Munich Security Report 2020

Munich Security Report 2020
Westlessness

3
Table of Contents
Foreword
Westlessness
5
6
Actors
United States: Divided We Stand?
China: Meddle Kingdom
Russia: Putemkin’s State
Europe: Eurovision Contest
24
26
30
34
36
Regions
Mediterranean: Nightmare Nostrum
Middle East: Dire Straits
South Asia: Cease-fire Fighters
40
42
46
50
Issues
Space Security: One Small Misstep...
Climate Security: To an Uncertain Degree
Right-wing Extremism: White and Wrong
Technology and Innovation: It’s All About Politechs
54
56
58
62
64
Food for Thought
Books
Reports
66
68
70
Acknowledgments 72
Endnotes 76

5
Foreword
Dear Reader,
As a prelude to the 56th Munich Security Conference, I am delighted to present the Munich Security Report
in its sixth edition. Once again, the report will serve as a conversation starter for our flagship event. It has
become, much to our satisfaction, a go-to resource for security professionals and the interested public
around the globe. A unique collection of insights and analyses, building on some of the best research in the
field, it sheds light on major developments in and critical challenges to international security.
In 2019, concrete security challenges seem to have become inseparable from what some would describe
as the decay of the Western project: today, the West as we know it is contested both from within and from
without. Part of the challenge is that we have lost a common understanding of what it means to be part of
the West. All this occurs against the backdrop of the relative rise of the non-Western world and a mounting
number of global challenges and crises that would require a concerted Western response. The 2020 Munich
Security Conference will provide a prime opportunity not only for discussing the state of international peace
and security but also for revisiting the Western project in particular.
This Munich Security Report sets out to make sense of what we refer to as “Westlessness” and of today’s
security environment by presenting a concise analysis of selected actors, regions, and issues on the
international security agenda. As with previous editions, this report explicitly covers only selected topics – we
do not and cannot claim that those not discussed here are not also important. Rather, we try to highlight a
limited sample of actors, regions, and issues of significance, redefining our areas of focus each year. For
example, while the report’s 2019 edition placed particular emphasis on middle powers of the “second row,”
the 2020 edition returns to examining the United States, China, Russia, and Europe. In addition, we cover
developments in key regions from the Mediterranean to the Middle East and South Asia, as well as broader
security issues from space and climate to right-wing extremism.
The Munich Security Report 2020, like its predecessors, would not have been possible without the generous
support of numerous renowned institutions, friends, and partners who made available their research and
data – much of it previously unpublished or updated specifically for this report. I would like to thank them all
and wish you an interesting and thought-provoking read!
Sincerely yours,
Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger
Chairman of the Munich Security Conference

6
Westlessness
A century ago, Oswald Spengler published his book The Decline of the West
(“Der Untergang des Abendlandes”), in which he predicted the impending decay
and ultimate fall of Western civilization.1
Today, “the West” is the subject of a
new declinist literature, as a cottage industry of politicians, pundits, and public
intellectuals has produced speeches, books, reports, and articles discussing the
decay of the Western project.2
In the past, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) was often referred to as
a kind of “family reunion” of the West. While it has evolved to bring in a much
broader spectrum of the international community, it continues to provide a prime
opportunity to take the temperature of not just the state of international peace and
security in general but of the West in particular. Judging from the reporting on last
year’s conference, the West is indeed in serious trouble. The New York Times even
labeled the gathering a “requiem for the West.”3
And while the MSC has traditionally
been a venue for the coordination of Western policies, in recent years “the focus
has shifted to the schisms within the West.”4 Those rifts were on full display when
Chancellor Angela Merkel and Vice President Mike Pence took to the stage and
offered different responses to key challenges – from the future of the Iran deal or
the pipeline project Nord Stream 2 to NATO defense spending and transatlantic
trade imbalances. To a certain degree, such policy disagreements have always
existed, and the Munich Security Conference has been known as a key venue for
an open and frank exchange of different views. Today, however, it is evident that
something more fundamental is at play. Listening to Merkel and Pence, it appeared
that the small and crowded ballroom of the Bayerischer Hof was home to two
different worlds. The audience came away with the distinct impression that there
was no common understanding of what the West represents.
Far-reaching power shifts in the world and rapid technological change contribute
to a sense of anxiety and restlessness. The world is becoming less Western. But
more importantly, the West itself may become less Western, too. This is what we
call “Westlessness.”
Westlessness in the West
Despite its widespread use as a shorthand for a community of mostly North
American and European liberal democracies as well as a normative project,
the “West” is a concept that is not always easy to pin down.5
The “West” has
never been a monolithic concept but rather an amalgam of different traditions,
the mix of which changed over time.6
Yet, for the past decades, the answer
to the question what it was that kept the West together was straightforward:
a commitment to liberal democracy and human rights, to a market-based
economy, and to international cooperation in international institutions. Today,
the meaning of the West is increasingly contested again. We are witnessing
“the decay of ‘the West’ as a relatively cohesive geopolitical conﬁguration
“Let us hold on to
the conviction that
‘the West’ is more
than a point on the
compass!”144
FRANK-WALTER
STEINMEIER,
1 SEPTEMBER 2019
“We cannot ensure
the defense of the
West if our allies grow
dependent on the
East.”145
MIKE PENCE,
16 FEBRUARY 2019

