Spread the love

By Rabi Raj Thapa

After two devastating world wars, West Germany began its reconstruction and revitalization program, both physically and mentally. One of its great successes is attributed to the “Marshall Plan.” In terms of nation-building, security, and the strategic boiling point of divided Germany, the Munich Security Conference played a pioneering and pivotal role.

The annual Munich Security Conference (MSC) is often described as the place to take the temperature of world politics and assess the state of transatlantic principles. Since the inception of the MSC in the fall of 1963, this conference has become an independent venue for policymakers and experts to hold open discussions on the most pressing contemporary security issues of the day—and of the future.

For a few decades, German participants met their counterparts from their most important ally, the United States, as well as from other NATO member countries. That is why the conference is often dubbed a “transatlantic family meeting.” Then, debates in Munich concentrated on Western policy within the overarching framework of Cold War confrontation. Just like today, these intra-alliance debates were far from uncontroversial, at times even heated.

As the number and variety of important players in international security increased, the circle of conference participants continued to grow wider. Today, key rising powers such as China, Brazil, and India, along with other high-ranking participants from emerging powers, participate very actively and constructively.

Over six decades, the MSC has become a well-respected, well-accepted, and credible global platform where participants feel greatly honored to have the opportunity to take part in hundreds of high-level debates on international security policy. Today, leaders from the Middle East also attend, sparking both controversial arguments and opportunities for further dialogue on and off the conference stage.

But the question is: what makes the Munich Security Conference (MSC) so vital and credible in navigating the global order and the balance of power today? This is very important for governing bodies and non-government bodies, think tanks, and stakeholders in developed countries to learn and understand, and it is equally applicable to a poor country in chaos like Nepal.

One of the most important and remarkable features is the Munich Conference Rule, which strictly follows this principle: engage and interact with each other; don’t lecture or ignore one another; engage with and learn from each other; and expect all speakers to stand ready to answer questions and engage with the audience at eye level.

This was evident at the Munich Security Conference 2007, where Russia’s President Vladimir Putin spoke about the “comprehensive and indivisible nature of security,” criticizing the post–Cold War situation characterized by U.S. dominance and disregard for international law. He then smartly quoted U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dictum, “wherever peace is broken, it is simultaneously threatened everywhere,” and claimed that global peace was endangered after the collapse of the Cold War balance of power.

On 14 February 2025, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking at the 61st Munich Security Conference, said, “It’s time for all of our countries, for all of us who have been fortunate enough to be given political power by our respective people, to use it wisely to improve their lives.” He also said that Europe’s principal danger stems from the “erosion of democratic norms—especially censorship, suppression of dissent, and exclusion of populist voices.” How amazing! All his remarks totally fit the Nepali scenario today.

Today, Nepal is very different from the USA and Europe in many respects, such as the economy, development, democratic practices, and values. Still, the maladies pinpointed by Vice President J.D. Vance in Europe are exactly the same and prevalent in Nepali politics today.

Now, going back to MSC 2026, its main guest speaker, U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio, surprised many with his Western civilization narratives. He mentioned the memories, traditions, and Christian faith of ancestors as a sacred inheritance—an unbreakable link between the old world and the new. How far does this apply to Nepal’s Sanatan faiths and traditions and to Nepal’s Omkar Parivars?

So these are the themes that steer a country in the right direction. But today, in the midst of a so-called election, we Nepalis feel like panicking birds lost in the midst of stormy clouds with terrible thunderbolts.