Munich Security Conference (MSC) failed to recognise the Core Global Issues
Munich Security Conference (MSC) failed to recognise the Core Global Issues
By:
Vijay Sardana
IIMA Alumnus, Techno-legal & IPR Expert
Advocate, Supreme Court of India & National Green Tribunal
The root cause of the global security crisis is the double standards of those in power on the international stage and capturing key committees of the UN and other international bodies like WTO and World bank and not keen to ensure reform even after 80 years.
At MSC, global leaders are debating different visions for the future international order, which are often abstract and theoretical. Unfortunately, the whole forum has become a platform to debate Russia and China in the new world order. The western powers are still unable to digest the fact that many more countries are better equipped to handle the global crisis because they are bigger democracies and have better experience managing human and environmental crises.
Clash of competing visions: The whole focus of the world is on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The narrative is that he has made the clash of competing visions a brutal and deathly reality by invading Ukraine, but nowhere is it debated how to address the concerns of Russia and its security concerns due to the expansion of NATO.
The western world wants everyone to accept their double standard. The argument is that the world’s liberal democracies are awakening to the challenges posed by autocratic revisionists and have taken the first important steps to push back. For liberal-democratic principles to prevail over the autocratic variants, the expectation is that democracies must revamp their vision of a desirable international order. The fact is that the largest democracy in the world, i.e., India, is still out of the UN Security Council, but the same autocratic regimes are part of the UN Security Council, against which Western powers are willing to stand. Is it sensible for the western powers to talk about democracy when they cannot even reform the UN Security Council to include the world's largest democracy to promote democratic values? Action speaks louder than words.
The expectation of the western powers is that a re-envisioned liberal, rules-based international order is needed to strengthen democratic resilience in an era of fierce systemic competition with autocratic regimes. But to make this vision more attractive among the wider international community and help it win the contest for the future international order, democracies must also take into account legitimate criticism and concerns among the wider international community, but unless the western world is willing to accept the growing power of Asia, this will not happen. The western world will continue to be treated as a selfish and self-serving lobby by the rest of the world.
Why reform is denied when the credibility of the UN system is low? The argument is that, with its brutal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state (Ukraine), Russia has also mounted an attack against the foundational principles of the post–World War II order. The attempt by an authoritarian power to eliminate democracy as a sovereign nation-state is not the only sign, however, that autocratic revisionism is intensifying. China’s tacit support for Russia’s war, its military posturing to assert its own sphere of influence in East Asia, and its comprehensive efforts to promote an autocratic alternative to the liberal, rules-based international order epitomise the broader autocratic challenge. This wishlist is okay, but the fact is that the post-World War II order is denominated and captured by western powers and lacks the inclusion of wider global representatives at key decision-making positions. All institutions created after World War -II like the UN, World Bank, and WTO failed to address the concerns of the largest developing and under-developed world. The manipulated global ranking and parameters only add to the crises, including climate change and power struggles among the countries.
The main fault line in global politics is between western democracies and regimes; those who do not agree with the western world are also called "dictators" or "authoritarians" by western-funded NGOs. However, the relevance of democracy–autocracy cleavage varies across policy fields. Whether a country is a democracy or not is clearly not the only factor that shapes the contest for the future international order.
Western world losing credibility is a Global Concern: The mere fact that many governments from Africa, Latin America, and Asia have not been willing to speak up against Russia’s aggression shows that the western world cannot be trusted for its words because it is not keen to reform either the UN or the WTO. There is very deep dissatisfaction with the existing international norms and institutions, and simply defending the status quo is not enough to effectively push back against autocratic revisionists. That is why today's majority of developing and underdeveloped economies are not openly against powerful autocrats because the western world is unreliable and self-centred.
Another issue in the debate is human rights. Human rights as defined by the western powers very often disregard local social values and cultural systems. Every ancient society has value systems, but in the name of human rights, if these systems are undermined, this will be respected. To date, the western world is unable to define the term "terrorism," the biggest concern in human rights. This clearly shows that the western world does not understand the global concern and wants to impose its own norms for its own political agenda on others in the name of human rights. Certainly influenced by the experience of Western colonialism and imperialism, many non-Western democracies show greater concern for sovereignty and non-interference than their Western counterparts and are thus reluctant to support robust action in the name of human rights.
