The Munich Security Conference (MSC) began in 1983 as an independent annual forum between European (NATO) policymakers and their American counterparts for constructive dialogue pertaining to issues of transatlantic peace and security. Over the years, in an effort to remain relevant, the conference has moved from being just a ‘family meeting’ for the ‘like-minded West’, to include nations that are major players in the constantly evolving international security and development landscape, along with leaders from a variety of sectors including business, technology, finance, human rights and civil society.
This year was no different. Last weekend, lawmakers and experts from across the world gathered at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof in Munich for the 56th iteration of the Munich Security Conference to discuss the most pressing challenges to international security. However, given the ongoing social and political turmoil on both sides of the Atlantic — with Trump’s impeachment, heightened US-Iran tensions, disagreements about NATO defence spending, and an unravelling Brexit — rather than being a vehicle for coordinated policy action, the conference highlighted growing rifts within the Western bloc. This was summarized aptly by the theme of the three-day event, which was termed “Westlessness.” The Germans defined it as a “widespread feeling of uneasiness and restlessness in the face of increasing uncertainty about the enduring purpose of the West.”
The theme provided a unique opportunity for Western leaders to take stock of the shifting global balance of power, and reflect on the shared concerns and commitments of the continent. However, given that the idea of a declining West was seen as too exaggerated by many in the room — or perhaps it triggered too much of an existential crisis for these traditionally powerful nations — there seemed to be little appetite for introspection and new thinking to tackle emerging issues. Instead, the conference served as a platform for historically dominant Western countries, such as the United States to downplay the changes in international power dynamics while villainizing emerging powers such as China, which were deemed threatening to the liberal international order.
The United States needs a strong defence strategy, with leaders increasingly criticizing its flaky attitude towards alliances and international commitments (think Iran, Kurds in Syria, JCPOA, NATO and the Paris Agreement, to name just a few). German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Foreign Minister Heiko Maas delivered striking and impassioned statements lamenting the lack of global leadership by the US, which has created geo-strategic vacuums that are being filled by countries who do not share the same values as Europe. In the absence of such guidance, French President Emmanuel Macron asserted the necessity of a robust European security policy (that could consider opening dialogue with Russia, sans the US) which could pave the way for greater European sovereignty, and decreased reliance on the United States for security guarantees.
Unsurprisingly, this made America visibly nervous, because a more independent Europe could mean the former’s influence over its traditional allies attenuating over time. Though formulating such policies and mechanisms in the presence of critical fractures and tensions within the European Union — with Britain’s exit, rule of law concerns in Poland and Hungary, and domestic leadership woes in post-Merkel Germany - will take significant amount time and effort, the mere thought of a Europe straying away from the US was enough for America to ramp up its efforts to bridge the gap between Washington and Berlin/Paris.
In true Trumpian fashion, the United States ignored and actually denied any strain in the transatlantic relationship, by asserting that the West was “winning… and winning together.” It is also interesting to note that this comes just a week after President Trump, at a White House business session with American governors spoke about being unfairly and “badly treated” by the European Union. It does not come as a surprise then, that those watching this speech, were not entirely sold on the optimism, or convinced of this so-called “joint victory”, especially with rising uncertainties about what this alliance truly represents. The United States, however, took every step possible to unify the two sides together against a common threat, focusing on the rise of China as an existential threat to the world order.
Citing Huawei and 5G as a “textbook example of China's strategy to destabilise and to dominate”, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper urged Europe to take seriously the magnitude of the threat. Other members of the US delegation, which included Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not shy away from bluntly asking Europe to choose between the two global systems, cautioning that working with Huawei was like “choosing autocracy over democracy on the information highway.” This, however, puts the bloc in a difficult position between the two powers, as succumbing to US bullying could infuriate China, potentially resulting in economic retaliation from Beijing. While Europe may be willing to take the challenges posed by China’s relentless rise seriously, it seems unlikely that it will do so under the framing and wing of the Americans.
This suggests that going forward. the United States will have to reevaluate its approach to engage Europe constructively on China. With the US showing no particular signs of being responsible enough (for itself and its allies) to effectively navigate the challenges of US-China competition, Europeans will not be convinced to get on board by simply relying on Cold War nostalgia and replacing the Soviet Union with the China of the 21st century. There exists a serious trust deficit between the two regions that require a more nuanced and sophisticated approach. At a time when America’s role and authority in the international system are seriously being questioned given its harsh deviation to isolationist rhetoric, US leaders must realize that the onus to demonstrate capability and willingness to work in partnership with allies - old and new - lies solely in their hands.
The West has never been a monolithic concept, but rather an amalgam of various cultures and traditions, which have changed over time. The MSC 2020, through the concept of “Westlessness”, attempted to capture the changing tides in the western bloc; in an attempt to force leaders to question their own position and relevance in the contemporary world. It is imperative for the United States as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world and harbinger of peace to acknowledge this shift and to truly analyze whether the current configuration of the West that it is so accustomed to will be enough to respond to the changing global order. This will be crucial for America to retain its standing as a rational global actor and leader because, in the absence of true reform, the current US foreign policy trajectory will only further alienate the United States from the Western bloc jeopardizing not only its sphere of influence, but also its power projection capabilities, and the economic and security benefits associated with it.
Reference List:
Baer, Dan (February 19, 2020) “Munich Report: Who and What Was and Wasn’t at the Munich Security Conference” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from: https://carnegieendowment.org/2020/02/19/munich-report-who-and-what-was-and-wasn-t-at-munich-security-conference-pub-81109
Baker, Sinéad (February 18, 2020) “The US was left alone and humiliated on the world stage as European allies collectively dunked on Trump's 'America First' policy at a major security conference” Business Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/the-us-was-left-alone-and-humiliated-on-the-world-stage-as-european-allies-collectively-dunked-on-trumps-america-first-policy-at-a-major-security-conference/articleshow/74193833.cms
Barkin, Noah (February 16, 2020) “The U.S. and Europe Are Speaking a Different Language on China” Foreign Policy. Retrieved from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/16/the-u-s-and-europe-are-speaking-a-different-language-on-china/
Hein Matthias von (February 16, 2020) “Opinion: Munich Security Conference reveals frayed trans-Atlantic ties” DW News. Retrieved from: https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-munich-security-conference-reveals-frayed-trans-atlantic-ties/a-52399570
Knight, Ben (February 15, 2020) “Munich Security Conference: France's Macron envisions new era of European strength.” DW News. Retrieved from: https://www.dw.com/en/munich-security-conference-frances-macron-envisions-new-era-of-european-strength/a-52389586
Munich Security Conference (2020) “Munich Security Report 2020” Retrieved from: https://securityconference.org/assets/user_upload/MunichSecurityReport2020.pdf
Pai, Nitin (February 18, 2020) “No need to panic. ‘Westlessness’ just means world without West’s dominance, not its ideas” The Print. Retrieved from: https://theprint.in/opinion/no-need-to-panic-westlessness-just-means-world-without-wests-dominance-not-its-ideas/366997/
Sloat, Amanda (February 18, 2020) “Dispatch from Munich: Seeking a saviour in a time of Westlessness” The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/02/18/dispatch-from-munich-seeking-a-savior-in-a-time-of-westlessness/
Soesanto, Stefan (April 2016) “NATO after America” The National Interest. Retrieved from: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/nato-after-america-15702
Wintour, Patrick (February 16, 2020) “' Westlessness': is the west really in a state of peril?” The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/16/westlessness-is-the-west-really-in-a-state-of-peril
Image Source: European Council on Foreign Relations