National security and the ‘If everything is important, then nothing is’ problem

National security has long been ascribed a position of paramount prominence and sacrosanct responsibility of any government, and in these increasingly perilous times, it is becoming more so.

However, while it doesn’t have to be all doom and gloom, the challenges are mounting and the window to embrace and capitalise on the opportunities transforming both the world and the Indo-Pacific is rapidly closing.

By now, many engaged Australians, like many of their compatriots across the United States, the United Kingdom, and parts of Europe and Asia are coming to accept and, indeed, call for a more coherent and consistent response to the myriad of economic, political, strategic and other challenges dramatically reshaping the 21st century.

This underlying current has seen growing calls for Australia to develop and implement a cohesive, whole-of-nation National Defence Strategy or NSS, a long-time passion project for the late senator for NSW and retired Major General Jim Molan AO, DSC who strongly advocated for the introduction of an NSS.

However, despite the challenges we face as a nation, we potentially run the risk of losing the importance and priority branding an issue a “national security priority” forms in the minds of policymakers.

Highlighting this fact is Tufts University’s distinguished professor, Daniel Drezner, in a piece for Foreign Affairs titled How Everything Became National Security, in which he articulated the growing risks associated with being overzealous in our use of the “national security” branding.

Leveraging the US example, Drezner established the precedent, stating, “In American politics, labelling something a matter of ‘national security’ automatically elevates its importance. In the language of foreign policy observers, national security questions, such as regulating weapons of mass destruction, are matters of ‘high politics,’ whereas other issues, such as human rights, are ‘low politics’.”

VIEW ALL

Agreeing on priorities

Like everything in political and public policy circles, consensus building is often one of the hardest-fought battles, regardless of the partisan or bipartisan persuasion of the government and when it comes to the concept of national security, this challenge is no different.

This has often resulted in inconsistent definitions and understanding what falls into the “national security” bucket as Drezner described it, with the changing winds of the public and policymakers influential in shaping what falls into this bucket.

Drezner stated, “Of course, not everyone agrees on which issues fall into the national security bucket. And the American definition of national security has fluctuated wildly over time. The term was used by both George Washington and Alexander Hamilton during the Revolutionary era without being precisely defined. At the start of the Cold War, the federal government greatly expanded the size of the bucket after the passage of the 1947 National Security Act, but that law never defined the term itself.”

Now, as the international and global circumstances change, one would naturally expect that the definition of national security and what areas of the economy, policy and population fall under a broad understanding of national security, however, for Drezner, it is this fluidity that presents the major challenge for not only understanding of national security, but what gets put into the “bucket”.

“Since the subsequent ‘war on terror,’ however, the national security bucket has grown into a trough. From climate change to ransomware to personal protective equipment to critical minerals to artificial intelligence, everything is national security now,” Drezner explained.

The period of globalisation post-Cold War has only served to accelerate the overuse of the “national security” label, with the return of multipolarity and great power competition, driven in large part by the emergence of the People’s Republic of China, resurgence of Putin’s Russia, and a host of other emerging powers across the globe.

America isn’t alone in facing the implications of the ebbs and flows of geopolitics and the impact of our rapidly developing multipolar world, with Australia particularly confronted by these challenges given many of this century’s major powers call the Indo-Pacific home.

Drezner highlighted this, saying, “Problems in world politics rarely die; at best, they tend to ebb very slowly. Newer crises command urgent attention. Issues on the backburner, if not addressed, inevitably migrate to the top of the queue.”

If everything is a priority, nothing is

Bringing us to the true challenge Australia and the United States face, given the increasing propensity for both Australian and American policymakers to utilise the “national security” label to stamp authority and implication of priority for a myriad of challenges.

For Drezner, this presents major challenges, namely, he stated, “But if everything is defined as national security, nothing is a national security priority. Without a more considered discussion among policymakers about what is and what is not a matter of national security, Washington risks spreading its resources too thin across too broad an array of issues.”

Highlighting the myriad of challenges that now face Australia, the US and its allies, particularly given the rise of “grey zone” warfare and the increasingly convoluted nature of modern great power competition, Drezner added, “For the United States, any malevolent transnational threat or rising power that directly challenges the sovereignty or survival of the United States constitutes a valid national security concern.

“Powerful foreign militaries obviously impinge on national security, but other threats do, as well. Ports, energy plants, and other vulnerable economic infrastructure can pose national security concerns; so can climate change, by, for example, threatening the economies of major coastal cities such as Miami and New York. Yet there are also important issues of public policy that fall outside these parameters. No matter how loudly some Americans yell about them, neither the promotion of transgender rights nor the banning of critical race theory is a matter of national security,” he stated further.

Perhaps, most pointedly, Drezner later explained, “The problem is that by ceaselessly accumulating such paramount concerns, the executive branch has made the concept [of national security] increasingly meaningless.”

As with the old saying, “If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority", the over-utilisation and overuse of the “national security” label ultimately serves to weaken our national security, not strengthen it, despite refutations to the opposite.

Drezner stated, “The more issues that are placed on the national security docket, the harder it may be for policymakers to focus on those that matter most ... The tendency of recent administrations to declare issue after issue a matter of national security, however, makes it easy for a multitude of potential threats to obscure the most imminent danger.”

Final thoughts

Despite the rhetoric and lofty ambition highlighted by both sides of the political debate, declining economic opportunity, coupled with the rapidly deteriorating global and regional balance of power and the increased politicisation of every aspect of contemporary life, only serves to exacerbate the very reality of disconnection, apathy, and helplessness felt by many Australians.

This attitude is only serving to be compounded and creates a growing sentiment that we are speeding towards a predestined outcome, thus disempowering the Australian people and, to a lesser extent, policymakers as we futilely confront seemingly insurmountable challenges with little to no benefit and at a high-risk/reward calculation.

Taking into account the costs and implications, it is therefore easy to understand why so many Australians, both in the general public and within our decision-making circles, seem to have checked out and are quite happy to allow the nation to continue to limp along in mediocrity because, well, it is easier than having lofty ambitions.

If both Australian policymakers and the Australian public don’t snap out of the comforting security blanket that is the belief in the “End of History”, the nation will continue to rapidly face an uncomfortable and increasingly dangerous new reality, where we truly are no longer the masters of our own destiny.

All of this combines to form a rather confronting and disconcerting outcome for our long-term national security and one that requires remedying immediately if Australia is to be positioned to capitalise on the truly epoch-defining industrial, economic, political, and strategic shifts currently underway across the globe.

After all, how can we ask and reasonably expect Australians, particularly young Australians, to put the national interest ahead of their own when the nation doesn’t seem to account for their own interests, particularly when taken to the end of its logical extension, the national interest is at its core, the individual’s interest?

Responding to the challenges arrayed won’t be easy and it will require the whole-of-nation effort to put its shoulder behind the effort, but if we can engage the Australian public and industry early and bring them along, I promise it will be worth it in the long run.

Because if we don’t, when it comes to paying the bill, the cost will be too devastating to comprehend.

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..