7
SELECTED LEADERS’
COMMENTS ON “THE
WEST” AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ORDER
“We were used to an international order that had been based on
Western hegemony since the 18th century […]. Things change. And they
have been deeply affected by the mistakes made by Westerners in certain
crises, by American decisions over the last several years which did not start
with this administration, but have led us to re-examine certain involvements in
conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to rethink fundamental
diplomatic and military strategy and on occasion elements of solidarity which
we thought were forever inalienable even though we had developed them
together during periods of geopolitical significance, which have however now
changed. And it is also the emergence of new powers whose impact we have
probably underestimated for far too long.”160
EMMANUEL MACRON,
27 AUGUST 2019
“The West is not a closed entity. I just defined the West largely in terms of
certain ideas about society and the role of the individual in these societies.
However, it’s an open system. If others want to adopt this way of life, we will
not turn them away. What is generally described as the West […] still
exists and is worth continuing to fight for.. However, it does not go
unchallenged, and it is thus up to us to show that this system can create
prosperity, ideally for all members of a society. We don’t always succeed and
we see a lot of dissatisfaction, tension, upheaval. This raises the question time
and again of what role the individual should play and how their rights should
be safeguarded, how the majority sees all this. We need to face up to this
rivalry between systems.”161
ANGELA MERKEL,
30 MAY 2019
“Our union is based on values. […] And now that our union has grown and
grown older, we, just like every individual, need to remember our most
fundamental values. For what would be the ultimate point of our work, the
ultimate point of our union, if it did not promote the values we believe in? […]
Now more than ever it’s time to stand up for common, principle-based
solutions, and a world order where might does not come before right. But
the EU can only be a strong voice for democracy in the world if all of us
Member States stand up for the principles of democracy at home. […] For
every democratic principle that is weakened in the EU, the EU’s voice in the
world is equally weakened. Therefore, the EU must stand up for our
fundamental values.”162
STEFAN LÖFVÉN,
3 APRIL 2019
“Our globalized, borderless world asks us to be guardians not just for our
people, but for all people. There may have been a time when being unified
under common challenges was an easier concept than it is today. But
undeniably, we are living in a time where our greater reliance on one
another has collided with a period of greater tribalism. […] Whether it’s
class, race, country or coin flipping – there has always been a tendency to
form us vs other. But […] what if we change what ‘us’ means? If instead of
fierce nationalism or self-interest, we seek to form our tribes based on
concepts that can and should be universal. What if we no longer see
ourselves based on what we look like, what religion we practice, or where we
live. But by what we value. Humanity. Kindness.”163
JACINDA ARDERN,
24 SEPTEMBER 2019

8
anchoring a normative model of global order in which commitments to human
rights, democracy, and the rule of law are central.”7
The contemporary “spiritual disunity of the West”8
is due to the rise of an illiberal
and nationalist camp within the Western world. For this increasingly vocal group,
the West is not primarily a community bound by liberal-democratic values and
open to everyone sharing these values. Rather, it is a community held together
by ethnic, cultural, or religious criteria. Such an understanding of the West
distinguishes itself from a liberal or “open” understanding of the West. Proponents
of this “closed”9
interpretation believe that the (white Christian) West today is
threatened by “outsiders” with different religious beliefs or cultural backgrounds.
The proponents of this school of thought see Western societies as weak or even
suicidal – undermining themselves by societal liberalization, the empowerment
of women, and immigration. Their perception that the West is under attack paves
the way for what they perceive as legitimate self-defense. In its moderate version,
this school of thought calls for walls and borders,10
the rejection of refugees,
or the opposition to political correctness and gender mainstreaming. Radicals
such as the leader of the Spanish populist right party Vox, Javier Ortega Smith,
attempt to stoke fear of Islam as the main antagonist to the Western way of life:
“Our common enemy, the enemy of Europe, the enemy of liberty, the enemy
of progress, the enemy of democracy, the enemy of family, the enemy of life,
the enemy of the future is an invasion, an Islamic invasion… What we know
and understand as civilization is at risk.”11
In its most extreme variant, this stream
of thinking has led white nationalists (→ Right-wing Extremism) to attack
synagogues and mosques in the West – or to kill citizens and politicians with
different political beliefs. Drawing on books such as Patrick Buchanan’s “The
Death of the West,”12
right-wing terrorists believe that they are defending “the
West” against its enemies.13
For sure, only a small minority is willing to use violence to defend its understanding
of the West. But more moderate variations of this stream of thinking are represented
in most Western political systems these days. In some countries, government
representatives regularly make use of similar racist tropes. In Europe, Hungary’s
Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has presented himself as a pioneer in leading the
opposition to a “liberal” Europe, redefining “Christian democracy” as essentially
“illiberal democracy.” At home, this means a defense of traditional family values
against “liberal decadence.” Internationally, according to Orbán, illiberal democrats
must oppose liberal elites who “are advocating a world without nations again,
[who] want open societies, and [who] are fabricating a supranational world
government. […] The stronghold of the new internationalism is Brussels, and
its means is immigration.”14
Orbán and others reject liberal internationalism and
advocate a new nationalism that they present as the only way to protect their
nations’ sovereignty (while gladly accepting EU money to further their private
interests).15
In this context, a nostalgia-inspired return to homogeneous nation-
states becomes a powerful force. As Donald Trump put it in his address to the
UN General Assembly in 2019: “The future does not belong to globalists. The
future belongs to patriots.”16
For those defending the long dominant liberal definition of the West, in contrast, it
is precisely the rise of illiberalism and the return of nationalism that put the West
at risk. For them, it threatens to eat away at the foundations of the West and
its collective identity as a community of liberal democracies. Defenders of the
“open” West feel less threatened by immigration or societal change but rather
“With the rise of populist
nationalist parties,
there is an assertion
of national identities
based on ethnicities
again, hostility to
immigrants, to outsiders
and economic
policies based on
protectionism. It’s not a
threat to ‘democracy’
if democracy simply
means majorities for
certain policies. It’s
a threat more to the
liberal order, which are
protections through
the rule of law, through
constitutions that
prevent abusive use of
political power.”146
FRANCIS FUKUYAMA,
25 SEPTEMBER 2019

