Foreign Correspondent Survival School?

I've always wondered if war and foreign correspondents, field execs, aid workers, and diplomats, at least those from major outlets, get urban survival, anti-kidnap, E&E training? Likewise, do they have their own special EDC/GHB kits? Anyone know?

One example:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/208551/...-trying-to-help

I suspect a lot of people, especially journalists, get/can afford only substantially less.

The specific answer to the OP is that correspondents working for major media outlets do have the opportunity to get training on safety and security. There are courses that are offered by qualified security experts that do help these people. Due to the expense, though, many journalists do not get this training. From what I can see, most journalists learn to "stay safe" by learning tips and tricks from their peers. This type of learning is no substitute for proper training, unfortunately.

There is a very real and wide gap between reporters and security professionals. It starts from the time when people were young. The kids who went into security were the ones who could keep a secret. The kids who went into journalism loved to hear and tell stories, and couldn't keep their mouth shut.

A good example of the problem is Syria. Many journalists being held as prisoners there now.

pete

And most journalists just hire some of those security professionals to go with them. I know a few guys doing that work now. Most journalists do not opt for the training even when encouraged to get it.

Totally understandable -- why learn to be self reliant when the network will pay someone else to be responsible. Seriously, when did a "security professional" ever get separated from his charge?

Hint: Lara Logan

"And most journalists just hire some of those security professionals to go with them. I know a few guys doing that work now. Most journalists do not opt for the training even when encouraged to get it."

I'm fine with that, as it tends to promote good judgments and good outcomes. At least it means that some US and UK journalists will be safe.

The people paying the terrible price are journalists of other nationalities. Their countries have poor economies, so their media companies cannot provide protection or training. Yet these journalists are sometimes very admirable people who are fighting for basic values such as freedom, integrity (against corruption), and human rights. ironically, they grow up in political systems that are so twisted that they do not trust anyone. So it's not even possible to give them a little bit of good advice for free ... they are not listening. These people pay a terrible price in blood. But they are brave, I will concede that.

Pete

What does the training teach them to do? The one article I found, which discusses the training for aid workers, seems to suggest the students learn how to get shot at and how to be hostages; i.e., how to be victims. I don't have those skills, but I'm not sure if having them would make me "self-reliant" in a war zone. If the training I get teaches me to be a better victim, then I'd be sure to hire security. That may be the smartest thing to do, if I can afford it.

Plus one on Pete's post. I know a journalist who did time under a military dictatorship, just because he did his job and reported news. He wasn't even some martyr wannabe with a death wish. He was trying to be smart and do as much good as possible without getting disappeared. But that was more than what the oppressors would bear.

The training for aid workers really depends on where the aid worker is headed, the security and threat situation in-country, the size and resources of the NGO and what they can afford to have their workers trained in and so on.

For example, my SO went to Sudan last year, the group underwent training in a number of areas. Meaning everything from personal/group safety, first aid, map reading and navigation for E&E purposes, what to do/don't if taken hostage and more. Again, depending on the resources of the NGO, some of this training is lead by former military. With the current situation now developing in South Sudan, it really demonstrates the peril that aid workers could find themselves in a short time.

On the flip side. When she went to the Philippines in the aftermath of the recent typhoon, the training was more relegated to briefings as the security situation there was much more calmer and under control. Also with the large number of local and foreign military on the ground and in the skies, providing supplies and logistics etc, any requests for assistance on security issues, appropriate resources were close at hand.

I posted this link last year to a comprehensive aid worker security manual

Another good source of information is Operational Security Management in Violent Environments.

I'm not sure there is a consistent set of training for volunteers who work for NGO's, church groups, humanitarian organizations, and medical groups. The standards and training very tremendously. This topic was recently discussed on a separate forum that is aimed at security professionals. Most of the people there have experienced a lot of frustration with the NGO's and have largely given up on them. The security folks think that it's a real shame that volunteers from the NGO's might be seized and taken as hostages, but it almost inevitable. The root of the problem is that NGO's do not want to spend a significant part of their budget for improved security (since most of that budget comes from donations), and in addition they do not want armed guards to be visible around their operations (since this is an image conflict with their humanitarian work).

Bingley is quite right - the few times I have spoken to volunteers of large NGO's I have found that when they got "training" it was often things like ... what to say if someone kidnaps you. Personally, it's more than a little alarming. I would rather see these groups set up proper security perimeters, post some 24-hour lookouts, and have a "rapid escape plan". Get people out of trouble, instead of coping with worst-case outcomes.

