Go to home page

The Queen’s Own Chatham House Says Military Will Enforce Green Dictatorship

Sept. 30, 2021 (EIRNS)—In its latest tract on how to kill people and depopulate the globe, the British Crown’s premier policymaking think tank, the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA)—known as Chatham House—on Sept. 29 published “Building Global Climate Security,” arguing that since climate change poses such a serious threat to global security, it will now be necessary to rethink “traditional security concepts,” and understand the “interconnected demands” of climate security, sustainable human development and “regenerative economic systems.” These, the document affirms, are all needed to address “the most serious threat to global security we face.” The military is to play a major role here, so RIIA warns that military priorities must be changed. But, not to worry, because the security community has already advanced the “securitization agenda of climate change by recognizing climate change as a critical factor that militaries will have to deal with.” Climate change worsens “conflict environments,” you know, as Afghanistan, Mali, and the Tigray region of Ethiopia prove, and it is of course responsible for internal displacements and refugee migrations.

The message here is that the military—the “security community”—is going to play a major role in enforcing green fascism and depopulation with all that this implies in terms of violating sovereignty and intervening in nations’ internal affairs to defend the environment. Remember “responsibility to protect”? Chatham House enthusiastically maintains that since there are growing demands to legally define “ecocide” as a crime under the International Criminal Court, having the armed forces being called upon to defend against ecocide “looks increasingly likely.” Do nations damaging the environment get invaded? Chatham House suggests a scenario in which national law enforcement agencies might partner with militaries to defend the Amazon “and other key habitats” from destruction. But, then there is an even “more complex intervention,” such as “countering illegal wildlife trade.” The use of force? This could involve moving “directly against actors causing ecological damage or enforcing a mandate to protect shared ecological assets.”

The report complains about the lack of “climate finance” as a major obstacle to addressing climate change and building climate security. It makes no mention of Mark Carney, BlackRock, or the Davos crowd, but complains that the international community never came up with the $100 billion promised in 2009 for climate finance to developing nations, “with only two months to go to COP26.” It recommends that world political leaders “leverage” the security risk posed by climate change in order to “increase ambition” around climate finance, and convince their constituencies that if more money is spent to tackle climate change, it will enhance national security and prevent “upstream conflict.” The options are limitless to build “regenerative security,” Chatham House crows. Starting with those countries that are leading on climate change, such as Great Britain and those of the EU, there’s nothing to prevent NATO from taking up the fight to develop a “regenerative security” agenda, and set an “example for defense and security forces around the world.”

Back to top    Go to home page clear