9
VLADIMIR PUTIN,
27 JUNE 2019
“There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose.
Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea,
such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable. […] So, the liberal idea has
become obsolete. It has come into conflict with the interests of the
overwhelming majority of the population. Or take the traditional values. I am
not trying to insult anyone, because we have been condemned for our
alleged homophobia as it is. But we have no problems with LGBT persons.
God forbid, let them live as they wish. But some things do appear excessive to
us. They claim now that children can play five or six gender roles. I cannot
even say exactly what genders these are, I have no notion. Let everyone be
happy, we have no problem with that. But this must not be allowed to
overshadow the culture, traditions and traditional family values of millions of
people making up the core population.”166
“[…] liberal democracy has been transformed into liberal non-democracy.
The situation in the West is that there is liberalism, but there is no
democracy. […] Liberal democracy is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by
definition, not liberal: It is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in
connection with a few important issues – say, three great issues. Liberal
democracy is in favour of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives
priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is
pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a
genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family
models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian
family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept. […] We are on the
threshold of a great moment, and we’ll see whether or not it comes to
fulfilment. The opportunity is here. Next May we can wave goodbye not only to
liberal democracy and the liberal non-democratic system that has been built
on its foundations, but also to the entire elite of ‘68.”165
VIKTOR ORBÁN,
28 JULY 2018
DONALD J. TRUMP,
6 JULY 2017
“Americans, Poles, and the nations of Europe value individual freedom and
sovereignty. We must work together to confront forces, whether they come
from inside or out, from the South or the East, that threaten over time to
undermine these values and to erase the bonds of culture, faith and
tradition that make us who we are. […] The fundamental question of our
time is whether the West has the will to survive. […] We can have the
largest economies and the most lethal weapons anywhere on Earth, but if we
do not have strong families and strong values, then we will be weak and we
will not survive. […] Our own fight for the West does not begin on the
battlefield — it begins with our minds, our wills, and our souls. Today, the
ties that unite our civilization are no less vital, and demand no less defense, than
that bare shred of land on which the hope of Poland once totally rested. Our
freedom, our civilization, and our survival depend on these bonds of history,
culture, and memory.”164
SELECTED LEADERS’
COMMENTS ON “THE
WEST” AND THE
INTERNATIONAL ORDER

10
fear that the West is abandoning its principles and becoming similar to those
traditionally seen as adversaries. They are deeply concerned about “democracy
in retreat” and the increase in attacks on the rule of law or the freedom of the
press.17
They are also worried about illiberal forces within the West who might
increasingly act as “Trojan horses” on behalf of illiberal powers from abroad.18
To Mike Pence’s warning that “we cannot ensure the defense of the West if our
allies grow dependent on the East,”19
they might answer that it is also difficult
to defend “the West” if some of our allies increasingly behave like “the East.”
From this perspective, the most dangerous development for NATO, sometimes
understood as the “executive arm” of the West, is neither the rise of other great
powers nor instability in its neighborhood but rather the rise of illiberalism and the
instability of the West’s collective identity.20
But the defenders of an open, liberal West, caught on the wrong foot, so far
seem unable to find an adequate answer to the illiberal-nationalist challenge,
which researchers describe as having both cultural and economic causes.21
Part
of the reason for the seeming liberal inability to successfully confront nationalist
populism may be found in the long almost unshakable conviction that all obstacles
to liberalization were only minor setbacks, as liberalism’s eventual triumph was
seen as inevitable. In the long run, liberal-democratic values would take hold
everywhere: Europe would soon be “whole, free, and at peace,” Russia and China
would over time adopt liberal values and become “responsible stakeholders” in
the Western-led liberal world order. Critics of “liberalization” were sometimes seen
as “backward.” In that sense, the liberal triumphalism of the post-Cold War period
lacked necessary self-reflection. Too often, its champions demanded what Ivan
Krastev and Stephen Holmes call “modernization by imitation and integration by
assimilation” and overlooked the perspective of those on the receiving end.22
As
Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have argued, the rise of authoritarian populism
is the result of a “cultural backlash” against long-term processes of cultural
change.23
Its effect can be witnessed all across the West. In Central and Eastern
Europe, in particular, the cultural backlash even enabled what amounts to an
“illiberal counterrevolution.”24
Other scholars maintain that liberalism did not deliver
economically for everyone. Critics of the economic and financial liberalization
have long pointed out that this type of globalization disproportionally benefitted
elites but came at a cost for significant parts of the population in the West: “Many
middle- and working-class voters in the United Kingdom, the United States,
and elsewhere have come to believe – with a good deal of justification – that
the system is rigged.”25
In particular, the financial and economic crisis and its
repercussions shook the trust in the superiority of the liberal model.26
The reactions to the crisis have further contributed to the resistance against a
system allegedly run by liberal experts and international institutions, which in the
eyes of some amounts to a “new authoritarianism” itself.27
Too often, Western
politicians have presented their policies as without alternative, as the result of
economic necessities or financial inevitability. Given the rise of “technocratic”
politics, for many citizens, elections became meaningless. While global voter
turnout between the 1940s and 1980s was comparatively stable (it only fell
slightly from 78 to 76 percent), it has since dropped to just 66 percent in the
period between 2011 and 2015. In Europe, the decline has been particularly
significant.28
But political disenchantment has found other outlets, as people
across the globe took to the streets to protest their governments, to demand
more action against climate change, or to rein in corruption. For some observers,
the story of the year 2019 thus was “the tsunami of protests that swept across
“There is a deep current
of thought that was
structured in the period
between 1990 and
2000 around the idea
of the ‘end of history,’
of a limitless expansion
of democracy, of the
triumph of the West as a
universal value system.
That was the accepted
truth at the time, until the
2000s, when a series of
shocks demonstrated
that it wasn’t actually so
true.”147
EMMANUEL MACRON,
7 NOVEMBER 2019