Global influence is projected by the control over the global infrastructure. Global infrastructures have likewise become an important site of geopolitical competition. Democratic and autocratic camps openly compete to imbue physical and digital infrastructures with their governance visions. In the digital realm, China is spearheading a group of autocratic states intent on promoting their techno-authoritarian vision, while the transatlantic partners are only gradually converging on a shared vision of open digital infrastructure. The whole agenda of restricted access to vital technology by western powers adds more concern in the non-western world and pushes them close to China and India.
Another big agenda item is regarding the global trade infrastructure, where the fault lines are messier. Many governments are increasingly viewing interdependencies as both vulnerabilities and conduits for coercion. COVID-19 and denying vaccines to the developing world are live examples of exploitation by the western world. As a result, weaponization of trade links abounds, while all major powers, including the western world, are increasingly resorting to protectionism. A new vision for global trade infrastructure that serves mutual prosperity while limiting vulnerabilities is not yet in sight because there is no desire to reform defective WTO agreements.
Development cooperation (with hidden political motives) has not been spared from systemic competition either. Health and food security, as well as climate finance, have become key policy fields where competing narratives of a desirable development order are playing out. Many development cooperation fund rent-seeking NGOs which are disturbing the local political agendas on behalf of their donors. As a result, Beijing is promoting its own model of development cooperation, supposedly free from conditionalities, as a distinct alternative to the US and European models, which emphasise the importance of democracy, good governance, free markets, accountability, and transparency. While China’s growing engagement falls on fertile ground in many developing countries, this is often less a matter of conviction than a lack of alternatives and deep grievances with the existing development order that has not yielded sufficient benefits.
The new energy order increasingly reflects geopolitical considerations rather than market logic. Russia’s autocratic revisionism and its weaponization of fossil fuel exports have made energy dependency on autocratic great powers a major concern for Western liberal democracies. They now need to ensure that their efforts to wean themselves off Russian oil and gas do not simultaneously further increase their dependence on other autocracies, including China (for critical raw materials) and Qatar (for gas). Revisionist autocracies present various challenges to the nuclear order and strategic stability. As long as an alternate source of energy is expensive, denied by IPR, and lacks funds, the dependency on energy suppliers will remain.
Most importantly, Russian threats to use nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine have raised concerns around the globe. China has significantly invested in additional nuclear capabilities without increasing transparency. And North Korea and Iran present their own challenges to the nuclear order. It is shocking to see that, instead of finding a solution to the Ukraine conflict, western powers are keen to fund and provide military support to Ukraine. No attempt is made to address the concerns of Russia and to identify the middle ground by addressing the concerns of both, i.e., Ukraine and Russia. the selective approach towards weaponizing itself and denying the legitimate concerns of democratic countries like India. This raises doubt about the intentions of the western powers.
Given the deteriorating security environment, democratic countries with nuclear capabilities have reiterated their commitment to nuclear deterrence, while the prospects for arms control initiatives have dimmed. Disappointment with the lack of disarmament, in turn, has led to frustration in many parts of the world, including in the "Global South," where many countries envisage a different kind of nuclear order. World leaders may not agree on much these days, but many of them share the sentiment that the world is entering a critical decade in the contest for the future international order. Concern: While 2022 will be remembered for ramped-up autocratic revisionism, it has also demonstrated that revisionists can be resisted and criticised and liberal ideas are still able to inspire in conferences and seminars only, but when it comes to taking sensible actions. liberals fail in their own commitments due to their own hidden vested interests and agenda. In this social media-driven world, liberals are unable to make an impact on society due to their double-speak.
Liberal democracies, to win back credibility, need to use this momentum to become sensible and logical and initiate reforms in the UN and other internal bodies. If the western world succeeds in reforming the international bodies and forums, re-envisioning the liberal, rules-based order as one that better represents big democracies effectively will help in making the world a better place.
Core Global Issue: Will the western world change its way of thinking about the new world order because we are not in the post-World War II era, we are in the 21st century, and Asia will define the future of the world? Every person around the world has the same access to information and will now take western ideas at face value without cross-verification.
As of today, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) failed to recognise the core global issues, thereby wasting another opportunity.
