Direct threats against foreigners are a fact of life in some parts of the world. In poorer countries, the combination of Western technology and substantial capital is too precious to lose - which is precisely why local opposition groups so often target foreign investors in a bid to undermine the regime.
It is no use simply reacting to such threats on an ad hoc basis once they have been made. The safety of your employees and their dependants is too important to be left unconsidered until anarchy reigns or there is a serious breakdown in law and order. You should draw up a detailed business continuity plan which aims to maintain operations without posing unacceptable danger to staff.
The use of the phrase business continuity is crucial. In many cases, your interests will not necessarily be best served by mass evacuation. If you do need to remove people, you may be able to continue longer by gradually reducing the number of foreign personnel - it is easier to evacuate two people rather than 200 - and handing over to local management for the duration of the crisis. Nor should you rely solely on diplomatic advice and evacuation plans. This is not because such advice is inadequate or erroneous, but because diplomats and senior executives may well use different criteria when assessing whether to evacuate or not. Unlike embassies, foreign companies may have projects in remote areas and may employ people of many different nationalities, posing an entirely different set of logistical and ethical problems.
Personnel are the first priority, but other aspects are also important. How should you go about protecting sensitive commercial information, critical data, financial assets, valuable equipment, property and personal possessions? Can these be taken out of country? If not, can they be stored safely, or will they have to be abandoned and lost?
Plans cannot provide the answers to every eventuality, but they do provide a co-ordinated framework within which you can operate. The importance of a coherent plan is evident from the examples in the boxes. In the first case (Moscow), the company's plan helped maintain calm and a sense of perspective. In the other example (Yemen), the lack of any structured plan caused problems which could have been avoided.
CASE STUDY - Moscow
In October 1993, Vice-President Alexander Rutskoi and parliamentary chairman Raslan Khasbulatov attempted to overthrow President Boris Yeltsin. Fighting centred around the White House (parliament) building, and more than 150 people were killed. A Western financial services company based in Moscow had several months earlier commissioned Control Risks to write a local evacuation plan, which outlined actions to be taken at any of four states of alert, detailed possible evacuation routes, and allocated individual responsibilities in times of crisis. Responsibility was shared between the company's Moscow office and head office in London, though the Moscow staff had the authority to make and implement unilateral decisions if necessary. Widespread uncertainty and media hyperbole made local conditions hard to assess accurately. By following the evacuation plan and its guidelines, however, staff were able to make a reasoned decision to halt visits from outside but not to evacuate themselves. Business continued largely as usual and the violence was over in a matter of days - vindicating the firms decision and proving the plans effectiveness.
CASE STUDY - Yemen
In May 1994, North and South Yemen (which had only merged four years previously) went to war with each other. Airports and airspace were closed, national and international telephone networks were cut, and looters took to the streets. In the capital Sanaa, supporters fought running battles and missiles hit residential and business districts alike.
Although foreigners were not being directly targeted, they were in obvious danger of being caught up in attacks. Unlike people in the Southern capital Aden (who were evacuated to Djibouti) and in the Masila oilfield (who were taken to Oman via the port of Mukalla), those foreigners in land-locked Sanaa had no easy way out. They had to wait for diplomatically-organised flights, which took several days to organise - days during which they lived in constant fear of their lives.
One of those people evacuated from Sanaa made the following criticisms - all of which could have been negated by a good crisis plan put in place long before it was needed:
1. The only international communications from Sanaa were through the radio network to the oilfield, which had satellite communications.
2. Contact with the embassy and other foreigners was maintained by bicycle
3. The BBC World Service proved the main source of information.
4. Once initiated, the evacuation process proved long and tiring - especially for those with small children. Proof of nationality was vital, and many people were unaware that the amount of luggage they could take was restricted. They arrived at the assembly point with all their personal possessions, most of which had to be abandoned there.
5. Few had a good supply of cash to help smooth over last-minute local bureaucracy.
6. When the evacuees arrived back in the UK, the company did not have any reception plans to help them after their tiring and traumatic experience.
7. The evacuees relatives in the UK found it very difficult to get reassurance about their safety.
Tom Jackson has written crisis-related contingency plans and conducted simulated incident exercises for many companies. Before joining Control Risks, Tom served as an infantry officer and helicopter pilot in the British army.
CONTROL RISKS IS AN INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANCY. WE ADVISE BUSINESSES, GOVERNMENTS AND INDIVIDUALS HOW TO REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THEIR ACTIVITIES OF POLITICAL INSTABILITY, SOCIAL CHANGE, TERRORISM, FRAUD AND CRIME. SINCE ITS FOUNDATION IN 1975, CONTROL RISKS HAS WORKED WITH OVER 3,000 CLIENTS IN MORE THAN 120 COUNTRIES.
FOR DAILY ANALYSIS OF WORLDWIDE EVENTS, OUR ONLINE SERVICES PROVIDE ASSESSMENTS AND ADVICE FOR BOTH CORPORATE MANAGEMENT AND THE INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS TRAVELLER. WE COVER MORE THAN 80 COUNTRIES AND UPDATE THE SERVICES EVERY WORKING DAY. FOR LONGER TERM ASSESSMENTS AND DETAILED FORECASTS, CLIENTS CAN COMMISSION SPECIFIC REPORTS ON A COUNTRY, REGION OR TOPIC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON CONTROL RISKS' SERVICES, PLEASE CONTACT THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTS AT OUR OFFICES IN LONDON (TEL: +44 171 222 1552; FAX: +44 171 222 2296), WASHINGTON (TEL: +1 703 893 0083; FAX: +1 703 893 8611) OR TOKYO (TEL: +81 3 5570 6391; FAX: + 81 3 5570 6392)
Control Risks Group Limited ('the Company') endeavours to ensure the accuracy of all information supplied. Advice and opinions given represent the best judgement of the Company but, subject to section 2 (1) Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the company shall in no case be liable for any claims, or special, incidental or consequential damages, whether caused by the Company's negligence (or that of any member of its staff) or in any other way.
See More Popular Content From