‘Jesus - teach us to wait, as we hang in the balance of the past and the possible. Help us to make loving choices, as you did.’ (Thomas Merton)

Who could have anticipated it? The Covid lockdown. Russia’s invasion of East Ukraine. 7 October Hamas attack. Ukraine (still) fighting back. Hezbollah decapitated. Free speech clampdown in UK. Iran firing missiles directly at Israel. Donald Trump re-elected in the US. North Korean deployment to Russia. French and German political meltdown. Sudden collapse of the Assad regime. The list goes on. Events appearing as if out of nowhere, taking by surprise.

This is a backdrop to a BANI perspective on the world: Brittle, Anxious, Non-Linear and Incomprehensible. It’s not just a way of thinking about what’s happening around us. It’s an existential expression of how it can feel to be in the world. It shatters illusions of predictability and control. Think back at a more personal level – what have been your most significant life experiences over the past year? How many did you know or anticipate in advance?

It corresponds, perhaps, to a rise in mental health crises across the world. If we can’t predict or control the future with any degree of certainty, it can leave us feeling anxious, stressed or depressed. After all, anything could come in from anywhere, disrupting our carefully-made plans and throwing everything, including ourselves, in the air – with no idea where it and we may land. Little wonder people are turning to ideologies and leaders that promise ‘security’.

Yet so often their assurance is a façade; a delusion wrapped in compelling rhetoric that disguises its own emptiness. How, then, to survive and thrive in this earth-shaking context where threats ranging from climate emergency to nuclear war are real and extreme? I'm trying to follow Jesus’ example here: courage to face truth, prayerfully, head-on and not to hide; compassion to act, prayerfully, in humility and love: one person, issue and moment at a time.

How about you?

‘Hope is being able to see that there is light, despite all of the darkness.’ (Desmond Tutu)

A struggle I encounter existentially and in conversations with so many colleagues and clients at the moment is how to hold onto hope. Look at the news headlines and story after story of things going wrong. Not just small things but potentially world-ending things like climate disaster or nuclear war. The sense of overwhelm that this can create, along with a sense of complete powerlessness to change anything on that macro scale, can lead to feelings of deep despair.

One option is to turn off the TV and social media news feed. It’s a bit like burying our head in the proverbial sand or sticking our fingers in our ears and singing, ‘La, la, la’. To be honest, on the mental health front, this kind of withdrawal can prove helpful and life-giving, at least for a while. After all, why burn ourselves out mentally, emotionally and physically for things over which we have zero influence anyway? Better, perhaps, to engage in mindfulness. Pause, breathe...relax.

Except I’ve tried that and it doesn’t work for me. ‘I can’t close my eyes and make it go away.’ (U2) I’ve had to find a different way, and I’m still trying. German theologian Jürgen Moltmann wrote, ‘Hell is hopelessness.’ The need for hope is buried deep in the human psyche and the human condition. I find hope in Jesus and in taking action in my own small spheres of influence. I’m with Greenpeace on this: ‘The optimism of the action is better than the pessimism of the thought.’
​
How do you find and hold onto hope?

‘It is not enough to say, 'We must not wage war.' It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it. We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but the positive affirmation of peace.’ (Martin Luther King)

Armistice Day is a poignant moment to reflect on the end of the ‘war to end all wars’ – which, in spite of such terrible suffering and optimistic hope, didn’t end war. I will share some reflections here, drawing on critical conversations this month with lifelong peace activist, Rudi Weinzierl, in Germany.

Tension and conflict between countries and between state- and non-state actors is certainly on the increase. We aren’t (…some would say yet…) experiencing anything on the scale of the global World Wars of the 20th century – although the devastating impacts of current wars can feel like it locally – yet conflicts of various types are now taking place in the form of territorial disputes, proxy wars, economic coercion and cyber warfare. Here are some reasons why:

1.  Shift in global power balance

Emerging multipolar world: The global power landscape is no longer dominated by a single superpower. While the United States was the dominant global force in the latter part of the 20th century, in the 21st century other nations (most notably China and Russia) have increased their economic, military and geopolitical influence. This shift creates new friction as the established power and rising powers compete for regional dominance and influence.

