Showing posts with label Munich Security Conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Munich Security Conference. Show all posts

Friday, 23 February 2024

Are we getting closer to a big war?

The world smells dangerously like gunpowder 

Victor Angelo


The Munich Security Conference, an annual event now celebrating its 60th edition, begins today and runs until Sunday. As has become customary, it is a high-level meeting. This time, it will feature the participation of around 50 Heads of State and Government, another hundred ministers and a good number of leaders of international organizations, academics, thinkers and journalists of international importance.

The report that serves as the basis for this year's conference makes a diagnosis of the main ongoing conflicts and, in summary, suggests two conclusions. First, geopolitical competition continues to worsen, now reaching a level of intensity and complexity unprecedented since the creation of the United Nations. Second, the reestablishment of international cooperation must be seen as an absolute priority. Only in this way will it be possible to resolve the most dangerous challenges, which in reality know no borders and have an impact that cannot be ignored. It is a positive recommendation, in a report that is, in essence, pessimistic.

When reflecting on 2024, the rapporteurs particularly draw attention to the growing risks in four regions of the globe. We are told that the international scene has more fires than firefighters, that there is an accumulation of serious crises to be resolved and an international system that is no longer respected. It's a clear question: instead of all of us winning, would we all rather lose?

One of these regions is Eastern Europe. The geopolitical vision that prevails in the Kremlin is a threat that must be taken seriously. It consists of increasing arrogance and aggressiveness, based on ancient practices of first inventing conflicts with neighbors seen as rivals, and then trying to resolve them with swordplay. My reading of this region is familiar: either Russia withdraws and recognizes the sovereignty of Ukraine, or what is now happening in that country will end up spreading to others in the region. A crisis of this kind would bring immense problems to the unity of NATO and the major countries of the Western world. In democratic contexts, these alliances are more fragile than they might seem.

In the Middle East, that's a powder keg. It is a region of great fractures, where xenophobia and the absurdity of decisions taken in the 20th century are added to cultural and religious hatred, and a multiplicity of borders that do not respect historical identities and give way to nations without homogeneity and without resources, to in addition to oil and gas.

What is conventionally called the Indo-Pacific is another problematic area. It demands increasing attention, as it could be the theater of a major conflict surrounding the issue of Taiwan and beyond. Xi Jinping has just been reappointed for the third time as leader of the single party and as President of China, for new five-year terms. At the end of these terms, he will be 74 years old and no one knows if the conditions will exist for him to be re-elected again. Now, in my opinion, Xi wants to go down in history as the leader who managed to subdue the Taiwanese rebellion. If that is indeed his ultimate ambition, it is very likely that military action against Taiwan will take place before 2027. And if Trump is in the White House, distracted by pursuing his internal adversaries, starting with the Biden family, Xi could conclude that The time has come to step forward and inscribe your name at the top of the list of heroes of communist China.

The Sahel forms the fourth region of deep insecurity. At the moment, the list of absolutely unsafe countries includes Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger. It must also include Sudan, which is plunged into a merciless civil war and a humanitarian crisis of unimaginable proportions. But Sudan has been excluded from media headlines in an unacceptable way. The crises in the Sahel have all the conditions to spread, as is already happening on a large scale in Nigeria and now in Senegal, due to the political confusion created by the president. In the same Senegal that had always been considered an example of stability and democracy.

Three other major themes are also discussed in this year's report: the growing disparities and economic rivalries between different blocs around the world, including with regard to what could happen with the development of the BRICS; the consequences of climate change on international relations, including migration; and the impact of the technological and digital revolution.

The report describes a world evolving in a worrying direction. And it would be even worse if the spectre that roams the corridors of Munich, silently, were re-elected in November, as no one likes to talk about evil spirits. But November is still a long way away and until then anything can happen.


A.I: translation of my opinion text published on 16 February 2024 in the Lisbon daily newspaper Diário de Notícias. 

