WASHINGTON, DC- U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA), incoming Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and Bob Casey (D-PA), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, today again urged the State Department to drop Blackwater Worldwide as a private security contractor for American diplomats in Iraq. An internal State Department report released today raised the concern that the Iraqi government may remove Blackwater’s license to operate inside Iraq.

On June 5, Sen. Kerry wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questioning the Department of State’s decision to renew its contract with Blackwater. On July 30, 2008, Senators Kerry and Casey together sent another letter to Rice questioning the future of private security contractors in Iraq in the wake of Blackwater’s recent decision to shift its focus away from private security contracting.

“The era of Blackwater must finally end. The incoming Obama Administration can proceed with the knowledge that even the Bush Administration acknowledges that outsourcing overseas security to private firms like Blackwater is a mistake,” said Kerry. “It will benefit the incoming administration to have reassurance from the State Department that Blackwater’s contract should not be renewed, but it’s disheartening that it took fifteen months from a tragedy in Baghdad for the Bush Administration to reach an overdue conclusion.”

“The IG report gives voice to a long-standing concern of mine: that the Iraqi government would eventually kick out Blackwater itself in the aftermath of last year’s tragic incident,” said Senator Casey. “In July, Senator Kerry and I sent a letter to Secretary Rice citing our concerns over the Department’s lack of alternatives for protection of U.S. diplomats in Iraq in the event that Blackwater was no longer a feasible option. If in fact the Iraqi government moves to strip Blackwater of its operating license, our overreliance on this one company for protective services in Iraq will place our diplomats in a difficult position.”

Full text of the letter is below:

Dear Madam Secretary:

We are writing in response to recent news reports that Blackwater Worldwide (“Blackwater”) — which earlier this year had its multi-million dollar contract renewed with the U.S. State Department (“State”) — now intends to move away from private security contracting. As you know, Blackwater received harsh scrutiny for its heavy-handed U.S. private security efforts in Iraq following the deaths of 17 Iraqis in a September 16, 2007 shooting at Nisoor Square in Baghdad. While we welcome the opportunity that Blackwater’s apparent decision provides to turn the page on contractor abuses, the move also raises important questions about the future role of private security contractors in personal protective service missions in Iraq and elsewhere.

Blackwater’s decision highlights longstanding concerns about the wisdom of relying so heavily on security contractors to perform overseas personnel protection missions. Looking ahead, to assess how these missions can be executed in the future, we request your help in providing answers to the following questions:

(i) Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy said last week that he has not been notified of any change in Blackwater’s intent to fulfill its renewed Worldwide Personal Protective Services (WPPS) contract. Is that your understanding?


(ii) We understand that such a contract may be terminated at any time that it is considered in the United States’ best interests to do so. Assuming that Blackwater intends to honor its recently-renewed contract, would a criminal indictment arising out of the September 16, 2007 incident be grounds for termination of its contract?

(iii) On May 10, 2008, the New York Times cited claims by State officials that “only three companies in the world meet their requirements for protective services in Iraq, and the other two do not have the capability to take on Blackwater’s role in Baghdad.” Do you agree with this assessment? What had State been doing prior to this week’s news to respond to this alleged capacity shortfall?

(iv) Under Secretary Kennedy has stated that, “[i]f the contractors were removed, we would have to leave Iraq.” Taken together with the aforementioned May 10, 2008 statements attributed to State officials, it is clear that our options in Iraq are limited, perhaps even more so after Blackwater’s reported decision to reduce significantly its private security profile. What, if any, steps does State propose to take to lessen its dependence on private security contractors?

(v) In light of Blackwater’s decision, are you considering expanding the number of full-time employees in the Diplomatic Security Service (“DS”)? The October 2007 Report on the Secretary’s Panel on Personal Protective Services in Iraq called for an overall increase of 100 positions in DS. What steps are being taken to implement this recommendation? Would State consider adding a more limited subset of DS personnel who are trained exclusively in personal protective services (rather than typically more general law enforcement activities) to improve relevant skills and contain costs?

(vi) In response to a question Senator Kerry had posed in a June 5, 2008 letter

regarding contingency plans in the event that contractor support becomes unavailable, the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs Jeffrey Bergner wrote that work will be “competed or awarded sole source (depending on the circumstances) among the remaining WPPS vendors.” However, given that State officials have previously cited a dearth of vendors and their apparent lack of capacity, is this a viable contingency plan? Has State prepared any other risk mitigation plans in the event Blackwater or other private security contractors are unable or unwilling to fulfill their contracts?

(vii) As the United States reduces its troop presence in Iraq, do you anticipate increased military resources will be contributed to provide for the security of diplomatic personnel serving in Iraq, or do you anticipate this security responsibility will continue to fall to private security contractors?

(viii) Where is the line that divides permissible conduct by private security contractors from their performance of “inherently governmental” functions? How have recent negative incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan informed your views, if at all, on this subject?

Your prompt answers to these important questions can demonstrate that our government fully understands the implications of hiring private companies to engage in overseas security contracting, and has a sustainable plan to protect diplomatic personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere consistent with American interests and values.

Thank you for your serious and timely consideration of this request. We look forward to hearing from you regarding this critical matter.

Sincerely,

John Kerry
Bob Casey, Jr.

###