11
PERFORMANCE OF
THE WORLD’S LEADING
ECONOMIC POWERS
OVER TIME
Gross domestic product, 1989-2018, constant 2010 USD trillions
Source: World Bank167
Source: Pew Research Center168
Opinion polls, 2009 and 2019, percentWHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES
THINK: WHICH ONE OF
THE FOLLOWING IS THE
WORLD’S LEADING
ECONOMIC POWER?
20
0
10
15
5
1989 201816131007042001989592
38 35 37
45
36
20 24
50
21
58
66
39
18
21
37
48 48 17
24
21
25 13
32
13
18
7
6
7
5
8
6
19
22
6
6
6
7
5
5
11
6 13 8
14
9
7
5
7
13
14 18
10 6 10
23
8 8 9
33
51
59
35
36
53
28
4
4
4
36 39
43
17 15
49
36
82
49 46
41
48 50
16
31
18
28
26
48
14
33
12 12
9
19
34 42
33 32
8
12
11
7
22
15
7
9
5 6
5 7 78 12
15
13
12
7
7
11
3 3
6
13
7
10 5 6
11 9
18
9
23
14
24
11
23
14
7 7 6
55
2
12
3
80
2
58
4
Brazil Canada France Germany Indonesia Japan Kenya
10 19 09 19 09 19 09 19 09 19 09 19 09 19
Mexico Poland Russia South
Africa
Turkey UKSouth
Korea
US
19 09 19 08 19 09 19 09 19 09 19 09 1909 1909
US Other responsesChina Japan EU
100%
ChinaUS EUJapan

12
six continents and engulfed both liberal democracies and ruthless autocracies,”29
driven by economic inequalities and a perceived loss of democratic control.30
Widespread democratic disenchantment provides an opportunity for illiberal
politicians to exploit the public demand for an “alternative.” Liberals may rightly
believe that the illiberal nationalists do not offer an appropriate solution for tackling
the world’s most important problems. Slogans like “make America great again”
or “take back control” are misleading, as they suggest to recreate a past that
never was and promise what cannot be achieved.31
But illiberal populists have
a clear message that resonates with many: “Like it or not, global populism has
a clear, marketable ideology, defined by toughness, nationalism, and nativism:
‘America first’ is a powerful slogan.”32
Defending the liberal international order or
multilateralism, in contrast, makes for a much less convincing rallying cry for most
people. It is defensive and creates the impression that it ignores real grievances.
Westlessness in the World
The contemporary crisis of the West is not confined to the Western world. It
is arguably one of the key forces affecting world politics today. As the limits of
Western power to shape events abroad have become obvious, Western support
for “liberal order building”33
has suffered.
This is particularly evident when looking at today’s conflicts. Instead of engaging
directly, Western countries have increasingly relied on training missions, helping
others to take care of their own security, or supporting domestic actors with
defensive weapons, in both cases reducing casualties of their own troops. In the
early post-Cold War period, brutal ethnic conflicts and genocidal actions triggered
debates about “humanitarian intervention” and later led to the establishment of the
international community’s “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Today, ongoing atrocities
in the Syrian war, for instance, are met with indifference, and international law is
often used as a protective shield for dictators again: “Where the years after the
Cold War saw growing civilian protection internationally and a surge in accountable
government nationally, so today we see the reverse.”34
As Anne Applebaum notes,
the “crisis of Western values” at home has “a bloodier, more violent face” abroad.35
To be sure, the “liberalism of imposition”36
of the post-9/11 era has produced
questionable results.37
For almost two decades, the international community
has spent considerable blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Some progress
notwithstanding, sustainable peace has not been achieved (→ South Asia).
Even more significantly, the decision to intervene in Iraq continues to haunt the
United States and its allies. Recent events have only underscored the continued
instability of Iraq and the wider region, while the predicted “democratization” of
the region turned out to be a pipedream (→ Middle East). And in Libya, Western
powers were able to prevent a massacre yet unable to lay the ground waste for
a post-conflict settlement. Almost nine years after the intervention, the country is
plagued by ongoing violence and instability (→ Mediterranean).
Given this balance sheet, it is hard to disagree with those who are wary of
“endless wars” fought in far-away places. Majorities of US veterans and the
wider population now say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not worth
fighting.38
According to a study from Brown University’s Costs of War Project,
war-related spending for the post-9/11 wars amounts to USD 4.9 trillion.39
That
it is time to end these wars is one of the few political messages in the United
“Our brave troops have
now been fighting in
the Middle East for
almost 19 years. […]
As a candidate for
President, I pledged a
new approach. Great
nations do not fight
endless wars.”148
DONALD TRUMP,
5 FEBRUARY 2019

