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.

On Thursday October 15, 2014, the 193 member states of the United Nations (UN) Genera Assembly will vote anonymously to give three countries a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council. Two of the three open seats are already certain, as African nations have agreed to give Angola a turn on the Council and Asian nations have chosen Malaysia[1]. The pressing question is who will be the representative for the Western group of nations. The three contenders are Turkey, New Zealand, and Spain[2].

Turkey’s eagerness to hold a rotating seat on the United Nations Security Council is fostering an air of campaigning between the three nation-nominees and is causing Turkey to present some of its current issues in ways that are not holistic, but rather serve as a public relations campaign meant to embellish Turkeys’ role in the current international arena.

Christian Wenaweser, Liechtenstein’s ambassador to the United Nations, explains that having a seat on the United Nations Security Council makes a nation a “recognized player- you’re a somebody[3]”. New York Times author, Somini Sengupta, expands on this when she writes “ A Security Council seat is considered not just a matter of prestige, but also an opportunity to raise a country’s overall profile and help it gain advantageous bilateral deals down the road[4]”. The incentive for Turkey to hold this coveted seat, even though it had a seat on the Council just four years ago, is now evident.

Although there is no public account of how much candidate countries such as Spain, Portugal, and Turkey, spend on the campaign for a seat in the Security Council; some diplomats estimate that this can be $20 million or more[5]. This assumption raises some serious questions concerning the transparency of this money as well as if there are not better ways to spend such a sum?

Some ways in which Turkey has been campaigning is by presenting a photo exhibition where crab cakes and wine were served. Another way is by sending ambassadors for Turkey, such as Ebru Baructcu who is the Turkish Ambassador to Portugal, on lobbying trips to multiple Western capitals who could sway the vote being taken tomorrow. In reaction to Turkey’s assertiveness, New Zealand gave the General Assembly a bottle of national wine or olive oil and Spanish King, King Felipe VI, was in New York last month to meet with leaders serving on the General Assembly[6]. These two small examples are reflective that Turkey’s eagerness for the seat on the Council are prompting competitiveness and gift-giving campaign strategies in the aims of gaining nation’s votes.

Part of Turkey’s lobbying to attain the Council position decided upon by a two-thirds secret vote, is by embellishing recent events in its country that are complicated and multifaceted into a public relations campaign. One way through which Turkey has done this is by presenting a photo exhibition on the ground floor of the General Assembly. In this exhibition, Turkey stated that as a nation they have done extremely well and should be congratulated for welcoming refugees, many of which are Macedonian and Syrian, as well as helping the United States in the stride against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). These two examples highlight how Turkey is leading a public relations campaign to win the seat on the Council as well as potentially influence how certain countries view them. This photo exhibition simplifies many issues that Turkey congratulates itself upon. How are the refugees being treated? What has the reaction of the Turkish Parliament been to the increasing number of refugees? What has the reaction been socially? How is Turkey’s bombing of a Kurdish militia in Turkey (who were fighting ISIS) relate to Turkey wanting to help the fight against ISIS?

These issues are complex and will not be expanded upon as they delve deeply into other topics. Rather, these examples are meant to illustrate that Turkey it is trying to show its actions in one light while the reality is much more complicated.

How does this relate to security?

The fact that there is serious lobbying, with budgets estimated of 20 million dollars, to attain a seat on the Council is concerning. The Council has an extremely important agenda-setting power and veto power for pressing international issues. If a country is elected, not on fair rotation, but on lobbying and a public relations campaign stunt, then how can we trust these 15 countries to lead international interventions and actions where and when needed? The issues with the Security Council are larger than just this- but Turkey’s campaigning for a seat is very disappointing to individuals such as myself who believe in the capability of international organizations such as the United Nations to work for the greater good. Turkey’s actions are also concerning for smaller nations who want a say in international institutions but do not have the might, influence, or finances, to compete for a seat on the council.

What does United Nations Ambassador Halit Cevik think about tomorrows vote? “ It’s a very tight race, but I am strongly hopeful”[7].

[1]”Hottest Race for UN Security Council Seats This Year Is between New Zealand, Spain and Turkey.” Fox News. Associated Press, 14 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

[2]Sengupta, Somini. “Competition Is Tough for Most Coveted Seat at the United Nations.” The New York Times. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

[3]Sengupta, Somini. “Competition Is Tough for Most Coveted Seat at the United Nations.” The New York Times. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

[4]Sengupta, Somini. “Competition Is Tough for Most Coveted Seat at the United Nations.” The New York Times. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

[5]Sengupta, Somini. “Competition Is Tough for Most Coveted Seat at the United Nations.” The New York Times. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

[6] Sengupta, Somini. “Competition Is Tough for Most Coveted Seat at the United Nations.” The New York Times. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

[7]Lederer, Edith. “Turkey in ‘tight Race’ for UN Security Council Seat.” The Times of Israel. N.p., 15 Oct. 2014. Web. 15 Oct. 2014.

