The Munich Security Conference was a display of ‘the West v. the rest’

As world leaders met in February for the annual Munich Security Conference, the Russo-Ukrainian War and growing Sino-American tensions dominated the proceedings. The conference, which is usually centered around the Trans-Atlantic alliance, made a point this year of inviting a number of delegations from the Global South. Russia, of course, was not invited.

For European attendees, the focus was firmly on Ukraine. In addition to France and Germany’s reaffirmation of their commitments to bolster their own defense and to support Ukraine, both British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Polish President Andrzej Duda called for Ukraine to be given long-term security guarantees by NATO following the war.

Western security guarantees to Ukraine are likely to be seen by Moscow as being a de facto alliance with the West. Given that Russia’s concerns about Ukraine’s deepening security ties with the West arguably have been central to the conflict with Ukraine since 2014, such security guarantees potentially would be an obstacle to ending the current war and a precipitant to a future conflict.

The UK and Poland are among the most hard-line NATO countries when it comes to Russia, but Sunak and Duda strike a hawkish posture in the knowledge that any assurances to Ukraine ultimately will be enforced by the U.S., with the implication that Ukraine will be protected under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The Biden administration appears to be wisely opposed to offering such assurances, instead seeking to help post-war Ukraine become a “porcupine” capable of defending itself directly against future Russian aggression.

During their remarks, Sunak and Vice President Kamala Harris claimed that Russia had committed “crimes against humanity” in Ukraine and must be “held to account,” with Sunak specifically calling for Russian leaders to be brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague. The Russian ambassador to the U.S. responded that the U.S. was “demoniz[ing] Russia” “to fuel the Ukrainian crisis.”

Formal accusations of this kind against a nuclear power are unwise and impose arbitrary limitations on America’s diplomatic options.

First, it sends an unmistakable message that the U.S. and its allies seek nothing less than unconditional surrender and regime change in Russia, which is likely to make Moscow only more intransigent and the conflict more intractable. Second, casting Russian leadership as criminals to be condemned, rather than counterparts to be negotiated with, undermines the West’s ability to pursue an eventual diplomatic settlement. Finally, the fact that the U.S. does not recognize the authority of the ICC over its own actions, while advocating for other leaders to be prosecuted, only increases the perception in much of the world that the U.S.-led “rules-based order” is a hypocritical smokescreen for Western imperialism.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi met after Blinken’s trip to China was canceled in the wake of “Balloongate,” but there was little sign of progress toward  easing Sino-American relations. Wang described Washington’s response to its balloon as “absurd” and “near-hysterical,” showing the U.S. to be weak, not strong. Wang also made clear that Beijing will not tolerate foreign interference over Taiwan, saying that “Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. It has never been a country and it will never be a country in the future.”  Meanwhile, Blinken threatened Beijing with “serious consequences” if it supplied Russia with lethal aid, and scoffed at the announcement of a now-released Chinese peace proposal for Ukraine.

China’s peace proposal probably received a more sympathetic hearing from leaders in the Global South, many of whom similarly have called for a negotiated end to the conflict. Western leaders’ attempts to argue that the fate of Ukraine will have far-reaching repercussions outside of Europe, and that Russia was fighting, in French President Emmanuel Macron’s words, a “neocolonial, imperialist” war likely failed to impress most attendees from Latin America, Africa and much of Asia. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz even quoted a previous statement by Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, that “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” “He has a point,” Scholz conceded.

In all, the conference paid lip service to the diffusion of global power away from the West, while in essence insisting on the permanence of the liberal international order underwritten by the Trans-Atlantic alliance, with the U.S. as primus inter pares. Few steps were taken to imagine an international order that could accommodate an emergent multipolar distribution of power in which non-Western states increasingly have the capability to advance their own interests and demand a say over global affairs.

Christopher McCallion is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities.