Maintaining security is the first duty of any government. But what happens when a small, poor country cannot defend itself against a brutal uprising and no other government is able to help? It has the option of turning to the private sector, but if it does, what guarantees do we have to help ensure that the private sector runs an effective, respectable operation?

How can we prevent private military companies from operating in a chaotic world with complete disregard for sensible standards and without respect for the UK's foreign policy?

I have now published a consultation paper to examine some options for our future policy on questions like this -- and I want a public debate about the way forward.

Today's world is a far cry from the 1960s, when private military activity usually meant mercenaries of the rather unsavoury kind involved in post-colonial or neo-colonial conflicts. Such people still exist; and some of them may be present at the lower end of the spectrum of private military companies.

But, equally, we have to recognise that there is a demand for private military services for perfectly legitimate purposes.

The world has changed since the end of the Cold War. No longer does the chief threat to our security lie in the possibility of global conflict between the massive military establishment of the superpowers. Today's world is one of "small" wars, terrorism and weak states.

At the same time, in developed countries, the private sector is becoming increasingly involved in military and security activity. States and international organisations are turning to the private sector as a cost-effective way of procuring services which would once have been the exclusive preserve of the military.

The British military cannot be everywhere at the same time. It is Government policy to outsource certain tasks, particularly training, which in earlier days would have been undertaken by the armed services.

Today, a private military company might offer a variety of services, including training, technical assistance or other military advice. It may also provide logistics capability -- such as transport -- and strategy analysis.

Some might describe themselves as providing security services. Sometimes it is difficult to draw a clear line between military and security services: we have to agree a proper definition of a private military company.

The demand for these services is likely to increase. The cases that attract most attention are those where a government employs a private military company to help it in combat operations -- as the governments of Sierra Leone and Angola have done.

Such cases are rare and are likely to remain so; but we may well see an increase in private contracts for training or logistics.

Some of this demand may come from states which cannot afford to keep large military establishments themselves.

But demand may also come from developed countries. It is notable that the United States has employed private military companies to recruit and manage monitors in the Balkans.

A further source of demand for private military services could be international organisations. The private sector is already active and effective in areas that would once have been seen as the preserve of the military -- including de-mining. And both the UN and international NGOs employ private companies to provide them with security and logistics support.

A strong and reputable private military sector might have a role in enabling the UN to respond more rapidly and effectively in crises. The cost of employing private military companies for certain functions in UN operations could be much lower than that of national armed forces.

There are many pitfalls in all this which need to be considered carefully. There are, among other things, important concerns about human rights, sovereignty and accountability which we have examined in our paper.

An outright ban on the provision of all military services would not necessarily contribute to global security. And it would deprive British defence exporters of contracts for services of considerable value.

Since exports of defence equipment often depend on the supplier being able to provide a service package, a ban would result in Britain losing a large volume of defence export sales, in addition to the value of the services themselves.

So one of the options we look at in the paper is a licensing regime for private military companies.

This would enable us to distinguish between reputable and disreputable private-sector operators, to encourage and support the former while, as far as possible, eliminating the latter.

We could decide on a case-by-case basis which activities were worthy of our support, and which were damaging to our international interests.

Regulation would place an additional burden on government and companies in the sector. But the Government would seek to minimise the burden on the industry.

Some in the industry might welcome clearer guidelines. They could help establish a reputation for British companies in this sector as reliable and responsible partners, making it easier to win business.

If a regulatory regime was seen to be fair and reasonable, those companies which chose to place themselves outside it, for example by going offshore, would be putting themselves on the margins of the sector and their reputations would suffer accordingly.

We do not start off with a fixed view on the future of UK Government policy towards private military companies.

We have set out a series of options, and want to hear views from a wide spectrum of opinion. After six months of consultations, we shall then consider the best way forward.

Jack Straw is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
 

the text of the Government's Green Paper Private Military Companies : Options for Regulation is available on the Foreign Office website www.fco.gov.uk or from Stationery Office bookshops