On Sudan, Private Security Companies, and Osama

In Sunday's Boston Globe Rebecca Ulam Wiener, a fellow at the Kennedy School, has an article about the prospects of private security firms being the potential solution to the situation in the Sudan. In a situation that has been handled imperfectly, to say the least, perhaps an imperfect stopgap is what we must call for.

J. Cofer Black, vice president of Blackwater, a private security firm, believes that his company and others like it might be able to help aid and strengthen the African Union.:

A few weeks ago, at an international special forces conference in Jordan, Black announced that his company could deploy a small rapid-response force to conflicts like the one in Sudan. ''We're low cost and fast," Black said, ''the question is, who's going to let us play on their team?"

On the whole I am fairly ambivalent about private security and military firms. I worry about their potential lack of accountability. I worry in particular about what system of law and justice -- both domestic and international -- these companies are beholden. I wonder if our leaders, upon appointing such a group, would in turn pass the buck on their own accountability, wash their hands of matters if they go awry. I have seen private security firms in southern Africa run amok, showing up on the scene of alleged crimes and using the sort of force that police officers often do (and usually worse) but without the capacity to be held responsible, or at least not in the same way, and I have wondered what right they had to act that way. If you call yourself a security firm, does that give a license to do violence against other civilians? Furthermore, the responsibility of a military or a police force is quite different from that of a private company, the ultimate purpose of which presumably is to reap a profit.

At the same time, the administration, the world, continues to dither in the Sudan. Private military organizations have, under the ambit of the US military, worked reasonably well at times in Iraq, albeit with some glaring exceptions. If nothing else, such proposals are thought provoking. And under the right guidance, with the right mission, and given both a clear mandate but also made sternly aware of accountability (and repurcussions), such firms might be able to do some good. At this stage, the intermediate step of private security firms may not be perfect, but that imperfection should not be the enemy of the good. If governments are not going to act directly, why not do so indirectly through firms on a short leash and with a clearly spelled out mission?

On a different but related note, in today's New York Times Nicholas Kristof and in this week's Foundation for the Defense of Democracies "News & Comments," Cliff May help explain Osama bin Laden's support for atrocities in the Sudan. Could the unintended consequence of Osama's latest pronouncements be to provide a wedge for increased American action in the Sudan? It has been quite some time since the administration's cynicism with regard to invocation of Osama and 9/11 at every turn has actually resulted in improved policy. Could this not be one of those rare confluences?