In 1997 Barry Buzan published “Rethinking Security after the Cold War”. In this article he identified five realms of security: military, environment, economic, social and political.[1] All these elements can be found in the ongoing issue with landmines in Cambodia. Although this issue is not frequently highlighted in the media, it is a security issue that came about due to military and political struggles and continues to have a disastrous affect socially and economically for Cambodia.

The estimated number of anti-personnel landmines scattered throughout Cambodia ranges. Some sources say one mine per person[2], which would equate to ten million landmines, while other sources claim that there are six million landmines in the country of ten million inhabitants. In total, 6422 villages in Cambodia are classified as “suspected hazardous area” because of landmines. This is 46.2 percent of all villages in Cambodia. So what military and political conditions in Cambodia led to this high number of landmines? The use of landmines in Cambodia began during Cambodia’s thirty-year period of war that ranged from 1970 through 1998. These years of war, and the landmines brought along with them, can be divided into five phases:

1)    The Cambodian civil war, 1970 -1975[3]. This conflict began when the Cambodian Communist Party of Kampuchea, known as the Khmer Rouge, and their allies the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Viet Cong fought against the existing Republican government force in Cambodia. During this time, Vietnamese soldiers set up about ten percent of the total landmines that can be found today in Cambodia. The Civil War ended with the victory for the Khmer Rouge[4].

2)    The rule of the Khmer Rouge 1975-1979. The Cambodian communist party was lead by notorious leaders such as Pol Pot, Nuon Chae, Ieng Sary and Khieu Samphan. This period is often known as the “Cambodian Holocaust” because government troops and child soldiers killed two million civilians [5]. The Khmer Rouge regime is responsible for bringing in fifty-five percent of all landmines into Cambodia[6]. Furthermore, mines arrived to Cambodia through military aid packages for resistance fighters against Pol Pot. These mines came from Vietnam, the United States, the USSR, China, Israel, Belgium, Yugoslavia, Germany and Czechoslovakia[7].

3)    Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia, 1979 – 1989. This invasion removed the Khmer Rouge from power but further distributed landmines in Cambodia by Vietnamese forces. These account for thirty percent of all total landmines in Cambodia.

4)    Second Cambodian Civil War, 1989 – 1993. During this time, Cambodians raised against the occupying Vietnamese government. Involvement of landmines.

5)    Infighting among competing political factions, 1993-1998. Involvement of landmines.

As can be seen through the above information, landmines came to Cambodia through various military and political issues. The turbulent thirty years claimed 2.5 million lives and introduced over thirty-six different types of landmines into Cambodia[8]. Although these events happened in the past, the landmines in Cambodia still represent a security issue because of the social and economic impact that is still felt today. Between the years of 1979 and 2011, landmines in Cambodia killed 19,608 people and further maimed 44,346 people. Sixty-one percent of these victims went into debt to pay for their medical treatment[9]. The majority of those injured by landmines are children. Currently, Cambodia has 40,000 living amputees due to landmines. This is two hundred times the rate of the United States[10]. Besides the social difficulties of being scared where to walk, as there is always a chance a landmine could be hidden, and the difficulties of finding good treatment if affected, Cambodia’s economy has also suffered. Sixty percent of Cambodians are farmers. Many farmers, however, are unable to work on their fields as they have been claimed “hazardous” but have not been cleared by landmines. This prevents many farmers from earning their income and feeding their family[11]. Without mines, it is estimated that Cambodia could at least double its agricultural productions[12].

The daily terror of landmines for locals in Cambodia is not the current highlight on BBC, CNN or Aljazeera, but it is a security issue. The infiltration of landmines in Cambodia came about due to military and political struggles and continues to have social and economic effects. At the current rate of clearing landmines, it will take another decade before Cambodia can rid itself of landmines. This is a daily and ongoing security issue for Cambodians[13].

[1] Lecture Slides Professor Aim Sinpeng. Poli 360, September 11, 2014.

[2]M. Buvinic, M. Das Gupta, O. N. Shemyakina, (2013) Armed Conflict, Gender and Schooling. The World Bank Economic Review.

[3]Merrouche, Ouarda. “The Long Term Educational Cost of War: Evidence from Landmine Contamination in Cambodia.” The Journal of Development Studies. no. 3 (2011): 399-416.