What do you have to say about this?
Do share this link and your views in your groups and follow on other social media platforms.
The root cause of the global security crisis is the double standards of those in power on the international stage and capturing key committees of the UN and other international bodies like WTO and World bank and not keen to ensure reform even after 80 years.
At MSC, global leaders are debating different visions for the future international order, which are often abstract and theoretical. Unfortunately, the whole forum has become a platform to debate Russia and China in the new world order. The western powers are still unable to digest the fact that many more countries are better equipped to handle the global crisis because they are bigger democracies and have better experience managing human and environmental crises.
Clash of competing visions: The whole focus of the world is on Russian President Vladimir Putin. The narrative is that he has made the clash of competing visions a brutal and deathly reality by invading Ukraine, but nowhere is it debated how to address the concerns of Russia and its security concerns due to the expansion of NATO.
The western world wants everyone to accept their double standard. The argument is that the world’s liberal democracies are awakening to the challenges posed by autocratic revisionists and have taken the first important steps to push back. For liberal-democratic principles to prevail over the autocratic variants, the expectation is that democracies must revamp their vision of a desirable international order. The fact is that the largest democracy in the world, i.e., India, is still out of the UN Security Council, but the same autocratic regimes are part of the UN Security Council, against which Western powers are willing to stand. Is it sensible for the western powers to talk about democracy when they cannot even reform the UN Security Council to include the world's largest democracy to promote democratic values? Action speaks louder than words.
The expectation of the western powers is that a re-envisioned liberal, rules-based international order is needed to strengthen democratic resilience in an era of fierce systemic competition with autocratic regimes. But to make this vision more attractive among the wider international community and help it win the contest for the future international order, democracies must also take into account legitimate criticism and concerns among the wider international community, but unless the western world is willing to accept the growing power of Asia, this will not happen. The western world will continue to be treated as a selfish and self-serving lobby by the rest of the world.
Why reform is denied when the credibility of the UN system is low? The argument is that, with its brutal and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state (Ukraine), Russia has also mounted an attack against the foundational principles of the post–World War II order. The attempt by an authoritarian power to eliminate democracy as a sovereign nation-state is not the only sign, however, that autocratic revisionism is intensifying. China’s tacit support for Russia’s war, its military posturing to assert its own sphere of influence in East Asia, and its comprehensive efforts to promote an autocratic alternative to the liberal, rules-based international order epitomise the broader autocratic challenge. This wishlist is okay, but the fact is that the post-World War II order is denominated and captured by western powers and lacks the inclusion of wider global representatives at key decision-making positions. All institutions created after World War -II like the UN, World Bank, and WTO failed to address the concerns of the largest developing and under-developed world. The manipulated global ranking and parameters only add to the crises, including climate change and power struggles among the countries.
The main fault line in global politics is between western democracies and regimes; those who do not agree with the western world are also called "dictators" or "authoritarians" by western-funded NGOs. However, the relevance of democracy–autocracy cleavage varies across policy fields. Whether a country is a democracy or not is clearly not the only factor that shapes the contest for the future international order.
Western world losing credibility is a Global Concern: The mere fact that many governments from Africa, Latin America, and Asia have not been willing to speak up against Russia’s aggression shows that the western world cannot be trusted for its words because it is not keen to reform either the UN or the WTO. There is very deep dissatisfaction with the existing international norms and institutions, and simply defending the status quo is not enough to effectively push back against autocratic revisionists. That is why today's majority of developing and underdeveloped economies are not openly against powerful autocrats because the western world is unreliable and self-centred.
Another issue in the debate is human rights. Human rights as defined by the western powers very often disregard local social values and cultural systems. Every ancient society has value systems, but in the name of human rights, if these systems are undermined, this will be respected. To date, the western world is unable to define the term "terrorism," the biggest concern in human rights. This clearly shows that the western world does not understand the global concern and wants to impose its own norms for its own political agenda on others in the name of human rights. Certainly influenced by the experience of Western colonialism and imperialism, many non-Western democracies show greater concern for sovereignty and non-interference than their Western counterparts and are thus reluctant to support robust action in the name of human rights.