Journalists have a different problem because they have to get a story. So this compels them to go to riskier areas ... at least sometimes.

One thing that all these volunteers can do is to carry some sort of locator beacon or tracking beacon - so they could be found if there is an emergency. The single biggest thing that stops them from being rescued is that it is impossible to locate the kidnappers in a short period of time.

Pete

Interesting. Do you have a direct link to the forum thread?

Also it is not that they do not want to spend, more like they cannot afford to spend. Even if a country even allowed armed foreign guards, the prices commanded by private security contractors is horrendously expensive beyond belief.


Through my SO, I have met and talked with aid workers many of times over the last 20 years and I can tell you from personal discussions with them that the above is not the norm and without the full context of your talks with them, is hard to believe.


You have to remember that these aid groups do not have the manpower or resources to have 24-post lookouts etc. For the most part, any security issues that may occur such as what is going on South Sudan right now is beyond any aid group to defend against. As for the rapid escape plan, yes many have E&E plans but is the very last of the last resorts as no aid group can readily resist and outrun armed militia of any political stripe.


Most aid groups have some form of modern communications such as SAT phones etc. Keep in mind that if an aid group runs into trouble in an African desert hell hole and even if they have a SAT phone, they may get a chance to use it but they should never expect a SAR chopper or a US Marine Expeditionary Force coming to their rescue. It is just not that easy, logistically nor politically.

Only realistic way to protect Aid Workers is to refuse to negotiate for them. Along with a strict policy of hunting down the kidnappers. Basically you make it graphically clear that touching an Aid Worker comes under Very Bad Idea.

Leigh - that is one approach. Although some would argue that it's a hard bitten one :-) The main difficulty is being able to locate the kidnappers in a reasonably efficient way (time-wise). Hence, it would very helpful if these NGO's would give their volunteers personal alarms that could be activated in an emergency, and would use GPS tracking to give their position.

In reality, it plays out in a different way. Let me give you one recent example. Two medical aid workers were abducted from a remote camp. They worked for a major NGO. They were kidnapped by a hostile group who used elaborate methods to conceal their location. The precautions taken to provide security for the NGO workers were poor - so it was very easy for the kidnappers to walk in and take someone. The NGO put out press releases complaining about the attack on their staff (though naturally no word about the lack of safety precautions). After that, the NGO went silent. The two hostages were in captivity for about 9 months and lost so much weight they looked like refugees when recovered. It is unknown if they were physically or sexually abused during captivity. They were freed because a large sum of money was paid (roughly $1 million apiece). The NGO made a press statement saying that they had paid no ransom. This was splitting hairs - since most likely they secured the help of independent private donors to give the money for the ransom. The two volunteers were eventually released.

It is particularly frustrating that the people paying these ransoms are offering such high prices. There is no "set rate" for the price of a human being - except what the market will bear. Unfortunately, for aid workers it's around $1 million per head, give or take (and that is after a lot of negotiations).

This is the way that things currently take place ... generally speaking. But it doesn't work for victims who work for small NGO's, or journalists from small media companies (or third world countries) ... they cannot pay. So their captivity can be long, gruesome, and may not end in freedom.

Pete

Teslinhiker - I have used Sat phones myself. The rates for intl. calls are quite expensive. But they are good in the sense that calls from remote continents back to home base (USA or UK) are quite clear.

There are also companies that offer "apps" for local cell phones - with the intention of sending out an alert that people have a crisis.

Both of these technologies fail during a violent kidnapping. The kidnappers are rough, they move fast, the victims are banged up, and their phones are confiscated. Kidnappers always remember to take their victims phones during the early moments of an abduction. So the phone link to the victim is lost almost immediately. However, a small secret GPS tracker might escape their attention for a while longer.

Pete

That sounds good in theory, but probably won't work so well in practice. These days the terrorist types aren't stupid, since so many of their buddies have been tracked by their cell phones and blown up. One would expect the first thing any terrorist with half a brain would do is thoroughly search hostages and get rid of any such devices.

ASKAR - no doubt they will. it's a battle of wits out there. but not one that you want to lose. captivity at the hands of these perpetrators is getting less and less enjoyable.

it's hard to find the kidnappers. they don't make the mistake of leaving cell phone calls that can be easily located. so if the victims cannot be tracked, then the solution is either to ransom them to freedom, or see them undergo a very lengthy captivity. In Mexico now, 60% of kidnapping victims are killed after the ransom is paid. it's a tough business.

