The business sector must join our national security architecture

Several years ago, the Philippines was enmeshed in heavy negotiations at the World Trade Organization. The Philippine panel was usually headed by the Department of Trade and Industry Secretary and the idea was brought up to create a Philippine Trade Representative Office (PTRO) that could focus solely in developing and negotiating our country’s trade position at the multilateral, regional, and bilateral levels.

Included in this proposal was the heavy participation of the business sector, both as resource and auditor, for which the planned PTRO was supposed to be enabled to weave their inputs and have the means to translate the same into a cohesive trade policy and negotiating position.

Fast forward to today, when the overwhelming need is the ability to respond to emerging security issues that must be simultaneously responded to tactically and strategically. In that regard, numerous forums and studies have been made involving international relations and security experts, from the academe, the military, and think tanks to shore up our defensive position and planning.

However, one glaring absence in all these gatherings and research is palpable and that is of the business sector. Admittedly, private business organizations and associations are indeed usually referred to when discussing national security but usually as the end-product beneficiary and not a player in the process: hence, the mantra of “national security is economic security.” Yet the truth of the matter is that the private sector, our local corporations and small business owners, can have a significant role to play in the formulation of our national security stratagem and execution.

This was noted by the Journal of International Affairs (“Intelligence Redefined: The Interplay of Private Companies and National Security,” March 2024) in describing how to respond to the “complex interplay between private interests and national security interests.” Thus, “private companies play an increasingly important role in enhancing intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination, as most recently evidenced by their contributions to the war in Ukraine.”

“Private companies can contribute significantly to the collection and processing phases of the intelligence cycle. While they might not always provide entirely new or previously inaccessible information, their value lies in allowing ICs to focus their resources on higher-priority issues. Private companies also increase the speed of information collection, processing, and dissemination, subsequently informing up-to-date intelligence.”

US practice in this regard is instructive as to how the business sector can participate in national security discussions: “There is a deep history in the US of examples when the government turned to the private sector for help in protecting the country from national security threats. In World War II, the primary operations of certain factories not controlled by the government were converted to support the war effort. For example, some factories shifted from manufacturing automobiles or household items to planes and tanks. Also, during World War II, the US government turned to large American banks for help with financing the war effort.

“The nature of these collaborations has evolved over time, reflecting the changing security landscape and technological advancements. Recently, the US government has increasingly relied on the private sector to develop intelligence on and protect against cyber threats to critical infrastructure.” (“The Evolving Role of the Private Sector in Protecting Our National Security,” FTI Consulting)

Canada is another example of a government calling on the private sector to develop and implement a national security strategy. This is in recognition of the fact that “Canada’s economic security is too important an undertaking to be left to either the public or private sectors working alone. Both must work together seamlessly to detect, deter, and disrupt a broad range of emerging and evolving threats” (“Economic Security is National Security: The Case for an Integrated Canadian Strategy”; Business Council of Canada, September 2023).

Recognizing that today’s national security threats “have the potential to wreak large-scale havoc on Canadians’ daily lives,” the participation of business groups has become a necessity. Accordingly, it has been proposed that Canada’s economic security structure be strengthened and this can be done by “creating a legal framework allowing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to proactively share timely and actionable threat intelligence with companies targeted by attacks.”

Another measure is to bolster “Canada’s economic and innovative capabilities, including by incentivizing high-risk, high-reward research in disruptive and emerging fields which are foundational to spurring economic growth and are strategic from a national security perspective.”

It is definitely not too late to galvanize the business sector into joining our national security efforts, creating a vision they can buy into and unquestionably support. For far too long, China’s propagandizing — which included huge investments, infrastructure loans, and trade promises – have been allowed to cause a divide between sovereignty and business interests, resulting in the weakening of Philippine resolve on defense. Recruiting Philippine business into the national security architecture not only informs more key players as to the actual stakes involved but also greatly enhances the resources (material and intellectual) needed to defend the country.

Jemy Gatdula is the dean of UA&P Law, as well as a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.

https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/

Twitter  @jemygatdula