[4]Dmitry Mosyakov, “The Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese Communists: A History of Their Relations as Told in the Soviet Archives,” in Susan E. Cook, ed., Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda (Yale Genocide Studies Program Monograph Series No. 1, 2004),

[5]Locard, Henri, State Violence in Democratic Kampuchea (1975-1979) and Retribution (1979-2004), European Review of History, Vol. 12, No. 1, March 2005, pp.121–143

[6]Merrouche, Ouarda. “The Long Term Educational Cost of War: Evidence from Landmine Contamination in Cambodia.” The Journal of Development Studies. no. 3 (2011): 399-416.

[7]Chapman, Jean. “The Political Economy of Landmines: View from a Minefield in North-Western Cambodia.” Economic and political weekly. no. 36 (2010): 67-74.

[8]Merrouche, Ouarda. “The Long Term Educational Cost of War: Evidence from Landmine Contamination in Cambodia.” The Journal of Development Studies. no. 3 (2011): 399-416.

[9]”World’s largest anti-landmines conference kicks off in Cambodia.” Xinhua News Agency, 11 27, 2011.

[10]”Landmines in Cambodia; Past, Present, and Future.” Reference and Research Book News 26, no. 5 (10, 2011), http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/894456538?accountid=14656 (accessed October 2, 2014).

[11]Jenkins, Mark. National Geographic, “Cambodia’s Healing Fields.” Last modified January 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014.

[12]Peerman, Dean. “THE KILLING FIELDS STILL KILL.” The Christian Century. no. 10 (2007): 8.

[13]Jenkins, Mark. National Geographic, “Cambodia’s Healing Fields.” Last modified January 2012. Accessed October 2, 2014.

On March 15, 2011 an armed conflict began between forces loyal to the government of Syria’s leader, President Bashar Al-Assad, and those seeking to oust him. This conflict, which is still ongoing, started as part of a group of demonstrations in the Middle East in 2011 known as the Arab Spring. The demonstrations in Syria have grown into a crisis and ultimately into civil war that has led to over 191,000 casualties since August 2014[1]. Out of this difficult and complex war with many groups inter-fighting, rose ISIS.

ISIS is a Sunni extremist group, which seeks to unify parts of Iraq and Syria under an Islamic state, referred to as a Sunni Caliphate. Its acronym, therefore, stands for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In June 2014, the group surprised the West when it announced itself as a formal Islamic State and proclaimed its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi[2]. As of August 2014, ISIS is believed to control between 13,000 and 35,000 square miles of land, 1,922 people have been killed and 2,610 injured in one month. They have between 30,000 to 50,000 militants fighting for them as many former Iraqi soldiers have been forced to join. How might they finance all of this? ISIS currently has $2,000,000,000 USD in cash and assets, which they acquired through looting from the Iraqi state back and military, and they make a daily revenue of $3,000,000[3].

World leaders have deemed ISIS a terrorist organization, even al-Qaida, a terrorist group famous for the 9/11 attacks, has deemed ISIS too radical [4]. In an attempt to halt ISIS, Obama made an announcement on September 10, 2014, which stated, “the United States will join with our friends and allies to degrade, and ultimately destroy the terrorist group”. The main tactic of international cooperation against ISIS has been air strikes[5].

Headlines broke on September 25, 2014 when it became known that a female pilot, Maj Mariam Al Mansouri, form the United Arab Emirates led the airstrikes against ISIS. Why is this so significant? In the last few months of ISIS violence, women have been a special target group of the organization. At least 300 Yazidi women have been taken as slaves, and many prominent woman activists have been executed by ISIS, such as Sameera Ali al-Nuiaimy, who is an Iraqi lawyer promoting women’s rights, and three female candidates running for election in the Nineveh providence [6]. ISIS regards woman as trophies and has a policy of violence and kidnapping them. It has even considered the idea of female genital mutilation[7]. Not only are ISIS’ views abhorrent towards woman, but it is also an insult to the Islamic law they claim to represent.

Why then is Major Mariam Al Mansouri’s leadership in international airstrikes so important? I believe that the fact that a woman is leading air attacks on an organization that actively aims to reduce the status and value of women is significant. Mansouri’s leadership does not make up for all the lost lives and all the women who have been abused and humiliated, but it is a strong symbolic stance. Not only for women, but for Islam as well. Yousef Al Otabia, the current United Arab Emirate Ambassador to the United States said, “she is a fully qualified, highly trained, combat ready pilot, and she led the mission. It is important for us—moderate Arabs, moderate Muslims—to step up and say this (ISIS) is a threat against us. This is more than just a threat against us than it is against you. This is not just a threat to our countries. This is a threat to our way of life”[8].