Pete

Pete, that was sort of my point, actually. We now have a textbook example of natural selection, since we have by now killed off most all the dumb terrorists. The ones who remain are unlikely to be fooled by any tracking device, no matter how cleverly hidden or disguised.

In fact, widespread use of such devices could easily be used against hostages. After capture, strip them to the skin, and dress them in nondescript local attire (to attract less attention when you move them). Then put all their clothes and belongings in a small duffel bag. Hide the duffel on a chicken bus or other common local transport headed in the opposite way from which you are headed. By the time anyone realizes the tracking device is no longer with the hostages, you and your captives are long, long gone.

"We now have a textbook example of natural selection, since we have by now killed off most all the dumb terrorists. The ones who remain are unlikely to be fooled by any tracking device, no matter how cleverly hidden or disguised. "

very glad you said that.
because I have been thinking exactly the same thing lately.
Due to all the actions that have been taken in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan - we have effectively created a new generation of terrorists who are immune to our tactics. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in charge of US policies. Like you - just making the observation that unless the enemy is killed 100%, he will emerge stronger. If you add the current situation in Syria into the mix ... there's a red light blinking a warning that whatever organization comes out of this mess will be a really big problem. I have thought for a while that AQ will evolve or blend into some new group. Or maybe they will just be bypassed because they did not keep up.

I'd like to see methods to protect civilians (like aid workers) also evolve. But it's hard to make this happen when the management of these NGO's keeps playing "stupid games". The enemy does not care that these guys are doing 'good things" for the world. They are just an easy source for hostages and money.

So you've given me some homework to do for 2014. Come up with a better tracking device.

Pete

Yes it's a hard bitten one, but that is the position of the British Government and it is one that my wholehearted support. NGO's etc are only of value as hostages if someone considers them valuable.
As for locator beacons: thank you for the aiming point.

Which, unfortunately, is a good reason for preventing the payment of ransoms. No profit.

Robert Pelton's site might be of interest:

http://cafe.comebackalive.com/

This dates back more then a couple of years, but there was a course called "level 1 antiterrorism training". It was aimed at your typical working joe and not the Jason Bourne types. The training was a classroom course, and covered how to make yourself a less conspicous and more difficult target. What it covered was: how to dress, where to sit on the airplane, what type of car to rent, where to travel, where to stay in the hotel, how to check your car, check for being followed, basic car handling techniques, what to do if being shot at, what to do to avoid being kidnapped, and what to do if kidnapped. It was focused on a first world urban environment.
Keep in mind this was some time ago and the course may have since been 'improved' to the point of worthlessness.

Who offered the course, Mark? I've never noticed anything like that.

This is proving to be an interesting discussion. Basecamp, I checked out. Pelton's site before my initial post. It was disappointing and not informative on this subject. Mark R, the course you are remembering sounds more to the point. I join Bingley in asking if you could supply more info or a website. I've so far refrained from directly contacting CNN or other comparable media organs, on the theory that they will refrain from useful answers based on Opsec considerations. But, after this thread inquiry runs its course, I might try that line of inquiry.

At the time, I was working for the goverment. It didn't feel like it was developed in house. Goverment training has a big emphasis on how important it is, and this was more bullet points. It was probably developed by a private company for anybody who might travel outside the USA.

OK Acropolis ... I guess I owe you a better answer than what I provided. I can get a specific response on who does the training classes for reporters. It would take a day or two to get an answer for you. In the mean time, do me a favor and don't pack your bags for a flight to Syria. Skip Mexico too.

I know one guy who does an on- foot surveillance course for journalists. They just ran it in Santa Monica, California. The point of that course is to teach journalists a higher level of street awareness so they can avoid being kidnapped. I know for a fact that the last two people who went through it found it to be humbling and a real education. The average person does not realize the skills that pro surveillance people have.

In addition, there are training courses put on by security professionals to teach journalists "what mistakes not to make" in war zones.

Let me know what works for you.

Pete

Acropolis ... Here is an example of the type of training course that could be useful. I am NOT necessarily recommending this particular course . That's because I don't know anyone who has been through it, and more importantly this course sounds like it is just a set of classroom briefings. That's no good . You need a training course that puts you into real simulated situations. It's possible I am wrong and this course does do simulations ... You would have to talk to them. Check out how the courses are conducted pretty carefully. If it' doesn't create a stressful situation and get your body moving in real simulations (with real simulated bad guys) then you are not getting value for money.

http://www.bgpglobalservices.com/Hostile-Environment-Awareness-Training

Pete

Pete, thanx for the link. I'll check it out and report back. In the meantime, I'll avoid Syria and Mexico. Although, I just recently visited the Golan and I did hear some faint explosions and automatic weapons fire. That's pretty close to getting "real". It didn't seem to phase the locals however. They remind me very much of New Yorkers, highly adaptable , very much "Keep Calm And Carry On".