13
States these days on which politicians from the right and from the left can
agree.40
It is also something that resonates with voters and elites in Europe,
traditionally more reluctant to engage in robust peace enforcement and crisis
management operations. But one may argue that the pendulum has swung
back too far. After all, increasing Western reluctance to engage in violent
conflicts abroad does not mean that these conflicts disappear. On the contrary,
they may become bloodier – and also more consequential for the West itself.
As some observers have warned, it is important to “avoid overlearning the
supposed lessons of past interventions” and find a “subtler alternative” to “blunt
anti-interventionism.”41
“Westlessness” is on full display in various conflicts today. As Robert Malley, the
president of the International Crisis Group, notes, “local conflicts serve as mirrors
for global trends.” For him, today’s wars “tell the story of a global system caught
in the early swell of sweeping change, of regional leaders both emboldened
and frightened by the opportunities such a transition presents.”42
The events
of recent months have only underlined the fact that Western countries, by
now, seem to have largely ceded the initiative to deal with today’s most
violent conflicts to others. And while Western politicians keep repeating the
mantra that there are no military solutions to political conflicts, other actors are
implementing them, with no concern for legal or ethical considerations. As our
Advisory Council member David Miliband has stressed: “The number of civilians
directly killed by the tactics of war is rising, also the number of humanitarians
killed, and the numbers of civilians killed indirectly not by tactics but by war
strategies.”43
This is most visible in Syria, where the Assad regime and Russian
forces have deliberately targeted hospitals and schools and war crimes have
become a daily business.44
A few days before Christmas, Russia and China
vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have allowed cross-border
humanitarian deliveries to millions of Syrian civilians.45
In his reaction to Russia’s
14th
veto since the beginning of the conflict in 2011, US Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo did not mince words: “To Russia and China, who have chosen to
make a political statement by opposing this resolution, you have blood on your
hands.”46
Today, the conflict has become one of the main showcases for what
Miliband has called “the age of impunity.”47
But Western reluctance to intervene early in the conflict and the ensuing
humanitarian disaster in Syria is just one example of retreat. Recently, China,
Iran, and Russia have held their first joint naval exercises in the Indian Ocean
and Gulf of Oman, widely interpreted as a message to the United States and the
world.48
Although the Europeans briefly debated a naval mission in the Strait of
Hormuz, not much came out of it in the end (→ Middle East). In Libya, Turkey
and Russia act more decisively49
– whereas Europe is more directly affected by
the instability on the opposite shore of the Mediterranean (→ Mediterranean).
While Western actors seem to punch far below their weight today, Russia has
established itself – with comparatively limited means – as an actor that cannot
be ignored (→ Russia). As French President Emmanuel Macron noted, “Russia
has maximized all its interests: it has returned to Syria, it has returned to Libya, it
has returned to Africa, it is present in every crisis because of our weaknesses or
mistakes.” For him, “the failure to intervene in response to the use of chemical
weapons in Syria […] was already the first stage in the collapse of the Western
bloc. Because at that point, the major regional powers said to themselves: ‘the
West is weak.’”50
“Take India, Russia and
China for example.
They have a lot more
political inspiration than
Europeans today. They
take a logical approach
to the world, they have
a genuine philosophy, a
resourcefulness that we
have to a certain extent
lost. And so all of that
has a major impact on
us and reshuffles the
cards.”149
EMMANUEL MACRON,
27 AUGUST 2019

