The European Union presently consists of twenty-eight different nation states, eighteen of which are also part of the European Economic Monetary Union known as the Eurozone. The beginning of the European Union is often accredited to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.^[1] Since then, the European Union has faced periods of forceful effort  towards further integration and periods where integration is questioned. Notable, is that during every period of economic crisis, the European Union was strengthened and gained more power in attempts to preserve the Eurozone[2]. Since the 2008 finical crisis, and the following Eurozone crisis, however, new right-wing parties such as Britain’s U.K. Independence Party and France’s Le Front National party are fundamentally questioning the project of European Integration. Since both of these anti-European parties are projected as feasible candidates for national elections, the there exists a security threat against the European Union because these parties would represent the first time key European nations’ government want to fully withdraw from the European Union.

Britain’s main anti-Europe part is the U.K Independence Party (UKIP) led by Mark Reckless. Ironically, Reckless is currently one of Britain’s representative in the European Parliament. On Friday morning November 21, 2014 Reckless’ party won its second seat in the British Parliament. Analysis predict that this victory is testament to UKIP’s growing popularity and is evidence that UKIP has the ability to damage mainstream parties, such as David Cameron’s Conservative Party, in the general elections scheduled in May. Professor Matthew Goodwin from the University of Nottingham comments on UKIP’s victory as “very significant because it is six months out from a general election and in a pretty middle-of-the-road-constituency”[3]. Due to the fact that UKIP’s main platform is leaving the European Union, Prime Minister Cameron has already called for a referendum on whether Britain should stay in the European Union in 2017 if the Conservatives win the election in May[4]. Britain’s possible exit from the European Union is often referred to as Brexit. The economic losses for Britain, should it leave to the European Union, are estimated to 3.1% of GDP (50 billion pounds) and a decrease in income between 6.3 to 9.5 of GDP[5]. Disregarding Britain’s financial loss, UKIP’s popularity since 2010, the year the Eurozone crisis took hold, is a security threat to the European Union[6].

Similar to Britain, France has seen the rise of its own right-wing anti-Europe party, Le Front National led by Marine Le Pen. On September 28, 2014, Le Front National (FN) won its first two seats in the French Senate. The FN also came in first in French elections for the European level and received twenty-four seats in the European Parliament [7]. Le Pen is planning to run for French Presidency in 2017, and if she gains power, she clams that France will leave the European Union[8]. If France were to leave the European Union, it would also leave the Eurozone, unlike the United Kingdom. This idea alone poses a great threat to the security of the European Union as confidence in the Euro and the Union is crucial to the European attempt of rebuilding from the Eurozone crisis[9].

            Why should the rise of right wing, anti-European parties such as UKIP and FN present a security threat to the European Union? The European Union, since its beginning, has only progressed into deeper and wider integration. The deepening of European Integration is evident through the creation of European Institutions such as European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank, and the creation of an Economic Monetary Union. The Widening of the European Union has come through the 2004 and 2007 Eastern enlargements of the Union. Even with the 2010 Eurozone crisis, there has been no serious talk of affected nations leaving the Eurozone and thereby the European Union. Confidence has slowly been restored in the Eurozone since European Central Bank President Mario Monti declared that the Euro will not be allowed to fail[10]. However, parties such as UKIP and FN that are strong candidates to win more power both on national and European levels threaten the project and existence of European integration. There exists no exit procedure from the union, and if one country leaves, confidence in the European Union and the Eurozone would accordingly drop drastically which would lead to disastrous economic consequences and re-install chaos on a continent that has seen two world wars but has been peaceful since the emergence of the European Union.

[1] Borragan, Nieves Perez-Solorzano; Michelle Cini. “Chapter 2.” European Union Politics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. Print

[2] Streeck, Wolfgang. “The Politics of Public Debt.” Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (July 2013): 1-22. MPIfG Discussion Paper 13/7. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

[3] Castle, Stephen. “UKIP Wins 2nd Seat in the British Parliament, Dealing a Blow to David Cameron.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

[4] Mason, Rowena. “David Cameron: In-out Referendum on EU by 2017 Is Cast-iron Pledge.” The Guardian Observer. N.p., 11 May 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

[5] Ottaviano, Gianmarco, and Joao Paulo Pessoa. “Brexit or Fixit? The Trade and Welfare Effects of Leaving the European Union.” Center for Economic Perferomance (May 2014): 1-6. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