Rising nationalism: Nationalist movements around the world have gained traction (including in liberal U.S., Europe and Scandinavia), often leading countries to adopt more polarised and assertive foreign policies, or policies towards foreigners within their own borders, to showcase strength and independence to their own domestic audiences and to other parties abroad. This can fuel aggressive rhetoric, civil tensions, military build-ups and territorial disputes.

2.  The dark side of human nature

Inherent human-social tendency: The human condition includes the potential for good and evil – although the meaning of these terms as socially-constructed (and associated ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’) has moved away from absolutes. Attempts to understand and explain (and sometimes change) human behaviour have focused on nature vs nurture, and now neuroscience and genetic disposition. Whatever the origin, we see so much evidence of the ‘human tendency to f*** things up’ and, at times, sheer self-defeating craziness.

Political and media influence: Increasingly polarised and polemical rhetoric by politicians and in mainstream/social media often tap into the darker side of human nature. Social media lacks the formal, traditional accountability mechanisms that have governed, or at least influenced, mainstream media in national democracies until fairly recently. This leaves individuals, groups and whole societies open to influence by lies (fake news) and cynical manipulation.

3.  Territorial disputes and national identity

Historical grievances: Many countries and non-state actors have unresolved historical disputes over borders, territories and sovereignty. Issues like the status of the West Bank and Gaza, East Ukraine and Crimea, Taiwan, the South China Sea and the Kashmir region are all flashpoints where historical grievances add fuel to geopolitical tension and rivalry.

Protection of cultural and political influence: Some states view certain regions as essential to their cultural identity or political influence. China’s stance on Taiwan or Israeli/Palestinians’ competing claims on the West Bank, for instance, reflect not only territorial claims but also a deeply-embedded aspect of national identity and sovereignty.

4.  Economic competition and trade conflicts

Resource scarcity: Growing populations and rising consumption (fuelled by a near-universal belief that continual economic growth and material wealth are self-evidently good) create increased demand for resources including oil, minerals and fresh water. Disputes over access to these resources – often involving countries with overlapping claims like those in the South China Sea or DRC – can result in or risk escalating into militarised conflicts.

Trade wars and economic sanctions: Economic tensions, particularly between large economies like the U.S. (especially under its new president-elect) and China (with its relentless drive for expansion), can exacerbate hostility. Trade wars, tariffs and sanctions are used as tools of political influence but they can also create a hostile environment where countries and blocs (e.g. U.S., China, EU, BRICS) view each other as adversaries rather than trading partners.

5.  Arms race and military modernization

Increased ‘defence’ spending: Many nations (especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) are investing ever-more heavily in their military capabilities; including nuclear arsenals, advanced weaponry and missile technology. This arms race enhances the global arms industry's profits, power and influence, and creates a sense of insecurity as competing countries or blocs feel insecure, threatened or pressured to keep up with or surpass their rivals.

New types of weapons: Development of new types of warfare technology such as drones, hypersonic missiles and AI-driven systems creates uncertainty. These technologies may also lower the threshold for engaging in conflict as often they don’t require putting troops on the ground or risking as many human lives, making military interventions seem less costly.

6.  Proxy wars and regional conflicts

Proxy warfare: Powerful countries often avoid direct confrontation by supporting opposing factions in other nations' conflicts. For instance, the Syrian civil war which saw involvement from the U.S., Russia, Turkey and Iran, each backing different factions; and Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis. Such conflicts can spiral, impacting global stability while remaining below the threshold of a formal, direct war between the major powers themselves.

Regional instability: Conflicts can occur in regions with weak governance, where external powers may intervene to protect their own interests or allies. This has been common in the Middle East, North and Central Africa and parts of Asia where conflicts over resources, religious and ethnic divisions and political instability invite foreign involvement. It is also leading to new alliances, for example the emerging Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis.

7.  Technological warfare and cyber threats

Cyber warfare: In the digital age, countries and non-state actors increasingly target one another through cyber means. Cyberattacks aim to, for instance, disrupt infrastructure, steal intellectual property and influence public opinion. The clandestine nature of cyber warfare allows parties to escalate tensions without direct, visible confrontation; creating a background sense of constant threat and conflict.