14
Critics often blame the United States for the lack of Western assertiveness,
as Washington is said to abandon its traditional role as a guardian of the
international order (→ United States). For some, recent events underline “a rapid
decline in the ability and willingness of the United States to shape events in the
Middle East — leaving a gap that is being filled by other powers, such as Russia,
Iran, and Turkey.”51
In an unusually blunt statement, Angela Merkel asked: “Is it
good for the Americans to want to pull out of Syria immediately and quickly, or
is that not also a way to strengthen the opportunities for Iran and Russia to gain
influence there?”52
Others complain that “these days, neither friend nor foe knows
quite where America stands.”53
President Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops
from Northern Syria, although repeatedly hinted at, came as a shock to many
and triggered a new debate about the reliability of the Trump administration.54
The lack of consultation and deconfliction among allies, when it finally happened
almost overnight, was a key reason for Emmanuel Macron’s assertion that we are
experiencing “the brain death of NATO.”55
While Europeans have been quick to criticize the United States, their own
approach is, as critics point out, “even more impotent and inward-looking than that
of the United States.”56
The few proposals that were launched recently, such as
the new German defense minister’s call for a safe zone in northern Syria and for a
European naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz, were more consequential for the
debate in Berlin and other European capitals than for the situation in the region
itself. While appreciated by some as honest attempts to address the deteriorating
security situation in the region,57
the proposals did not gain traction due to a lack
of domestic consensus and international support. In effect, they underlined the
European inability to jointly shape Europe’s neighborhood – and the lack of realistic
options at this stage of the Syrian war. In contrast to the United States, however,
European countries are directly affected by what is happening in the Middle East
or Northern Africa. After all, the humanitarian consequences of the Syrian war that
caused millions of people to flee their homes significantly contributed to the crisis
in the West by mobilizing illiberal forces to exploit xenophobic fears. Given the dire
situation in Europe’s southern neighborhood, in particular the lack of hope among
the young generation (→ Mediterranean), it may only be a matter of time until
similar scenarios occur. Thus, even if one did not see the human suffering in the
region as sufficient for more decisive European action, a narrow understanding of
self-interest would seem to suggest that Europe should be more proactive.
There is one reason that will make Western engagement in conflicts even more
difficult in the future. In the post-Cold War era, Western-led coalitions were free
to intervene almost anywhere. Most of the time, there was support in the UN
Security Council, and whenever a military intervention was launched, the West
enjoyed almost uncontested freedom of military movement.58
This has changed
dramatically. First, the UN Security Council fell victim to the increasing tensions
among the great powers, failing to come up with meaningful resolutions and
address the most important matters of international peace and security. Second,
Western military superiority in international conflicts is no longer a given. Rose
Gottemoeller, until recently NATO’s Deputy Secretary General, has warned that the
“nearly unrivaled global superiority in military technology” that NATO enjoyed for
decades is endangered, with other countries making great strides to catch up or
even surpass the West in major technologies such as space capabilities, artificial
intelligence, or hypersonic missiles.59
The proliferation of anti-access/area denial
(A2AD) capabilities in particular makes for an increasingly contested operational
environment in many conflict theaters. In Syria, for instance, Western militaries
“The patriotism of the
21st century must
also have a global
dimension, if it is not to
become, as has many
times been the case,
a common national
egoism. […] [O]ur life
can change into hell,
if we do not find […]
adequate solutions to
global threats, such
as: armed conflicts
and terrorism, nuclear
proliferation, or the
destruction of our
environment.”150
DONALD TUSK,
26 SEPTEMBER 2019

15
Afghanistan: More people are being killed as a result of fighting in Afghanistan than
in any other current conflict in the world. Yet there may be a window in 2020 to set in
motion a peace process through a possible agreement between the United States
and the Taliban. This would only be the first step in a long settlement process – but it
almost certainly offers the only hope of calming today’s deadliest war.
Yemen: This conflict has become a critical fault line in the Middle East-wide rivalry
between Iran on the one hand and the United States and its regional allies on the other.
Thus, the opportunity for peace presented by recent talks between the Saudis and Houthis
could evaporate soon, in particular if heightening US-Iranian tensions spill into Yemen.
Ethiopia: The country’s transition under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed remains a source
of hope but also carries the risk of violent unraveling. As ethnic strife recently has
surged, some warn that the country could fracture as Yugoslavia did in the 1990s, with
disastrous consequences for an already troubled region. Broad international support to
avert such an outcome will be crucial in 2020.
Burkina Faso: The latest country to fall victim to the instability plaguing the Sahel
region, Burkina Faso is combatting an Islamist militant insurgency, which started in its
north but has spread to many other rural areas while struggling with public unrest in its
capital. Better intelligence sharing with neighbours, tighter border controls, and policies
aimed at winning over villagers are key to preventing the turmoil from spreading.
Libya: Foreign powers have dramatically stepped up involvement in Libya, which has
been an arena for outside competition since the overthrow of Muammar al-Qaddafi in
2011. Prospects of those powers pressing their Libyan allies into negotiations instead
appear dim – a more destructive stalemate or takeover of Tripoli that could give rise
to prolonged militia fighting appear the more likely result for 2020.
The United States, Iran, Israel, and the Persian Gulf: 2020 has already brought
to boiling point tensions between the United States and Iran that rose dangerously in
2019. A diplomatic breakthrough to de-escalate tensions between the Gulf States and
Iran or between Washington and Tehran seems unlikely, as each side is waiting for
the other to make the first concession.
The United States and North Korea: Prospects for diplomacy seem to be dimming
after Pyongyang conducted renewed tests to improve its missile technology in late 2019.
In 2020, any chance for a deal between the United States and North Korea will depend
on whether both steer clear of renewed high-level pageantry and high-drama
provocations – and whether they empower their negotiators to get to work.
Venezuela: Having headed off a civil-military uprising in April 2019, President Nicolás
Maduro’s government weathered a regional boycott and a stack of US sanctions.
But his government remains isolated and bereft of resources, while seven million
Venezuelans are in need of humanitarian aid and public services are collapsing.
Ukraine: A new Ukrainian president has brought fresh energy to efforts to end the
six-year-old conflict between Kyiv and Russia-backed separatists in the country’s
eastern Donbas region. Yet if peace seems slightly more plausible now than a year
ago, it is far from preordained – recent plans for a more comprehensive ceasefire and
disengagement might collapse and fighting could escalate.
Kashmir: After falling off the international radar for years, a flare-up between India
and Pakistan in 2019 over the disputed Kashmir region brought the crisis back into
sharp focus. New Delhi seems to have no roadmap for what comes next. The gravest
danger is the risk that a militant attack sets off an escalation, as insurgents in Kashmir
are lying low but remain active. If a new crisis emerges, foreign powers will have to
throw their full weight behind preserving peace on the disputed border.
For 2020, the International Crisis Group highlights ten conflicts to watch, which
in many ways reflect global trends. As the global system is “caught in the early
swell of sweeping change,” the circumstances of these conflicts point to “shifts
in great powers’ relations, the intensity of their competition, and the breadth of
regional actors’ ambitions.”
Source: International Crisis Group169
THE INTERNATIONAL
CRISIS GROUP’S
10 CONFLICTS TO
WATCH IN 2020
11
22
33
44
55
66
77
99
1100
88

