In Munich, world leaders attempt dialogue on shaky foundations

Impressions from a 'Public Square' meeting. Russia Reimagined: Visions for a democratic future. MSC/Michael Kuhlmann

International leaders gathered in Germany this weekend for the Munich Security Conference to try and find ways to defuse global crises. But they found little consensus on exactly how to go about doing this. For neutral countries like Switzerland, room for manoeuvre remains limited.

The world’s most important security conference turned 60 this year. Yet few found any reason to celebrate. With wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, plus dozens of armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters, the current state of the world holds potential for escalating tensions and even bigger crises.

Against this backdrop, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) organisers invited delegates to engage in something that’s been neglected in recent years: dialogue.

“Peace through dialogue” was this year’s theme, chosen in stark contrast to the massive police presence in the centre of the southern German city: 5,000 officers were on hand to ensure the safety of participants. These included the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, probably one of the world’s best-protected leaders today.

This image reflects the European zeitgeist. Re-armament is in full swing, in keeping with the saying, “If you want peace, prepare for war”. The mood in the West, according to the MSC, has grown more pessimistic, yet there is still potential for escalation worldwide. The rules-based world order – the epitome of political dialogue – has been challenged since before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago.

Where Munich sees potential for escalation

The Munich Security Conference identified “relative-gains thinking” as a dangerous global development that can only end in a zero-sum game in which everyone loses. The Munich Security Report 2024External link points to the following situations where potential for escalation exists:

– Russia’s imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe, which have already triggered war in Ukraine;

– An escalation of violence in the Indo-Pacific region, where China is increasingly pursuing its maritime claims by flexing its military muscles;

– Growing instability in the Sahel region, where several military coups took place in the last year;

– The fragmentation of globalisation, putting at risk economically weaker states in particular;

– Global action on climate change, which risks falling victim to geopolitical tensions;

– Technological rivalries over semi-conductors and artificial intelligence, which could lead to a fragmentation of the sector.

Who was not in Munich?

But can dialogue take place when key actors are absent? Russia, Iran and North Korea – in a way, the new “axis of evil”, at least as seen by the West – were explicitly kept off the invitation list. This view, though, is by no means universal. The former Kenyan defence and foreign minister, Raychelle Omamo, for instance, made it clear during a panel discussion on Russia’s role in Africa that any country interacting with African states on an equal footing would be considered a friend.

A few hundred metres from the Hotel Bayrischer Hof, where the MSC traditionally takes place, demonstrators gathered on the second day of the three-day summit to oppose what they called the “NATO security conference” – a twist to the name, but not an entirely incorrect one. The war in Ukraine was central to the MSC, not least because there is a growing struggle in the West to ensure support for Ukraine, and the potential of a return to the White House by Donald Trump threatens to destabilise Western solidarity.

Republican Senator Pete Ricketts gave participants an indication of what may be coming when he explained his party’s isolationist tendencies: sealing the US border with Mexico is more important than giving support to Ukraine.

This year marks the 75^th anniversary of the NATO military alliance, which has been given a new lease of life by the war in Ukraine. But where the alliance goes from here remains unclear. While the initial sense of unity that erupted after Russia’s invasion is waning, NATO continues to reinforce itself with increases in members’ defence budgets and closer ties with friendly countries in Europe and beyond.

People demonstrated on the streets of Munich in support of Ukraine. KEYSTONE

Neutrality as a sideshow

In times of confrontation, neutral countries have always found themselves under pressure. They see their role as one of mediation but are often quickly confronted with accusations of opportunism.

The lack of priority given to neutrality in Munich was evident in the only agenda item dedicated to the topic and featuring delegates from Ireland, Austria, Malta and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

During talks, they reaffirmed some of the key guiding principles of their neutrality: to withstand the pressure posed by current conflicts and explore ways to mediate between the parties involved. The main message was that being useful was more important than being liked.

But it was also clear that the neutral countries of Europe by and large want closer ties with NATO. Markus Mäder, the Swiss secretary of state for security policy, who was present in Munich, told SWI swissinfo.ch there is a natural interest in defence cooperation.

What’s Switzerland up to?

In contrast to most other European countries, Switzerland did not send a minister to Munich, a decision that was criticised at home. Bern was repeatedly accused of being a free-rider. This brings to mind an earlier comment by the US ambassador to Switzerland, Scott Miller: the Alpine country is the hole in the NATO donut benefitting disproportionately from the defence ring around it provided by the alliance.

The Swiss want to hold a Ukraine peace conference this year but so far few have committed to be there, including non-Western countries, who see the meeting as a Western affair and are trying to distance themselves from it. Russia has repeatedly said that it does not consider Switzerland to be a reliable mediator, as it gave up its neutrality when it adopted sanctions against Moscow.

Switzerland may not have been present at a high level in Munich to promote its peace conference, but Zelensky referred to it in his speech. At the conference, he said the world could decide how it wanted to restore the rules-based order. Switzerland will have been pleased to hear this, but whether anyone else sees it this way is questionable.

Volodymyr Zelensky gave the most important speech at the security conference. KEYSTONE

The high-level Munich summit showed that the pre-conditions for dialogue to take place over the current crises are hardly a given. The Middle East is a case in point. For three days participants talked about the ongoing war between Hamas and Israel, but no concrete results were achieved. A press conference featuring Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh – the last one scheduled at the MSC – was cancelled.

Edited by Mark Livingston. Adapted from German by Geraldine Wong Sak Hoi