New Humanitarians? Frame Appropriation through Private Military and Security Companies

Abstract

Although private military and security companies (PMSCs) are gaining increasing importance, they still suffer from an image problem. In the media, they are frequently referred to as 'mercenaries' or 'dogs of war'. PMSCs are therefore interested in presenting themselves as legitimate and acceptable contract parties. Based on a discourse analysis of the homepages of select PMSCs and the industry association International Stability Operations Association (ISOA), and drawing on the framing literature, we examine one way in which companies respond to such negative labels. We show not only that PMSCs provide supplemental logistics or security for the staff of humanitarian organisations confronted with complex emergencies and ever-more dangerous missions, but also that these companies appropriate the humanitarian frame discursively, emphasising those elements that fit their interests and needs. To present themselves as 'new humanitarians', PMSCs employ primarily two kinds of strategies: naming and forging alliances with more traditional humanitarian actors. Their growing involvement in this field may not be without consequences and may contribute to the blurring of lines between military and civilian missions.

Searching for Best Practices

“…Furthermore, as explained in the "Introduction" section, the delivery of mental health and psychosocial support is today no longer solely in the hands of governmental or multilateral agencies. Instead, NGOs, the private sector, religious-driven relief and advocacy organizations, and, more recently, the military and security companies are gradually assuming a pivotal role in conducting psychosocial interventions at various levels, under the label of humanitarian assistance (Joachim & Schneiker, 2012;Kienzler & Pedersen, 2012). These agencies and their actors, which are mostly based in high-income countries, usually promote off-the-shelf Western-based therapeutic intervention strategies, which are seldom properly adapted to the needs and expectations of potential recipients and beneficiaries, which in turn come from a highly diverse social and cultural range of LMICs and war-torn societies worldwide (Belgrad & Namias, 1997;Bracken & Petty, 1998;Locke, 2012;Tol, Patel, et al, 2011;Weiss et al, 2003).…”

Introduction

“…Studies within international relations have focused on the implications for state sovereignty and authority (Avant 2004(Avant , 2005Leander 2005Leander , 2013Singer 2003), the role of private security companies in the domains of humanitarian aid (Spearin 2001), how companies engage in identity work and self-framing (Berndtsson 2011;Franke and von Boemcken 2011;Joachim and Schneiker 2012a), and the role of gender discourses and masculinities (Higate 2012;Joachim and Schneiker 2012b). In the fi eld of international (humanitarian) law, scholars have addressed the legal frameworks in which such companies can and cannot operate (Boghosian 2005;Joh 2005;Zarate 1998;Kinsey 2005;Schreier and Caparani 2005;Th orburn 2010) and the crucial role that national and international regulation plays in determining such legal parameters (Berg 2003;Cockayne 2008;Sarre and Prenzler 1999).…”

Beyond the ‘RtoP’: Responsibility as doing, being and sharing

“…Krahmann (2012) demonstrates how 'mercenaries' were (re)constructed in the legal discourse; formerly 'outlawed' actors were transformed into a legitimate party in the conflict by virtue of being connected to a responsible command. Joachim and Schneiker (2012) argue that some private military companies (PMCs) assume social responsibility and present themselves as 'humanitarian actors' to improve their reputation. Akcinaroglu and Radziszewski (2012) focus on concrete measures that can make PMCs more responsible security providers; when the level of competition among government-hired PMCs increases, they become more prone to behaving responsibly.…”