Information warfare: Social media and other digital platforms allow states and non-state actors to interfere in other nations' politics. Propaganda and misinformation, exacerbated by use of AI (for example, deep fake) and hacking can destabilize and create mistrust between countries.

8.  Weakening of international institutions

Decline in influence of global institutions: International organizations like the UN, WTO, NATO and EU face challenges that limit their ability to prevent conflict. Rising nationalism and populist sentiment in many countries have led to scepticism of international bodies, weakening their capacity to mediate disputes and enforce peace.

Erosion of global norms: Norms that were once established and broadly-accepted internationally, such as respect for territorial sovereignty or non-interference in other countries’ affairs, have weakened in recent years. This erosion of norms can embolden countries to act unilaterally without fearing major diplomatic or economic consequences.

9.  Climate change and environmental stressors

Resource-driven conflict: Climate change effects have increased competition for natural resources, leading to conflict over land, water and food. Areas affected by severe droughts, floods or sea-level rise can create new waves of migration. The resulting population movements can contribute to tensions within and between countries and blocs too.

Strain on fragile states: Fragile states are particularly vulnerable to climate-related stressors which can destabilize governments, lead to civil tensions and conflict and create vacuums that foreign powers might exploit, either for resources or their own strategic advantage.

Can these trends be reversed?

While the causes are complex, we believe several steps could help to reduce international tensions and violence. (Having said that, we don’t see any evidence of leadership globally pointing in these directions at present; and we struggle to see how, as individuals, we can exert any influence whatsoever to change this):

New models of leadership: Leaders who value and model prayerful humility over arrogant posturing; mutual good over national self-interest; long-term sustainable goals over short-term expedient action; peace and justice for all over exploitation at others’ expense.

Strengthening diplomacy and conflict-resolution mechanisms: Diplomatic channels and innovative conflict resolution processes could be reinforced, with renewed global cooperation to address issues peacefully and collectively.

Building economic interdependence: Economic partnerships that foster interdependence could help reduce the likelihood of conflict. Countries deeply invested in trade and mutual economic gain may be less inclined to disrupt those benefits through violence.

Global action on climate change: Addressing climate change collaboratively can reduce resource-driven tensions. Initiatives focused on sustainable development, renewable energy and climate adaptation in vulnerable regions could mitigate some of the pressures that contribute to inter-state tension and violence.

Regulation of cyber and information warfare: Establishing global norms and treaties to regulate cyber activities and disinformation could help curb the impact of technology-driven conflict.

What do you think?

'95% of what we think we know, we have simply accepted from what other people have told us.' (Dennis Hiebert)

Nothing adds up. How can we identify hidden assumptions, implicit agendas and vested interests that lay behind what we see, hear and read in the media? Perhaps the answer to this question has rarely been so critical. Democracy and social cohesion within and between peoples and nations are threatened by manipulation and misrepresentation of what we may ordinarily regard as truth. Following writer Mark Twain, actor Denzel Washington commented famously, ‘If you don’t read the news, you’re uninformed. If you do read the news, you’re misinformed.’

Take international news in the UK. Why are we so focused on Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza? Why haven’t we noticed, apart from the occasional glance, the terrible civil wars in Sudan, Myanmar or Democratic Republic of Congo? Why do we call Russia’s brutal intervention in Ukraine a ‘full-scale invasion’? Why do we assume that increasing NATO size-spend is the only solution? If Israel’s bombing is indiscriminate, why has it killed, proportionately, so few ‘adult men’? Why didn’t we see outraged street demonstrations against horrific, widespread atrocities by Daesh?

These are profoundly important, deeply complex and extremely painful issues and we rarely have access to the underlying research or information that could help us, as ordinary and concerned citizens of the world, to discern and decide how to act. We are presented with multiple, competing viewpoints and demands and this can feel both perplexing and paralysing. I don’t know the answers to such questions yet I do believe they should play at least some part in shaping my response. I will share some considerations that may help us to avoid sleepwalking blindness.

As we’re exposed to news reports, what are we noticing and not noticing? How far does what we’re noticing appear to confirm what we already believe or want to believe? How open are we to having our assumptions, our preconceived beliefs and ideas, challenged to reveal something different or new? Why is the news presenter or media channel presenting this particular story or angle? What do they want us to believe, think, feel or do? Who or what is being excluded by the reporter’s narrative? Whose voice, perspective or experience is being ignored or filtered out?