Acropolis ... I'm in favor of journalists getting real and bringing back good reports. I just don't want to see any more reporters get kidnapped or killed, that's all.

I sent you a PM on December 31st. Send me a reply if you get it, or let me know if it didn't come in. It's not showing on my Messages list at ETS.

Good luck!

BTW ... Here is an example of a better training course. This one is in Cape Town. Has hands-on exposure.

http://www.ultimate-survival-training.com/heat-survival-course/

Pete

Pete, thanx for the new link. I did not get your PM. I sent you a PM today. Perhaps a reply to mine will get thru.

Ah, I didn't know such classes are called "hostile environment awareness training." If you google a bit, you can find some listings in the US. I have no idea which one is good. On the other hand, it seems like if, say, you're going to the dangerous parts of South Africa, maybe it's better to get training in South Africa.

If you actually have to go abroad to dangerous places, there is no substitute, I guess. But if this is just for personal curiosity, you can perhaps get a taste of parts of the curriculum at some firearms schools that teach car hijacking situations, trauma management, force on force, guarding/protecting clients, etc. There are also driving courses for security people. I am guessing you're in New York, Acropolis, so you are probably very limited in your training options if you're a civilian. The closest firearm schools I know of to you is in Ohio. For surviving in NYC, that may get you pretty close.

Caveat: I have no idea what I'm talking about. I just have a tenth degree black belt in google-fu.

Bingley - yes absolutely you can put together quite a lot of this training .. Just like what you are doing.

The good thing about a course in some place like Cape Town is that they have less legal constraints. So they can make the practical scenarios more realistic. Hopefully they won't kill any of the students ... Haha! ... But they can do a lot more things to simulate a real hostile environment. That helps a lot. But as you say, these courses do exist in the USA and some are probably good. It's just a matter of combining instruction with realistic practical drills.

Acropolis ... Sent you another PM.

Pete

Looking at the Cape Town course, I can't help but wonder how much they can do in three days. Any one of the topics in their syllabus could easily take up weeks. So learning the physical skills well enough that you can do them on demand three weeks later is already quite tough. The other part is the mental component, which is just impossible without a long time of preparation. Sometimes stress can render you ineffective, and for people who are used to thinking and working in a calm environment, that can be a big obstacle. But I guess journalists don't exactly have months.

I'm not really training for the "hostile environment" -- I'm hoping to stay in nice, safe First World countries, though there are some places I'd like to visit if they stabilize. I just take good courses that fit my schedule and budget just for the sake of learning.

Acropolis, let us know if you end up taking some of these courses and maybe give us a quick AAR.

I think that the value of a course like that is mainly to get you through the shock value of something bad happening. The first time you go through anything hostile or dangerous it has a high psychological shock factor, so the training can expose you to that. Its quite hard to maintain mental composure and analyze things. Simple things ... Like a harsh interrogation at an airport, or getting tossed in the trunk of a car, are not so simple. Hopefully the Cape Town course does some of that stuff.

I remember the first time i was detained on a street in Africa by two soldiers armed with machine guns. That was a long time ago. They didn't rough me up ... Just harassed me and tried to shake me down for a bribe. Its not a comfortable experience, because you don't know what they are going to do next. In my case, i just stayed calm, acted like i had a lot of time, and didn't give them the bribe. It worked in that situation. Don't know if i would pay the money next time ... Its a gut reaction call.

Pete

fWIW, bribery is a much more pleasant experience in Mexico. The LEO manning the checkpoint just stuck his hand out, saying "Feliz Navidad". We were on our way to climb the high volcanoes, so we regarded it as just another travel expense....

Now if you actually get those Maoist rebels to carry peoples's backpacks ... What you would have is a new cottage industry. A new homegrown Sherpa service :-)

Hey listen ... Have you actually run into those guys? Do you know where they are active, and where not? I may get over there some time. I guess i don't care that much, but would prefer not to give them cash. If they were using it for food or medical supplies ... OK maybe. But if they are using the $$ to buy weapons, I'm not so jazzed. :-(

Pete

I'm glad no greater harm came to the people in the two examples Izzy mentioned, but it's no fun to be "unexpectedly detained."

On the matter of bribing, that's become such a common practice in the government of some countries that people even give receipts so the bribers can get reimbursed from their employer. What a crazy world!