Rita Abrahamsen

The Power of Partnerships in Global Governance

Development partnerships are frequently represented as a way of giving recipient countries ‘ownership’ of their development programmes, whereas critics argue that partnerships are little more than conditionality by another name. Drawing on analyses of governmentality in modern liberal societies, this article advances an alternative understanding and argues that development partnerships can be regarded as a form of advanced liberal rule that increasingly govern through the explicit commitment to the self‐government and agency of recipient states. Focusing in particular on the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD) and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), it argues that as a form of advanced liberal power, partnerships work not primarily as direct domination and imposition, but through promises of incorporation and inclusion. They derive their power through simultaneously excluding and incorporating, and by using freedom as a formula of rule partnerships help produce modern, self‐disciplined citizens and states by enlisting them as responsible agents in their own development.

Blair's Africa: The Politics of Securitization and Fear

Prime Minister Tony Blair has described Africa as a “scar on the conscience of the world.” This article argues that New Labours increasing attention to Africa is part of an ongoing securitization of the continent; interactions with Africa are gradually shifting from the category of “development/humanitarianism” toward a category of “risk/fear/threat” in the context of the “war on terrorism.” The securitization of Africa has helped legitimize this “war on terrorism,” but has very little to offer for Africas development problems.

Securing the City: Private Security Companies and Non-State Authority in Global Governance

The past decade has witnessed a remarkable expansion and globalisation of the private security sector. These developments mark the emergence of public—private, global—local security networks that play increasingly important roles in global governance. Rather than representing a simple retreat of the state, security privatisation is a part of broad processes in which the role of the state — and the nature and locus of authority — is being transformed and rearticulated. Often presented as apolitical, as the mere effect of market forces and moves towards greater efficiency in service delivery, the authority conferred on private actors can alter the political landscape and in the case of private security has clear implications for who is secured and how. The operation and impact of public/private, global/local security networks is explored in the context of security provision in Cape Town, South Africa.

A breeding ground for terrorists? Africa & Britain's ‘war on terrorism’

Prime Minister Tony Blair has famously described Africa as a‘scar on the conscience of the world’, drawing attention to the UKs moral and humanitarian obligations towards the continent. This article argues that New Labours increasing attention to Africa is best understood in the context of an ongoing‘securitisation’ of the continent, which received added impetus following the events of September 11, 2001. Through this securitisation, interactions and dealings with Africa are gradually shifting from the category of‘development/humanitarianism’ towards a category of‘risk/fear/threat’, so that today the continent is increasingly mentioned in the context of the‘war on terrorism’. While the main responses to Africas problems are still drawn predominantly from traditional development policies, there are subtle, yet significant changes in New Labours policies and practices that may have significant future implications for Africa and its peoples.

Introduction: The Privatisation and Globalisation of Security in Africa

Once seen as the exclusive domain of the state, security is today increasingly in the hands of private actors. The extent of this privatisation is evident across the spectrum of security provision. It is often reported that the ratio of private contractors to US servicemen and women in the fi rst Gulf war was 1:100, whereas in the current war in Iraq it is approximately 1:10, making private security companies the second largest member of the ‘coalition of the willing’. In terms of logistics and training, the private sector also plays a crucial role, and while the US is leading the charge in military privatisation, similar developments are under way in other countries. Far away from the battlegrounds and the military training camps, the privatisation of security has also been growing at a staggering rate. Globally, the commercial security industry is now valued at at least

Security sector reform: bringing the private in

67.6 billion, and the sector has grown at well above average rates for over a decade. In the US, private security offi cers have for a long time outnumbered public police by a ratio of almost three to one, in the UK the ratio is two to one, in Hong Kong fi ve to one, while in some developing countries the ratio is said to be as high as 10 to one. The African continent is often seen as the paradigmatic case of security privatisation, and private military activity on the continent is frequently described as ‘rampant’. Despite this, debates about private security in Africa have as yet been limited in both their empirical focus and theoretical analysis. Empirically, attention has been almost exclusively centred on so-called ‘mercenary’ activities, with the activities of companies like Executive Outcomes and Sandline International continuing to act as central reference points more than a decade after the event. Undoubtedly, the role of combat active private military companies in African confl icts is of crucial importance, but the tendency to focus on a relatively small number of spectacular cases, or to associate security privatisation with the return of the ‘dogs of war’ along the lines of the infamous mercenary activities of the 1950s and 1960s, has led to a neglect of more pervasive shifts in security provision on the continent, and hence arguably to a neglect of broader economic and political transformations that condition these developments. Security privatisation in Africa goes far beyond the role of the by now defunct Executive Outcomes to include a whole host of less spectacular, but no less important, everyday security actors such as private guarding companies, risk consultants, neighbourhood watches and so-called vigilante groups. While less eyecatching than the combat active private soldier, the social and political implications of these private security actors are multifaceted and wide-ranging. In part because of the preoccupation with combat active military companies, security privatisation in Africa has almost inevitably been interpreted theoretically

Ethics and Foreign Policy: the Antinomies of New Labour's 'Third Way' in Sub-Saharan Africa

As the links between security and development have been increasingly recognized, Security Sector Reform (SSR) has become a central part of development policy. Following a traditional Weberian conception of the state, these programmes are almost exclusively focused on the public security sector, neglecting the extent to which people in developing countries have come to rely on private security providers for their day-to-day security needs. While the reform of public security institutions is undoubtedly important, this article argues that a strict public/private distinction is a poor guide to security sector reform. Focusing on Sierra Leone and Kenya, the article argues that ‘bringing the private in’ is crucial to a comprehensive understanding of the security situation in most countries and that any attempt to ensure better security for all must take account of private actors. Private security companies and their integration into SSR matter not simply in terms of the maintenance of law and order, but also in terms of who has access to security, and ultimately, for the legitimacy of social and political orders.

Public/private, global/local: the changing contours of Africa's security governance

This article explores how New Labour has attempted to implement its ideas about a ‘third way’ foreign policy in sub-Saharan Africa. Through an examination of British foreign policy practices, we explore whether New Labour has succeeded in finding a ‘third way’ between traditional views of socialism and capitalism in Africa. In particular, the article focuses on New Labours attempts to build peace, prosperity and democracy on the African continent. We conclude that although New Labours claims to add an ‘ethical dimension’ to foreign policy have succeeded in giving Britain a higher profile in the international arena, the implementation of such a policy is intrinsically difficult. These difficulties in turn arise from the antinomies embodied in New Labours policy, or more specifically from the tension between the liberal internationalism of the third way and traditional concerns for the national interest, as well as the contradictions inherent in a commitment to both political and economic liberalism.

Selling security: Assessing the impact of military privatization

From conflict zones to shopping malls, from resource extraction sites to luxury tourist enclaves, private security has become a ubiquitous feature of modern life. While the ‘monopoly of legitimate violence’ continues to be one of the defining features of state sovereignty, and one of the most powerful elements of the modern political imagination, the realities of security today increasingly transcend its confines, and include a wide range of private actors. At its most controversial, private security is represented by the combat active soldier, heavily armed and actively involved in warfare. At its most mundane, it involves the unarmed guard at a hotel entrance, or a neighbourhood watch of concerned citizens mobilising local energies in the pursuit of safety and security.

Agendas, past & future

ABSTRACT The rise of the private military industry has become an important and controversial issue in international politics. This article reviews the contributions of four books that analyse the rise and consequences of the privatization of force. Placing military privatization in a broader political context shows how a fuller understanding of these developments requires a global focus and an emphasis on their relationship both to global capital and to shifting state forms where the public and the private, the domestic and the international, are being rearticulated.