Security issues — ranging from the sustained war in Ukraine, Israel’s onslaught against the Palestinians of Gaza, growing Sino-American schism over Taiwan and Donald Trump’s assertion to withdraw US support to NATO unless its members meet financial obligations — reflect growing challenges to the already fragile world order which the Munch Security Conference (MSC) February 16-18 tried to address.
Year 1963 was a landmark in global politics because of three major events: the signing of partial test ban treaty; signing of Franco-German treaty of peace and cooperation; and the launch of Munich security dialogue.
MSC is a yearly event where hundreds of delegates primarily from the West and developing countries participate to do brainstorming on security challenges facing the world and strategies for dealing with growing security predicament like global warming, climate change, and food and energy crisis emanating from the Russia-Ukraine war since February 2022.
In the realm of international diplomacy, MSC 2024 focused on the widening of the US-Russia polarisation over Ukraine and the growing security predicament in the Middle East. Whereas, “the Munich Security Report 2024 explores the lose-lose dynamics that are spurred if ever more governments prioritize relative payoffs rather than engage in positive-sum cooperation and invest in an international order that, despite its obvious flaws, can still help grow the proverbial pie for the benefit of all.”
MSC 2024, dominated by the transatlantic alliance, also provided space to Priyanka Chaturvedi, Deputy Leader of the Shiv Sena Party, Parliament of India who participated in a panel discussion on February 18 titled ‘Figuring out relationship goals: the EU and its partners’. Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina was also on the list of MSC participants. A representative from India’s RAW also participated in the event. As the world’s 5th largest economy, India’s role in MSC is noticeable.
US Vice President Kamala Harris, in her speech, offered “a broad defense of the Biden administration’s approach to global challenges, especially in leading international support for Ukraine in its war with Russia”. She asserted that the US “would not back down on supporting democracy and multilateralism as well defending international rules and norms from attempts to subvert them.” Without mentioning Trump, Kamala argued, “Imagine if America turned our back on Ukraine and abandoned our NATO allies and abandoned our treaty commitments. Imagine if we went easy on [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, let alone encouraged him.” US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, during a panel discussion, argued that “virtually every Arab country now genuinely wants to integrate Israel into the region to normalize relations...to provide security commitments and assurances so that Israel can feel more safe and there’s also, I think the imperative, that’s more urgent than ever, to proceed to a Palestinian state that also ensures the security of Israel.” But, he was unable to condemn Israeli policy of genocide as confirmed by the ICJ ruling at The Hague.
Amidst Trump’s dangerous assertion that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO if the latter failed to meet its financial obligation, the environment at MSC was pessimistic with a perception that if Trump returned to power, what the shape of European security would be. That fear was addressed by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in the concluding phase of MSC. He warned that the “world has become more dangerous but that NATO has become stronger.” He said the alliance never takes peace for granted, but that there was no imminent military threat to any NATO ally.
One needs to critically assess 60th event of MSC from three angles.
First, the conference reflected pre-eminence of the West in global order amidst differences within the alliance on the Ukraine conflict and on dealing with Russia. Participation from the Third World was marginal despite the fact that 90% of inter- and intra-state conflicts happen in developing countries. If NATO is able to provide $20 billion worth of assistance to deal with the Ukraine conflict since its outbreak in February 2022 and the US has awarded $10 billion worth of military assistance to Israel since the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza in October 2023, there was no coherent strategy on the part of the West to deal with the critical issues facing the Third World in terms of Israeli genocide in Gaza, debt burden, global warming, climate change, and surge in food and fuel prices. Armed conflicts, particularly in Africa and parts of Asia which questions stability of world order, were unable to attract the West’s attention.
Second, MSC was unable to address other critical issues like the rising tide of Islamophobia which is termed a major human security challenge in the West. The surge of anti-migration and anti-Muslim groups in Europe and the US did not either come up for a major debate at MSC. A mere statement by the NATO Secretary General that “the world has become a dangerous place” is not enough. What is required of the West is to formulate a policy on how to neutralise the forces of hate and chauvinism which deepen insecurity among millions of migrants.
And third, MSC failed to focus on how China and Russia reject preeminence of the US-led world order. The marginal role of Chinese representative at MSC and the exclusion of Russia from the forum show that the West is unwilling to redeem realist paradigm of the world order which is now multipolar instead of unipolar.
While hundreds of senior decision-makers from several countries participated in MSC 2024, brainstorming sessions in the form of panel discussions provided a useful opportunity to rethink fault-lines in the prevailing world order and to a seek win-win situation on critical issues, the outcome of the conference was similar to earlier annual events. When the NATO Secretary General warned about a ‘dangerous world’, he as well as other participants were unable to come up with path-breaking solutions to regional and global security predicament based on clear vision and foresight. The world doesn’t end in Ukraine but it seems MSC lacked focus on addressing the human security issues that plague most of the Third World countries in economic, governance and environmental areas. At the same time, MSC lacked the vision for a stable and peaceful world order.
Pakistan’s absence from MSC reflects the country’s marginal standing in a discourse on global and regional security matters. As the world’s fifth largest country in terms of population and the only nuclear state in the Muslim world, Pakistan must put its house in order so as to have its standing at the global level recognised.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 28th, 2024.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (1)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