs to attend a discussion on the subject of security in Africa around three years ago and that he was at a loss to understand why such a different stance was being adopted in the UK. Mr Lilly suggested that perhaps this is a demonstration of how things are done differently in the two countries. No doubt this 'difference' will be reflected in the way in which the UK and US manage their relationships with PMCs into the future - to the detriment or furtherment of their respective foreign policies.
In the Sunday Times of 3 October, in an article entitled 'Cook to lift ban on mercenaries', a Foreign Office spokesman was quoted as saying,"The government is concerned about the spread of mercenary activity and has therefore decided to initiate a thorough and open debate on the problem and the options for dealing with it both nationally and internationally." The decision to exclude PMCs from the conference flies in the face of this statement and only serves to further the aims of those who have already made it clear they would rather there is no private intervention in support of legitimate governments wanting to end bloody conflicts (such as that most recently seen in Sierra Leone), even when the international community decides not to directly intervene itself.
Contact information:
Dr Richard Latter
Deputy Director
Wilton Park
Wilton House
Steyning
West Sussex
BN44 3DZ
Tel: 01903 815 931
Fax: 01903 814 445
richard.latter@wiltonpark.org.uk
Mr Damian Lilly
International Alert
1 Glyn Street
London
SE11 5HT
Tel: 0171 793 8383
Fax: 0171 793 7975
general@international-alert.org