16
would have had to engage sophisticated Russian air defense capabilities.60
In the
Indo-Pacific, China’s “formidable array of precision missiles and other counter-
intervention systems to undercut America’s military primacy” have brought about
a new environment (→ China), in which “the United States’ longstanding ability
to uphold a favourable regional balance of power by itself faces mounting and
insurmountable challenges.”61
With increasing military footprints of China and
Russia in various parts of the world, interventions will arguably become even
riskier in the future.
“Westlessness” is not only reflected in conflict trends but also in the development
of international institutions. For quite some time, China in particular has invested
in “parallel” institutions that partly complement, but partly challenge institutions
traditionally dominated by the West.62
Beijing may become also more successful
in securing key posts in international institutions and thus shifting the international
agenda according to its values and priorities.63
To be sure, it is only fair if hitherto
underrepresented countries and regions catch up – and the West could actively
support candidates from non-Western democracies.64
Yet, more often than in the
past, international institutions are being instrumentalized by autocratic states. One
of the most prominent examples is the abuse of Interpol’s “red notice” system to
persecute civil society activists or critical journalists.65
At the same time, decreasing support of key Western countries means that a number
of international institutions considered core pillars of the liberal international order are
struggling. This includes the United Nations, an organization that will celebrate its
75th anniversary this year. In October, when only 129 out of 193 member states had
paid their dues, UN Secretary General António Guterres sounded the alarm, warning
that the organization was facing major disruptions to operations if member states
did not pay “urgently and in full.”66
By the end of the year, this figure rose to 146.67
In
a not so subtle snub at the United States that is notoriously late with its payments,68
China’s Vice Foreign Minister Le Yucheng read out some “straightforward facts,”
presenting China as a true champion of multilateralism: “China firmly safeguards
the UN-centered international order. It is now the second largest funding contributor
to the UN regular budget and UN peacekeeping assessments. We always pay our
contributions in full and on time. We never, not even for one single time, repudiate
our funding obligations. Nor have we ever been in arrears.”69
What is more, Western
disunity also means that China and others can sometimes unfairly benefit from
international institutions, most importantly in the international trading system.70
Dissatisfied with the World Trade Organization (WTO)71
and its alleged failure to
set and enforce rules for fair competition, the United States has implemented
unilateral tariffs on Chinese imports and dealt with Beijing “almost entirely in bilateral
rather than multilateral negotiations” instead of agreeing to a transatlantic push for
reforms of the WTO. Much to the dissatisfaction of the Europeans, Washington has
continued to block the reappointment of members of the Appellate Body, essentially
bringing the WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism to an end – at least temporarily.72
Given the crisis of multilateralism, many Western (and non-Western) countries
have joined the “Alliance for Multilateralism,” officially launched by Germany and
France in September 2019.73
Critics calling it “a new alliance to nowhere” and
“pure posturing”74
notwithstanding, the response the initiative has received at least
provides an opportunity to use the momentum and prove its added value.75
Yet, it
is still an open question whether the initiative “aspire[s] to consolidate a league of
like-minded, democratic states to defend a liberal vision of the international order [or
whether] its purpose [is] more practical: to bridge differences among countries with
divergent regime types and values.”76
“Multilateralism is not
just a way of regulating
world affairs through
cooperation between
states. It is also a certain
idea of the world
order and of mankind,
based on the legacy
of the Enlightenment,
rationality, adherence
to the rule of law and
the search for shared
progress. […] To give
up on multilateralism
because some
disengage and others
exploit international
organizations for their
own ends would be to
agree to live in a world
with no safety net.”151
JEAN-YVES LE DRIAN AND
HEIKO MAAS,
12 NOVEMBER 2019

