Jem Bendell - You might have heard that the UK’s National...https://www.facebook.com/share/1BsUbpRLvk/You might have heard that the UK’s National Security Assessment, on how ecosystem collapse will damage national security, was firstly teased to journalists, then held back, then only partially released, and then shared with foreign politicians (who, unlike Brits, didn't pay for it).
Whether intentional or not, the part release and part suppression of the National Security Assessment, and the subsequent and necessary public campaign for its full release, has a subtle effect on us which warrants attention.
The process is creating the impression that this is not what the British establishment wanted to tell the general public… and that they only tell us reluctantly.
That may, or may not, be true. But how does it influence us when we hear this?
When it is eventually released, more of us are likely to read the ideas in the report, and receive its framing of issues, as something of authoritative "objective" value, rather than just the way part of the government thinks, and, presumably, would want us to agree with.
So, this process of delayed and partial release could encourage more of civil society to adopt, as their own, the ideas and frames of the security and military wings of government.
That could include adopting the broadest frame, where we regard the matter of ecological and climate chaos as
primarily one of national security. Yes, it has massive implications for national security, as well as everything else about being alive and living well. Informed scholars have been saying this for DECADES, myself and others included.
But there's a catch. If the situation is framed as one of defense, control, us versus them, and where the ‘serious people’ need to be trusted, then where does that lead?
From previous strategy reports produced by the military and security professionals in and around the government, we know exactly where that can lead… to reactionary ideas that, if implemented, would make matters worse. Ideas such as fortifying supply chains and fighting wars to maintain the capacity to fight wars. I kid you not - please see my essay on such reports from 2020 (linked below).
If the organisers and participants in the National Security Briefing campaign aren't alive to the potential downsides of a national security framing, then they might inadvertently amplify a view and agenda that should, instead, be subject to rigorous scrutiny and debate. Otherwise they risk contributing to a fracturing between, on the one hand, citizens in favour of more central imposition during this era of climate disruption, versus citizens who want more redistribution and local control at the heart of society in an era of ecological chaos.
Instead, civil society needs to take the many assessments of the very real risks, and existing damage, to the basic foundations of our lives, and discuss that without being limited by the lenses of either strategic defence or power projection.
Years ago, I saw this dilemma coming, whenever people enjoying their institutional seniority accepted that there won't be a managed transition to environmental sustainability. Now they risk bringing the same counter-productive bias into the new reality.
I know we can be bigger than this: bigger than defensiveness, bigger than wishing to be saved by elites, bigger than clasping onto our past conformity and status.
It's why I wrote “Breaking Together: a freedom-loving response to collapse.”
If guys with guns are talking about collapse, why can’t we? – Prof Jem Bendellhttps://jembendell.com/2020/11/11/if-guys-with-guns-are-talking-about-collapse-why-cant-we/