Munich Security Conference: Discussions Among the Highest Ranks of Policymakers

It was Ambassador Ivo Daalder, now president of the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and then-U.S. permanent representative to NATO (2009 — 2013), who first referred to the Munich Security Conference as "the Oscars for policy wonks." His point was not that golden statuettes were awarded but that the Munich Security Conference had become a fixture of national security discussion among the highest ranks of policymakers from across the globe.

The Munich Security Conference began its institutional life in 1963 in the shadow of the Berlin Wall and the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Its roots lie deep in the transatlantic security relationship and the NATO alliance, but the conference is no relic of its Cold War past. Instead, says Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Conference, "Munich is, and will continue to be, an important independent venue for policymakers and experts for open and constructive discussions about the most pressing security issues of the day – and of the future."

Ischinger describes the Conference as an "unregulated marketplace of ideas," where proposals are floated, diplomatic initiatives are tested and the groundwork for critical decisions in response to crises can be laid. Since there is no need to agree on a final communiquŽ, participants are free to voice their views and explore their divergent opinions. He adds that the conference "offers protected space for informal meetings between representatives from governments who might not be on the best of terms but who may wish to meet informally, behind the scenes."

"Boundless Crises, Reckless Spoilers and Helpless Guardians"

The preparatory 2016 Munich Security Report pessimistically observes that international and regional security orders are "at significant risk of disintegrating."

"Today's conflicts," laments Conference Chairman Ischinger, "are characterized by a scale and gravity unprecedented since the end of the Cold War. Traditional guardians of order are more and more overwhelmed, while others have not stepped up – or have acted as spoilers instead. Managing crises that have increasingly become boundless and borderless remains an enormous challenge and is likely to get more complicated in the future."

Strikingly, the world is discovering that domestic political issues have international dimensions, and international turmoil has domestic consequences. Borders, once the very definition of the national security state, are increasingly porous and penetrable.

And, yet, at the same time borders are making a comeback. The shape of the map of nation-states has been caught up in a series of conflicts. Powers such as the Russian Federation and China seek to reconsider and expand boundaries, whether through renewed historic territorial claims or the unilateral assertion of sovereign authority by establishing "presence" on artificially expanded oceanic islets. States traditionally at the heart of the liberal international order are building walls against the influx of refugees and multiple security threats.

Diplomacy is marked by seeming achievement in the Paris Climate Accords and the Iran Nuclear Agreement but marred by failure to follow through to assure that agreements in principle become agreements in place. Major powers are pulling back from the costs of intervention while renewing powers seek to revise the international order and find their place within it.

"The Future of Warfare: Race With the Machines"

Perhaps the most thought-provoking sessions at the Munich Security Conference deal with broad underlying issues that push the boundaries of global security discussions. These include human security and refugee flows, health security and global pandemics, climate security and the consequences of global warming, and the future of warfare as it expands to include cyberspace and robotic weapons.

A new wave of technological innovation, artificial intelligence (AI) experts noted, is rapidly reshaping not only the weaponry deployed on the battlefield but also the very shape of the battlefield itself. Increasingly, we live amid "the Internet of Things." Electrical grids, water and energy supplies and other utility distribution systems are heavily computer controlled with limited security in place. The appliances of our lives – cars, public transit, refrigerators and medical devices – are implanted with computer chips that can potentially be interfered with. Technology simultaneously empowers governments and adversaries, individual users and hackers.

There was also discussion of what the cyber-battlefield of the future might look like. The notion of "killer robots" – remotely controlled, able to track and identify targets and destroy them – has spawned an ironic acronym, LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems). Such weapons constitute "a third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms." The nightmare scenario, experts fear, is that "if any major military power pushes ahead with [AI] weapons development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable and the endpoint of this technology trajectory is obvious – autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow."

Only half joking, moderator Espen Barth Eide, former Foreign Minister of Norway, cautioned that, "We may look back to the good old days when all we had to worry about was nuclear weapons." The need, note several experts, is to ensure that policy keeps up with the speed of technological advancement.

"Messier and More Difficult to Manage"

Because of its officially unofficial nature, the Munich Security Conference does not pull its punches. It explores not only potential avenues for strengthening global security but also the darker, more frightening alleyways of security concern.

The result is a sobering snapshot of the world at the beginning of 2016. But sobriety is also cause for hope. Just as the 2016 Oscars were forced to confront the lack of diversity in Hollywood and the motion picture industry, the 2016 Munich Security Conference confronted a series of challenges to the very concept of global security.

"We are entering a period of growing risk, rising uncertainty and fundamental transformation – the beginning of a less stable international era," conference organizers admitted. "Responsible leaders must work together to reconstruct the international order, strengthen institutional arrangements and stem spreading chaos."

Core principles of sovereignty, power and national interest shaped order and stability in the past. These principles have not disappeared but they must adjust to a turbulent global stage where non-state actors play larger roles, transboundary issues threaten human existence, traditional weapons become both more available and more deadly, and non-traditional weapons challenge existing definitions of security and deterrence. The looking glass worlds of national security and international diplomacy are awhirl in a dizzying kaleidoscope of change.