The conducting of air strikes by a woman is symbolically significant as ISIS is being weakened by a group it is oppressing: women.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/23/world/middleeast/un-raises-estimate-of-dead-in-syrian-conflict-to-191000.html

[2] http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/08/the-rise-of-isis/

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/isis-iraq-numbers_n_5659239.html

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/isis-too-extreme-al-qaida-terror-jihadi

[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lawmakers-weigh-giving-obama-authority-to-wage-war-against-islamic-state/2014/09/10/59f057b0-38fd-11e4-8601-97ba88884ffd_story.html

[6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/11/isis-iraq-numbers_n_5659239.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/world/middleeast/womens-rights-activist-executed-by-islamic-state-in-iraq.html?ref=world&_r=0

[7] http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/barbarians_isis_mortal_threat_women_1.pdf

[8] http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/world/meast/uae-female-fighter-pilot/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

A Viral Threat to Security

On December 6, 2014, in a small town in Southeastern Guinea, a two-year-old girl passed away. In March 2014, hospital staff alerted Guinea’s Ministry of Health of a mysterious disease in the Southeast of Guinea. The World Health Organization later identified this mysterious disease as Ebola and that two-year-old girl was Ebola’s first victim in this new outbreak[1]. The United Nations has since called this Ebola outbreak an “international public health emergency”, Medecins Sans Frontieres has called it “out of control”, and United States President Obama has gone so far as to call it a “global security threat”[2].

How can a disease such as Ebola be deemed a security threat?

When trying to define the term “security”, Mohammed Ayooh wrote “security-insecurity is defined in relation to vulnerabilities- both internal and external- that threaten to have the potential to bring down or weaken state structures, both territorial and institutional and regimes”[3].

Ebola, therefore, can be understood as a security threat because state structures of affected nations in West Africa are weakening as effective containment strategies are failing and national economies are suffering.

Since March 2014, there have been 2,630 victims of Ebola in Western Africa. This outbreak has killed more than all former outbreaks in history combined. The World Health Organization warns that there could be 20,000 cases of Ebola before the disease can be brought under control[4]. So how can this virus be contained? Since Ebola is only infectious after patients have started showing symptoms, isolation of infected patients, and contact tracing and surveillance of all people who the patients came in contact with in the last week should, in theory, stop the transmission. Some of the reasons why this process of containment has been so difficult to achieve in Western Africa is because many healthcare facilities have no or limited supplies, several cases have been misidentified, many local people are choosing not to go to healthcare facilities and some cultural practices increase infection risk. Distrust for authorities is a key reason why affected people might refuse to seek help. Another reason might be lack in education surrounding the spreading of viruses. A difficult issue is how to navigate certain cultural practices that are increasing the risk of infection. In Liberia and Sierra Leone, for instance, preparing a body for burial services involves washing of the body, touching and kissing by the family and community. [5]. How can national governments step in and ask people not to honor their dead and follow their traditions? How can international organizations ask such as thing?

Besides the difficulties of containment, Ebola has also had a disastrous effect on the economies of affected nations in Western Africa. On August 20, 2014, Sierra Leone’s Agriculture Minister Joseph Sam Sesay said, “The economy has been deflated by 30 % because of Ebola”. Due to many roadblocks and quarantined sections by the United Nations, Sierra Leone is having difficulty producing food. Sesay explains that “ We are now coming into the planting season which means a lot of agriculture is not happening, so down the line that will create food shortages and pressures on food prices. We are starting to see a rise in inflation and pressure on the national currency as well as a shortage of foreign exchange”[6]. The World Bank stated, “Billions of dollars could be drained from West African countries.” This loss comes out of every aspect of the nations’ economy from agriculture to travel and tourism bans[7]. This economic loss will take much time to rebuild, and for already weak economies, this setback is difficult.

The Ebola outbreak is a complex issue. This brief explanation does not do justice to the individual stories and the efforts that have been made by national and international bodies. It simply aims to illustrate why a virus outbreak can and should, in this case, be considered an issue of security. Affected nations in Western Africa are having tremendous difficulty containing Ebola, even with the help of international institutions, and the effects that this outbreak are having and will continue to have on the Western African economies are catastrophic.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

[2] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033   and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29231400

[3] Class lecture September 11, 2014

[4] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28755033

[5] http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20899 and http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26835233

[6] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28865434

[7] http://www.economist.com/news/international/21612158-epidemics-damage-economies-well-health-panicking-only-makes-it-worse