SMT Online Web Exclusive

State of Play: delivering national security

15 Jun 09

Offering his forthright opinions on the matter, Hugo Rosemont explains why he feels the conspiracy theory plot uncovered in the recent Hollywood movie ‘State of Play’ might be entertaining but, in reality, is very far removed from the truth. First, Brian Sims sets the scene.

By Hugo Rosemont

For those of you that have seen the entertaining American political thriller movie State of Play, you can probably skip over the next couple of paragraphs. For those of you who haven't watched the movie as yet, let SMT Online explain what it was all about.

Released to cinemas last April, the film is an adaptation of the critically acclaimed six-part British television serial by the same name, which first aired on BBC One way back in 2003. Directed by Kevin Macdonald and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, Tony Gilroy, Peter Morgan, and Billy Ray, the film tells of a journalist’s probe into the suspicious death of a Congressman’s mistress.

As part of an all-star cast, Russell Crowe plays the journalist and Ben Affleck the Congressman. Support comes from none other than than Helen Mirren, Rachel McAdams, Jason Bateman, Robin Wright Penn and Jeff Daniels.

Naturally, the plot of the six-hour serial was condensed to fit into two hours on the big screen, and the location changed to Washington DC. The director has said many times that the film is informed by movies of the 1970s, exploring the topical subjects of journalistic independence and the relationship between politicians and the national media.

Unearthing the conspiracy plot

Speaking of the plot, this is what happens… A thief is fleeing through Washington DC at night and is killed with a silenced gun by a man carrying a briefcase. The killer shoots a pizza delivery man, who sees the incident and is left in a coma.

The next day, a young woman is killed by a subway train in an apparent suicide. Congressman Steven Collins (Affleck) is distraught to hear the news, as the woman was Sonia, a lead researcher on his staff. At the time Collins, who has military experience, is leading an investigation into PointCorp, a private defence contractor with controversial operations involving mercenaries.

Reporter Cal McAffrey (Crowe) was a college room-mate of Collins, and the two discuss Sonia’s death. Collins reveals that he had been having an affair with Sonia, and that Sonia had sent him a cheerful video message on the morning of her death, which he believes to be inconsistent behavior for someone about to commit suicide.

Della Frye (McAdams), a colleague of Cal’s, subsequently discovers that Sonia’s death occurred in one of only three CCTV ‘blind spots’ on the metro platform. Cal believes the shootings are related to Sonia’s death, and finds a link between the thief and a homeless girl who is a friend of Cal’s. She gives him photographs that the thief, a friend of hers, had stolen from the killer’s briefcase. The photos show surveillance images of Sonia talking to a very well-dressed man.

Damned by CCTV footage

Della visits the hospital where the pizza delivery man is regaining consciousness, and bumps into a man while leaving an elevator on her way to the ward. Upon reaching the pizza delivery man in his hospital bed, Della finds him shot dead by an unseen sniper. Distraught, Della returns to her newspaper’s office and reviews CCTV footage. She recognises the man she bumped into at the hospital on the footage from the metro platform and outside the hospital.

Cal asks a connection he has inside PointCorp to find out more information regarding the man. He reveals that PointCorp stands to gain $40 billion annually from its mercenary activities both in the Middle East and domestically. Cal speaks with Collins, who shares his research findings: PointCorp is co-operating with other defence contractors to create a monopoly and purchase Government surveillance and defence contracts. Essentially, there is a strong desire to privatize United States security.

Cal’s PointCorp insider returns with the address of someone linked to the suspected assassin. Cal visits the address to find the assassin living there. Terrified, Cal makes an excuse and tries to leave. Stalked by the man, Cal calls the police who arrive and force the man to disappear after he shoots at Cal.

Following a lead, Della finds out the identity of the well-dressed man speaking to Sonia in the photographs. He’s a PR executive working for a subsidiary of PointCorp. Cal blackmails him into talking about his activities with Sonia, and secretly tapes their conversation. He reveals that Sonia was paid to spy on Collins for PointCorp, but that she loved Collins and was pregnant with his baby when she was killed.

Research presented to PointCorp moguls

Before Cal’s newspaper goes to press, Collins goes on record to present his research into PointCorp. Cal notices Collins’ wife knows more about Sonia than he thought, and rushes to Collins’ office to speak with him. Collins reveals that he had been suspicious of Sonia, and that he hired the assassin to watch her.

The assassin is Corporal Bingham, a former military colleague of Collins’, whose life Collins had once saved. Collins says that Bingham didn’t trust Sonia and killed her with no authorisation from him. Cal goes to his car where he is confronted by Bingham, who says he will kill for a friend.

Cal ducks, and federal officers shoot Bingham before he opens fire. At the office, Cal and Della type up their story and depart together. The film credits roll with footage of the newspaper being printed...

Now, it's the turn of Hugo Rosemont from the Society of British Aerospace Companies to offer his take on the theme from the film...

There’s no doubt that ‘State of Play’ is a very entertaining film, with a well-worked plot centred on the conspiracy of a fictitious giant security contractor aiming to engender a monopoly on the security market. Really, though, how far do we need to be concerned about the so-called ‘privatisation of Homeland Security’?

Investing time and resources

Thankfully, in the real world this plot is far from the truth and precisely the opposite is happening. Individual security companies are pooling resources and investing time to support the Government in protecting members of the public against terrorism and other threats.

Members of the public should be reassured that a ‘State of Play scenario’ is implausible for five main reasons…

(1) Highly competitive and diverse security market

The security market is highly competitive, with many companies in the UK widely recognised as world leaders in providing manpower and in developing the hi-tech capabilities that help to keep the country safe.

These capabilities include equipment designed to protect us from attacks using Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) material and detection technologies deployed at airports that help to keep us ‘safe in the skies’.

The UK’s security market is also highly fragmented. It’s pretty well known that the 43 police forces of England and Wales each possess different purchasing arrangements. While industry believes that economies of scale and benefits for the taxpayer could be achieved through more co-ordinated procurement in some circumstances, this is a major obstacle to any one company dominating the market.

(2) Full range of ‘security’ capabilities spread across industry

While many UK companies possess an impressive range of defence and security capabilities, no one company possesses such a comprehensive list of services, equipment, technologies and systems that it can dominate all sectors of the security market.

In the main, this is because ‘security’ capabilities are now defined very broadly. They can range from security officers being stationed outside nightclubs to CCTV cameras in town centres, from X-ray scanners to emerging “millimetre wave detection technologies” that can identify threat items under clothing without physical contact, from police helicopters and “unmanned aerial vehicles” to anti-missile detection systems on aircraft, from secure satellite communication systems to biometric access control cards, from cutting-edge system integration technologies through to blast protection design advice services.

(3) Industry and Government co-operation on security matters at an early stage

While it’s true that through the UK Security and Resilience Industry Suppliers’ Community (RISC) the Government is harnessing industrial expertise to help tackle the ‘severe’ threat currently posed by terrorism, a recent House of Commons Defence Committee report recommended that the Government’s strategic relationship with industry needs significant development.

The industry is hoping for more strategic dialogue, but this shows that the private sector’s relationship with Government is at a very early stage (and that any notion of a ‘security-industrial complex’ is, as things stand, way off the mark).

(4) Government and industry being transparent about how they work together

Take a close look at CONTEST 2 – the latest iteration of the Government’s Counter-Terrorism Strategy – and you will see on pages 145-146 that the role of industry is considered in significant detail.

Whether it’s through the five ‘Industry Advisory Groups’ mentioned in this document, or through work being developed on the Security and Counter-Terrorism Science and Innovation Strategy, Government and industry are being transparent about the role of the private sector in delivering UK national security.

Although a balance must be struck in informing society about the work that’s underway so as not to reveal any capability gaps, the Government is communicating how it is working with the private sector to tackle terrorism much more openly than before.

(5) Government depends on industry to tackle terrorism

The Government cannot keep the public safe on its own, and needs the innovation of industry to help it deliver cutting-edge technology and services. It also needs the support of private sector operators to protect the UK’s infrastructure. Did you know that over 80% of the UK’s key installations are owned by private companies?

Industry recognises this interdependence and, through initiatives such as the RISC, is developing processes to play its part. These new structures are designed in a collaborative manner with the widest possible industrial participation. This means that checks and balances are designed-in, and that no one company is able to dominate the market.

It’s fair to say that the security industry is supporting the Government to protect the UK. There are highly entertaining conspiracy theories in Hollywood blockbusters based on the motives of fictitious power-hungry security companies, but this shouldn’t distract us from debating the important role that the private sector now plays in delivering our national security in the real world.

It is also vitally important that we continue to debate the role of the private sector in delivering national security, but while bearing in mind the crucial contribution industry makes to protecting the public and the UK economy.