[6] “The Observer View on the Success of Ukip.” The Guardian Observer. The Guardian, 12 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

[7] Penketh, Anne. “Front National Wins Seats in French Senate for First Time.” Th Guardian. N.p., 28 Sept. 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

“Why Did the Front National Do so Well in France? – Debating Europe.” Debating Europe. European Union, 23 July 2014. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

[8] Mulholland, Rory. “Marine Le Pen Plan to Change Front National Party Name Angers Father Jean-Marie.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

[9] Jones, Erik. JCMS (Journal Common Market Studies) 50 (2012): 53-67. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

[10] Rome, Michael Schuman /. “Why Mario Monti Is the Most Important Man in Europe.” Time. Time Inc., 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.

Both the short film The Shadow Company and the Skype interview with Alan Bell, founder and CEO of private security firm Globe Risk International, were my first insight into the world of private security companies. Both sources discussed the drastic increase in the emergence of this industry in the post 9/11 years. Private security companies now operate in more than fifty-two countries and the industry makes about one hundred billion dollars revenue per year. What worries me about the existence of private security companies is the lack of regulation regarding the training that men and woman applying and working for this industry need to have, as well as the lack of transparency from the government.

The documentary and Alan Bell both admit that different private security companies have different standards for their hiring process as well as personnel assignments. Furthermore, there is not one government policy regulating what kind of experience that people working for private security companies need to have. The private security firms are a relatively new and booming private industry heavily used by governments. Therefore, it appears that governments have been hesitant to create too much legislation in regards to these companies. This is worrisome because how do we know that we are putting capable people in warzones or dangerous areas? Alan Bell was part of the United Kingdom’s Special Forces and only started his company Global Risk in 1995 after he retired from the Special Forces and gained business experience. Due to his background, he talked about the importance he places on hiring only men and women with the same type of experience as him. However, both Bell and speakers on the documentary discussed the fact that some people with no military background whatsoever, let alone experience in the Special Forces, often apply for jobs with Private Security Companies because they can earn about $1,000 a day. The money, therefore, is an important driving factor in recruitment for both ex-military and non-military people. In my opinion, only people with a lot of experience in Special Forces or the military should be hired by these companies. How can we trust someone who has not been properly trained or has not had years of experience to enter a warzone or dangerous area and not be at harm to his or herself psychologically as well as to other people. Bell mentioned that several companies within the United Sates hired such un-capable people. The result of this was that assignments in the Middle East went wrong for both local civilians and the firm, but that the owners of the firm did not mind since they made millions of dollars from several United States government contracts.

Another concern I have regarding Private Security firms is the lack of transparency from governments in using these firms. Governments use firms like Global Risk when they want military capability on ground but do not want the political discussion or backlash associated with putting one’s military on the ground. This intention by the government makes Private Security Firms un-transparent, or keeps them away from the public eye. This is an issue for both families of people working for these firms as well as for the people working for the firms. Alan Bell made clear that the number of deaths in this industry is not kept track off and that since the industry has grown following 9/11 it has become too difficult for him to track. He estimates that twice the amount of contracted workers for private security companies were killed in Afghanistan than military staff. Families and friends, however, are never notified of the cause of death because these missions are happening under the radar. The second issue is the danger that people working for private security firms can get themselves into for the government, yet when a mission goes wrong, they are no longer supported. An example of this was illustrated in the documentary with the failed mission in Equatorial New Guinea. This mission was supported by people within the British government and meant to overthrow the ruler of Equatorial New Guinea. However, as soon as the plane landed, the people working for the private security company were arrested and have been there since as those involved in planning the coup within the British government have done nothing to assist the contractors they hired. Even though I understand that when contractors take on these missions that they understand the full scope and its dangers, I think it is irresponsible that a government has the power to hire people for tasks that they do not want to involve their military in but leave those people completely without support if the mission goes wrong and the contractors are jailed.

I am not surprised about the scope of this industry and its heavy involvements across all major conflicts ongoing today. I am, however, surprised about how unregulated the private security industry is. There are no set policies within the United States and Canada, let alone a global policy, in regards to who is eligible for the types of work and positions offered by private security companies. Furthermore, the government’s lack of transparency and ownership in regards to its dealings with private security companies is irresponsible. When a contractor passes away or when a mission fails like in Equatorial New Guinea, the government should be keeping track of these deaths and help contractors in case of emergency if they requested the mission and are leading it behind the scenes.