Friday, 14 February 2020

The 2020 Munich Security Conference is not just about the West


Today started the 2020 edition of the Munich Security Conference (MSC). This is an important annual event, that brings together a good number of decision-makers in the fields of diplomacy and international security. It is necessary to pay attention to what is said at the conference, even if the topics that are discussed reflect a lot the German views and concerns on international instability.

This year the key topic is about a strange word that only a German mind could have invented: "Westlessness". For the organisers, this new concept captures two major fears. One is related to the perceived growing uncertainty about the future of the Western world. The other is about a retreating West, in the sense that our democracies are less and less present when it comes to addressing the key issues of the world.

I must confess I do not like the concept. I have written about the absurdity of still believing that we, the Europeans from the EU and the US, should be considered the centre of the world. It is the idea that our values are higher than those prevailing elsewhere. That’s old fashion thinking. Our values are only good if they strength our democratic institutions and keep people like the US President or the Hungarian Prime Minister within the bounds defined by the rule of law and the respect for minority opinions.

We live in a different world. There are now several centres of power, in different parts of the world. Diversity is the new feature. Regional interests are now very different from those the Europeans were used to. We recognise the new set of regional interests. But we expect every government, big or small, to follow without any ambiguity the human rights principles, as adopted by the UN, and to resolve any conflict through peaceful means. Basically, what this means is a return to the UN system, the reinforcement of its authority and the acceptance of the mechanisms that have been put in place during a good number of decades.


Sunday, 17 February 2019

No to a "post-human rights" society


In the context of this year’s Munich Security Conference, it has been said that we are living in a “post-human rights”.

In my opinion, that’s an unhelpful concept. It sends the wrong message. Human rights should remain the very basic and indispensable foundation of today’s politics. We might see all other conventions being challenged by different types of strongmen in power. That’s most worrisome. It’s as serious move towards the past. But, at least, human rights should remain as the last fortress, the last strong tower of values.

In the end, everything in politics and our daily lives is about respecting the dignity of everyone, man or woman, boy or girl. If we do not firmly stand for that, if we accept a “post-human rights” reality, even just as an intellectual frame of analysis, we can say goodbye to the moral and legal achievements and progress of the last 70 years or so. That’s not acceptable and it should not be taken as a “modern concept”.

Friday, 15 February 2019

Munich and the annual security debate


Once more, the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not on the agenda of this year’s Munich Security Conference. 

This annual conference started today and runs up to Sunday. It’s a key international meeting on security. 

This year, Syria and Ukraine are again on the menu, as it is the insecurity situation in the Sahel, the nuclear weapons issue and the security dimensions of climate change. The exclusion of the Palestinian crisis from the debates is deliberate, of course. For many, it’s too delicate a subject. For others, and I am among those, it’s a never-ending conflict. Better move on and deal with those that have a chance of being resolved.

Friday, 31 January 2014

Germany and the peacekeeping operations

Joachim Glauck, the German President, in his speech at the opening of the Munich Security Conference, expressed the view that his country should be more involved in multinational peacekeeping operations. 

Such position is most welcome.

Germany has been the noticeable absent in many of the key military deployments authorised by the UN. Besides Afghanistan and Kosovo, the Berlin leadership, particularly Angela Merkel, says automatically no to any suggestion their armed forces should be part and parcel of EU and UN operations. They have said no to Mali, to Central African Republic, just to mention recent examples. That´s not what one should expect of a key country like Germany. Being economically strong gives them the responsibility to be more engaged in world affairs.


Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Munich is far away from Africa

The 2014 Munich Security Conference (MSC) will open this Friday. With time, the MSC has become an important and very high profile annual event. If you are somebody in the area of international security, you better be there.

This year´s agenda has somehow surprised me. There is no session on Africa, not even on the Sahel. Cyber issues, energy, intelligence, the Middle East, in particular Syria, Central and Eastern Europe, with a special session on Kosovo, all that is on the table, during the three-day meeting. But Africa? Out of order…

How can we explain this omission?