Global influence is projected by the control over the global infrastructure. Global infrastructures have likewise become an important site of geopolitical competition. Democratic and autocratic camps openly compete to imbue physical and digital infrastructures with their governance visions. In the digital realm, China is spearheading a group of autocratic states intent on promoting their techno-authoritarian vision, while the transatlantic partners are only gradually converging on a shared vision of open digital infrastructure. The whole agenda of restricted access to vital technology by western powers adds more concern in the non-western world and pushes them close to China and India.
Another big agenda item is regarding the global trade infrastructure, where the fault lines are messier. Many governments are increasingly viewing interdependencies as both vulnerabilities and conduits for coercion. COVID-19 and denying vaccines to the developing world are live examples of exploitation by the western world. As a result, weaponization of trade links abounds, while all major powers, including the western world, are increasingly resorting to protectionism. A new vision for global trade infrastructure that serves mutual prosperity while limiting vulnerabilities is not yet in sight because there is no desire to reform defective WTO agreements.
Development cooperation (with hidden political motives) has not been spared from systemic competition either. Health and food security, as well as climate finance, have become key policy fields where competing narratives of a desirable development order are playing out. Many development cooperation fund rent-seeking NGOs which are disturbing the local political agendas on behalf of their donors. As a result, Beijing is promoting its own model of development cooperation, supposedly free from conditionalities, as a distinct alternative to the US and European models, which emphasise the importance of democracy, good governance, free markets, accountability, and transparency. While China’s growing engagement falls on fertile ground in many developing countries, this is often less a matter of conviction than a lack of alternatives and deep grievances with the existing development order that has not yielded sufficient benefits.
The new energy order increasingly reflects geopolitical considerations rather than market logic. Russia’s autocratic revisionism and its weaponization of fossil fuel exports have made energy dependency on autocratic great powers a major concern for Western liberal democracies. They now need to ensure that their efforts to wean themselves off Russian oil and gas do not simultaneously further increase their dependence on other autocracies, including China (for critical raw materials) and Qatar (for gas). Revisionist autocracies present various challenges to the nuclear order and strategic stability. As long as an alternate source of energy is expensive, denied by IPR, and lacks funds, the dependency on energy suppliers will remain.
Most importantly, Russian threats to use nuclear weapons in the war against Ukraine have raised concerns around the globe. China has significantly invested in additional nuclear capabilities without increasing transparency. And North Korea and Iran present their own challenges to the nuclear order. It is shocking to see that, instead of finding a solution to the Ukraine conflict, western powers are keen to fund and provide military support to Ukraine. No attempt is made to address the concerns of Russia and to identify the middle ground by addressing the concerns of both, i.e., Ukraine and Russia. the selective approach towards weaponizing itself and denying the legitimate concerns of democratic countries like India. This raises doubt about the intentions of the western powers.
Given the deteriorating security environment, democratic countries with nuclear capabilities have reiterated their commitment to nuclear deterrence, while the prospects for arms control initiatives have dimmed. Disappointment with the lack of disarmament, in turn, has led to frustration in many parts of the world, including in the "Global South," where many countries envisage a different kind of nuclear order. World leaders may not agree on much these days, but many of them share the sentiment that the world is entering a critical decade in the contest for the future international order. Concern: While 2022 will be remembered for ramped-up autocratic revisionism, it has also demonstrated that revisionists can be resisted and criticised and liberal ideas are still able to inspire in conferences and seminars only, but when it comes to taking sensible actions. liberals fail in their own commitments due to their own hidden vested interests and agenda. In this social media-driven world, liberals are unable to make an impact on society due to their double-speak.
Liberal democracies, to win back credibility, need to use this momentum to become sensible and logical and initiate reforms in the UN and other internal bodies. If the western world succeeds in reforming the international bodies and forums, re-envisioning the liberal, rules-based order as one that better represents big democracies effectively will help in making the world a better place.
Core Global Issue: Will the western world change its way of thinking about the new world order because we are not in the post-World War II era, we are in the 21st century, and Asia will define the future of the world? Every person around the world has the same access to information and will now take western ideas at face value without cross-verification.
As of today, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) failed to recognise the core global issues, thereby wasting another opportunity.
What do you have to say about this?
Do share this link and your views in your groups and follow on other social media platforms.
Comments
Post a Comment