Every February, representatives of political, military and business circles, non-governmental organizations and security experts from all over the world rush to the southern German city of Munich to discuss topics related to diplomacy, security and defense at the "Munich Security Conference" (hereinafter referred to as the "Munich Security Conference"). This year's meeting began on 16 February and will last for three days. There is no doubt that at least since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, security has become one of the most central issues in European and world politics.
Security Report: The world is at risk of falling into a "lose-lose" situation.
Since 2015, the Munich Security Report (hereinafter referred to as the "Report") has been released every year before the start of the meeting, which not only sets the framework for the discussion of that year's conference, but also provides keywords for the discourse of the international situation, the most famous example of which is the theme of the 2020 report, "The West is missing". And the headline of this year's Munich Security Report is "Lose-Lose? 》（lose-lose?The neologism is the opposite of the existing term "win-win" and an interesting judgment of the current situation: "In the context of growing geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty, many countries are no longer concerned with the absolute benefits of global cooperation, but are increasingly worried that they will gain less than others." Prioritizing relative gains is likely to lead to a "lose-lose" situation (for peace, stability and economic development), jeopardizing cooperation and undermining order. ”
It can be seen that the "Report" is written by the Germans, and its judgment on the changes in the current situation is also a continuation of the judgment of German Chancellor Scholz after the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. But what is the reason for this change? The report gives a surprising analysis: "Against the backdrop of intensifying geopolitical competition and a slowing global economy, the countries of the Transatlantic Community and the Global South are dissatisfied with what they perceive as the unequal distribution of the absolute benefits of the international order. From the perspective of many developing countries, the international order has never lived up to its promise to increase the pie for the benefit of all. ”
A major breakthrough: no longer blaming the so-called challenges of emerging powers.
The reason why the above analysis is "surprising" is that the report does not use Western ideological clichés and blame the changes on the challenge of the so-called "rules-based international order" by an emerging power, but believes that the demands of all participants have changed to varying degrees, and that the changes are the result of the joint efforts of all parties. Compared with the accusations that Chinese observers have heard in the past few years that the United States and Europe have criticized China and other emerging powers, this year's report is a breakthrough in its relatively objective and comprehensive analysis of the causes of the changes.
The report also points out the security paradox behind the change, which is that the result of everyone's pursuit of maximum security is that everyone feels more and more insecure. The changes have affected non-traditional areas of security, such as the pursuit of economic security by all actors; Another example is technological security, which has "gone from being a driver of global prosperity to a central tool for geopolitical competition"; Geopolitical competition has even influenced how the world responds to common challenges, such as climate change.
In addition to the above-mentioned changes in the current international political situation from the perspective of multiple actors, the report no longer attacks ideological opponents as "trying to change the existing international order", but makes it clear that the United States and Europe, a pair of transatlantic partners and their "politically like-minded countries", should take the lead in reforming the existing international order. At the same time, the report also recognizes that the United States and Europe alone are no longer enough to dominate the future international order, so they need to vigorously win over and win over the countries of the "Global South".
Two major weaknesses: still adhering to the blind obedience to the United States and misunderstanding of China.
On the other hand, however, the weaknesses discussed in the Report are also obvious.
The first weakness is the assumption that the United States remains the backbone of transatlantic relations and so-called "rules-based international relations." Although the Report argues that all actors should be held responsible for the changes in the international political environment and are dissatisfied with the so-called distribution of the "cake", it does not further argue for the legitimacy of the United States, for example, as the de facto largest holder of the "cake", in defending its own share. At the same time, the current United States must not only win over its "small partners" in the new international order, but also ensure its own relative greatest interests and competitive advantages, and not be taken advantage of by the "small partners", which is an impossible task in itself. Whether it's the impact of Biden's Anti-Inflation Act on the European economy, or Trump's recent threat to stop providing security protections to allies that do not meet NATO's defense spending, Europe has mixed feelings.
The second weakness is the misreading of China's development purpose. The report borrows European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen's assertion that China's attempt to establish a so-called China-centered equipolar international order is in fact an antithesis of the US-EU bloc. The report reverses the relationship between cause and effect, confusing the countermeasures that China is forced to take when its core interests are damaged with the war, technological blockade and other means initiated by the United States and others.
In this sense, the novelty of the Report is still not enough to conceal the basic position of its transatlantic partners, and the basic logic of the report's narrative is still a Cold War-like logic of bloc confrontation. However, laissez-faire zero-sum competition will not bring more security and security to all parties, and it is hoped that the Munich Security Conference will find more inclusive solutions to the world's current security hotspots and future security architectures in the coming days.
Author: Hu Chunchun.
Text: Hu Chunchun (Head of the "Characteristic Graduate Class of European Civilization Studies" at the Shanghai Institute of Global Governance and Regional Studies, Shanghai Wai Chinese University) Photo: Xinhua News Agency Editor: Liu ChangEditor: Gu Wenjun.
*Please indicate the source of this article.