Behind the scenes: who owns and-or funds the media channel, the presented report or the research that underpins it? How rigorously are research methods tested to avoid implicit bias? Are views and experiences presented in a report genuinely representative of a wider and diverse population, or different sides to a conflict? In interpreting statistics, is a reporter presenting a case selectively, or cherry-picking results to show or advocate a particular stance? In short, be sceptical – and look for evidence that supports or contradicts the research-reporter’s ‘news’.

‘The map of the world is always changing; sometimes it happens overnight. All it takes is the blink of an eye, the squeeze of a trigger, a sudden gust of wind.’ (Anderson Cooper)

I ordered a large and colourful map of South East Asia for my bedroom wall recently. When it arrived, it was subtly different to the one that had been advertised and clearly depicts a Chinese geopolitical view of the region. Taiwan is colour-coded the same as China and the internationally-disputed 9-dash line is boldly marked around the whole of the South China Sea. It struck me how simple representations on a map can both reveal and aim to create a very specific cultural and political view of the world.

I have another large and colourful map of the Earth mounted on the wall above my desk. This one shows the world as ‘upside down’, although the names on the ‘countries’ are still written the ‘right way up’. It feels strange and disorientating to look at and reveals, experientially, how fixed we can become in the representations we hold of of the world we have been taught and learned since childhood. A world map is also a mental map. Every portrayal is an implicit human construct. Nothing is simply ‘how it is’.

Turn on the TV and you will see heart-breaking scenes of streams of desperate people, frightened, shell-shocked and displaced by war, fleeing within Ukraine or escaping across crowded borders into neighbouring countries. It’s a tragic and all-too-familiar scene. Not that long ago, we witnessed similar images of dispossessed and traumatised people, at that time clinging together in crowded boats or walking on long roads, trying to reach safety away from the ravages of a brutal war in Syria.

It's tempting, in such circumstances, to compare and contrast. Why, for instance, is Poland throwing its doors wide open to Ukrainian refugees whereas it was decidedly reluctant to do so for Syrian refugees? Is this evidence of endemic racism? It is because Ukrainians are white, because they ‘look like us?’ – as more than one TV reporter asked this week. These are important questions... and they also risk pitching one set of refugees against another, as if competing for empathy and support.

I’ve had the personal privilege of working in the UK alongside asylum-seekers and refugees from countries as diverse as Afghanistan, China, Congo, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Kurdistan, Mali, Mexico, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Vietnam and Yemen. Up-close, every person is unique, has a name, and carries his or her own lived experience, his or her own individual story. Step back, and we can discern patterns shaped by e.g. culture, history, language, narrative and geopolitics.

In some significant respects, I believe European public discourse concerning the Ukrainian refugee situation is different to that in 2015. Geopolitical factors include: Ukraine borders directly with Europe, vs Syria lays at a geographical distance; Ukraine is perceived primarily as an invasion by a foreign power, vs Syria was viewed primarily as a civil war; Ukraine is perceived in simple terms as a ‘hero’ against a ‘villain’, vs Syria was perceived as a complex conflict between multiple ‘villains’.

Cultural factors include: Ukrainian refugees are perceived as culturally- and pro-European, vs asylum-seekers in 2015 who came from a diverse range of countries and cultures – often perceived as hostile to European liberal values and cultures; Ukrainian refugees are primarily women and children and, therefore, considered most-vulnerable and least-threatening, vs asylum-seekers in 2015 were perceived as primarily men and, therefore, considered least-vulnerable and most-threatening.
​
If we are willing to pause and reflect openly, honestly and critically, we can see that the stance we take reveals all kinds of underlying personal and cultural beliefs, values, assumptions and biases – including whom we consider worthy, or not, and why. The media plays a very powerful role since most of what we believe and think we know about asylum-seekers and refugees is mediated via media. The ‘news’ is a blend of info and drama, with an agenda. Let’s not fan the flames of a refugee war.

(For further reading in this area, see: Alexander Betts & Paul Collier, Refuge: Transforming a Broken Refugee System (2018))