General Impressions
This was my first time attending a security conference. The presence of political and media figures was impressive. The security effort (police, personal protection) and the number of uniformed personnel were rather unsettling. The conference felt too large for the Bayerischer Hof.
Thematic Focus
The conference’s motto was “Lose – lose?”. This reflects the very simple idea that there is globally only one cake of a defined size to be distributed. As soon as individual countries outside the Western Hemisphere claim a larger slice of the cake (Matthias Linnemann’s addition: larger than what the West had allocated to them), the distribution no longer works out. In the long run, all countries then lose. The MSC calls this a “loss-loss dynamic”. This aptly describes the Western understanding, but also the slowly emerging realization: How do we deal with the fact that the influence of Western industrialized nations will decline in the long term, while countries like China, India, Indonesia, and also the African continent will gain importance?
This topic shaped many events. The search for a “silver lining” was a recurring theme. In addition, the wars in Ukraine and Israel/Gaza were, of course, central. However, there were also various events on other hotspots, such as Haiti, Sahel/Sudan. The handling of the effects of climate change was also addressed.
What Struck Me
The conference was heavily dominated by one person who was not even present: Vladimir Putin. It is incredible how often his name was mentioned. It is hard to imagine, for example, the BRICS states hosting a security conference where Joe Biden’s name is constantly dropped.
In my opinion, it highlighted that NATO states are in a kind of panic mode regarding Ukraine and the resulting global power shifts. However, the answers to this are very limited: rearm, rearm, rearm.
Security derived exclusively from military strength remains the panacea. The fact that NATO has spent approximately three times as much money on armaments as China and Russia combined in recent years plays no role. $1.3 trillion spent by NATO in 2023 alone has neither ended nor prevented any war. Why diplomacy when we can also shoot? “War-readiness” in all areas without exception is the order of the day. Dissent is unwelcome.
There were even calls for European nuclear weapons and further militarization of space. I did not hear any critical or at least moderating voices on this.
What Struck Me Very Positively
There was controversial discussion. Dissenting opinions (where they existed) were permitted. I experienced substantively good discussions on the war in Israel/Gaza. The discussion with the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and their positions on the war in Gaza was very interesting. The perspective of the Prime Minister of Palestine, Mohammed Shtayyeh, and the Jordanian Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, was also worth hearing. The organization “Women Wage Peace,” in which Israeli and Palestinian women jointly advocate for peace, was allowed to make a statement and campaign for an end to the conflict. This was a very positive signal from the MSC organizers. Many of these speeches and discussion contributions can be accessed on the website of the Munich Security Conference -> securityconference.org. Highly recommended!
Even if the contributions from the USA, the EU, and, as expected, Germany were not truly substantial or even helpful with regard to the people in Ukraine or Israel/Gaza, at least concerning Israel, significantly more critical positions on the Israeli military activities are now being heard from Western politicians.
My Personal Conclusion
The Security Conference is not a peace conference. Security here does not necessarily mean the security of “ordinary people.” It is about the military safeguarding of the Western business model. However, this business model will not function permanently in view of the emerging states outside the Western Hemisphere. The West’s reaction to this, however, is not dialogue, but confrontation. And more confrontation requires more weapons. The EU has decided to go along with this path and to benefit from the fact that the USA will sooner or later lose its position as a hegemonic power. Whether this will succeed is uncertain. Doubts are appropriate. The path there will certainly be very expensive and dangerous for the EU.
If the MSC were not so strongly aligned with the USA and NATO, it could play a serious moderating role, including China and Russia. What a headline it would be if a ceasefire in Ukraine or Gaza had been negotiated on the sidelines of the MSC. However, in my impression, the MSC organizers lack the vision for this. And probably also the courage.