Munich Security Conference provides more questions than answers

Last year when the Munich Security Conference was held, Britain was ruled by David Cameron, and there was minimal theoretical chance of EU disintegration. America on the other hand was preparing for their first female president. China was leading the fight against pollution for the global south, and Donald Trump was distant on the horizon. The world has changed radically since then, and this year, when 500 odd delegates met in Munich to discuss fundamental issues regarding global security, the insecurity of the whole situation was palpable.

The chief task was on U.S. VP Mike Pence to soothe the nerves of Europeans who are confused and fearful of U.S. rhetoric. U.S. Secretary of Defense General Mattis first took the podium, and laid out what has been a standard U.S. complaint for the last decade: that NATO is not paying up its fair share and that if this continues it will be increasingly difficult for U.S. to continue to explain to its domestic taxpayers why the U.S. should continue to foot the bill for European security. While nominally claiming that the U.S. is 100 percent behind Europe when it comes to security, the Mattis' words echoed those of Bob Gates, Chuck Hagel, and Ash Carter before him.

VP Mike Pence was, however, more conventional, making the customary statement that Russia is being closely watched and that the U.S. is grateful for European support when it comes to national security. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also was quite standard, as he decried Western order and claimed that the West is dying. Mattis in his call to NATO was joined by U.K.'s Sir Michael Fallon, who echoed similar sentiments, stating that NATO and the West are undergoing severe challenges and it is important to make sure that all the partners stick together.

Unfortunately, the MSC didn't answer most of the questions, nor did it assuage any fear in Europe. And the reasons are manifold.

There was fundamentally no answer to the most pressing concern of all: What is exactly the current status of NATO? It is frankly clear that NATO as a security provider has diluted beyond repair. Five countries only pay the minimal decided share. NATO expansion in the east has resulted in countries being members of an alliance that has no direct relation to their strategic or national interest. For example, Hungary, Greece, and Turkey currently have radically different concerns than the U.K. and Belgium. This is not the Cold War, and naturally the geopolitical alignments have changed.

In a surprising poll, four NATO countries, including Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece, consider Russia to be a more natural military ally than the United States.

These are fundamental problems which are irredeemable. NATO expansion, on one hand diluted the alliance and interests that used to hold the alliance together and naturally antagonized Russia, which feels threatened with an ever expanding military alliance right up to its borders. Secondly, it fails to justify to the American electorate, the people who actually pay for the alliance, why they should subsidize smug European liberal policies, while being constantly lectured by Europe.

Unfortunately, none of these concerns were answered or mitigated, and therefore the cloud of uncertainty over American future statecraft remains. Recent events also suggest that the initial honeymoon between Russia and Trump is also cooling, as geopolitical realities bite back. But Munich this year provided no answer, but raised a lot of questions about the future of NATO and EU, questions which politicians might want to clarify to their frustrated electorates.

Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.