The Munich Security Conference (MSC) is an annual meeting that brings together nearly five hundred key players in foreign policy, international security and defence issues. It is attended by dozens of heads of state and government worldwide, ministers of defence and foreign affairs, diplomats, military representatives, business leaders, experts and non-governmental organizations. It was launched in 1963 by former German military officer Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist to define the security policies of the United States and its allies. With the end of the Cold War, it became the main forum on the subject.
The 59th Conference was held from 17-19 February. While several burning global issues were discussed – from economic security to climate, environmental and food security – most of the debates focused on the war in Ukraine and from a national and international security perspective limited to defence doctrines.
In a speech marking the first anniversary of the invasion, the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Volodymyr Zelensky, demanded “speed in the delivery of weapons”, and Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron encouraged arms production. Likewise, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, stated that “less applause and more arms supplies” were needed. He advocated the European Peace Facility as a short-term response, “which can commit its resources to provide ammunition to Ukraine quickly.” In the medium term, Borrell said, the solution lies in “greatly increasing the capacity of our defence industry.”
Similarly, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for a joint effort to increase ammunition production. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken initiated a discussion on incentives to keep military production lines open.
In closing remarks, this year’s MSC chair, Christoph Heusgen, concluded that the event had demonstrated “strong transatlantic solidarity” and said that Europe in general, and Germany in particular, needed an unquestionable increase on defence spending to be able to better respond to new challenges.
Although the conference slogan was “peace through dialogue,” paradoxically, diplomatic mechanisms have disappeared from the lexicon and priorities. Rearmament and the promotion of the military-industrial complex have been the decisive and common elements of the speeches. However, what kind of peace are we thinking of if war is dehumanized? Where are the lessons learned from other conflicts? What security are we talking about when those who shoot the guns and those who are shot at are left out of the picture? How can we envision the limits and new, more favourable scenarios if the arms race is, by nature, abusive and blinding?
The MSC has once again emphasized the state’s security and not the people’s security. The meeting was – yet again – a key event for the arms industry lobbies. Its main outcome was a litany of justifications for NATO’s arms policy and the outline of a common strategy against Russia and China. The lack of security and aid – other than military – for civilians in eastern Ukraine or the Middle East betrays Europe’s questionable commitment to its values or its unwillingness to redefine them.
For this reason, coinciding with the gathering, thousands of people participated in a pacifist march through the centre of Munich over the weekend, calling for an end to rearmament and peace in Ukraine through dialogue and not through military means.
It is also worth highlighting that, despite being in the minority, some conference participants defended the urgency of avoiding a militarized vision. For example, the Vice President of Colombia, Francia Márquez, called world leaders to implement “a new international order that puts life at the centre.” Márquez argued that discussing who wins and who loses in a war does not solve anything. “In a war, humanity loses. We need to implement a demilitarized vision of cooperation because true security is not achieved with weapons.” Therefore, in defence of a right to security (or of a security of rights?), we must ask ourselves: Do we want people at the service of states, or states at the service of people?
Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson stated during a panel discussion that, in his view, Europe already had a security architecture: “It makes more sense to talk about using it than changing it,” he added. However, with intensifying competition between the major powers, rising geopolitical tensions and growing dissatisfaction with the order based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it should be a universal humanitarian imperative to ban nuclear weapons and pursue progressive disarmament. Far from focusing diplomatic efforts on achieving this goal, the meeting leaves more questions than answers about a solution to this war and the architecture of a real collective and common security that would, in turn, prevent the eruption or escalation of new crises and armed conflicts. This false European security will remain elusive without a renewed and reformed order. We must commit ourselves to strategies of peace, not to war games. And to implement them on the ground, not behind closed doors.