17
Finally, those institutions that undoubtedly represent the West and a liberal vision
of the international order, NATO and the European Union, are struggling as well.
For both of them, the rise of illiberalism in its member states presents huge
challenges. This is particularly pronounced for the EU as a “legal community” that
requires a healthy rule of law in its member states.77
But it also affects the long-
term prospects for NATO, the self-professed “alliance of liberal democracies.”78
Both institutions, however, are struggling to respond to this threat. While the EU
at least has mechanisms to deal with the erosion of core values (even if their
effectiveness is uncertain), NATO does not and cannot expel a member state
either. Perhaps, most importantly, the champions of these two core institutions
have been slow to understand the magnitude of the challenges they face.
Ongoing debates about funding both in NATO and the EU suggest that many
have still not understood what is at stake: if NATO and the EU were to disband,
debates about spending 2 percent on defense of GDP or about slight increases
to the EU budget would, in retrospect, be seen as petty and short-sighted.
Both the EU and NATO, however, have demonstrated a willingness to prove the
doomsayers wrong. Although Brexit will certainly weaken the EU’s foreign policy
clout (→ European Union), the negotiation process has shown that its members
are able to speak with one voice and defend the core achievements of the EU
that may have been taken for granted for too long. While only a minority of NATO
members have reached the 2 percent goal, the allies have significantly raised
defense spending and strengthened their collective defense efforts since 2014.
Recently, they have also agreed on a process to tackle the political dimension
of NATO that, as the debate on Macron’s comments about the lack of strategic
consultation made clear, requires immediate attention, too.79
Less Westlessness? Toward a Common Western Strategy for an Era of Great-
Power Competition?
In a period shaped by the relative decline of the West and the relative rise of
the non-Western world, it would seem even more important to have a common
Western strategy.80
Alas, recent years have seen estrangement and diverging
positions on crucial policy challenges – ranging from arms control and global
trade to climate change or the role of international institutions. Unsurprisingly,
others are keen on exploiting these rifts for their own purposes. At last year’s
Munich Security Conference, representatives from China, Iran, and Russia were
quick to point out transatlantic differences and offer themselves as the seemingly
better partners to Europe.81
So what are the odds for a joint Western strategy for a new era of “great-power
competition,” the key term the strategic community in Washington has used
to describe the contemporary strategic environment?82
Interestingly, Europeans
have recently adopted similar language emphasizing a more competitive
environment. Emmanuel Macron has warned that Europe, “if it can’t think of
itself as a global power, will disappear, because it will take a hard knock.”83
In
a similar vein, the new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der
Leyen, announced that her Commission would be a “geopolitical Commission.”84
Her successor as German Defense Minister, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, also
noted in one of her first major speeches that we “are currently witnessing a
return of great-power competition for spheres of influence and supremacy [as
well as] authoritarian challenges to our open society.”85
“I’m a politician and I’m
used to be criticised for
having good rhetoric
[…], but bad substance.
In NATO it’s the
opposite. We have bad
rhetoric, but extremely
good substance.”152
JENS STOLTENBERG,
3 DECEMBER 2019
“Because we are
noticing how great
the pressure is on our
traditional and, to us,
familiar order, this raises
the question of whether
we are going to break
up into a lot of individual
puzzle pieces and think
that each of us can
best solve the problem
single-handedly. As
German Chancellor,
I can only respond: if
so, our chances are
poor.”153
ANGELA MERKEL,
16 FEBRUARY 2019

18
While analyses on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean may seem to converge, it
is unclear whether this is sufficient for a joint grand strategy to be built on them.
The United States, too, has to think through the implications of “great-power
competition.”86
After all, competition is “more of a condition than a strategy.” The
question is “how the United States competes: with what tools, on what issues,
and at what costs.”87
For the European Union, the task is disproportionately more
complex, in part because it was created to overcome great-power competition.
Its “natural” tendency in its external relations thus was to export those ideas and
institutional mechanisms that have transformed intra-European relations. The EU, in
other words, is new to the great-power game.88
European leaders seem to accept
that they need to acquaint themselves with the rules of this game – and make
the EU “weltpolitikfähig,” or “able to act credibly on the global stage,” as former
Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker put it.89
Yet, the prime challenge
will be to agree on a common transatlantic or broader Western approach, as the
ongoing difficulties in dealing with Russia, China, or Iran demonstrate.
Russia has perhaps been the most immediate and blunt challenge to the
West (→ Russia). Despite ongoing debates about burden-sharing and defense
spending, NATO members have significantly invested in their common defense
since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. And even if few Europeans agreed
with Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty, NATO members have been able to uphold their basic
consensus.90
In general, Moscow has made it easy for them, as it has repeatedly
provoked Europeans by attempting to interfere in European elections, spreading
ridiculous historical distortions, conducting a poison attack in Salisbury, or
allegedly assassinating a former Chechen fighter in a Berlin city park.91
It has
also done very little, if anything, to ease the confrontation in Eastern Ukraine, thus
leaving the European Union no choice but to extend the sanctions repeatedly.
Still, many Europeans are skeptical whether an intensified confrontation with
Russia is in Europe’s interest. Time and again, politicians are speculating about an
incremental relaxation of sanctions. It seems as if it is Moscow that has the “strategic
patience” that European politicians claim for themselves. As The Economist noted,
Russia’s “undeserved readmission to the Council of Europe created the dangerous
precedent of rehabilitation without reform.”92
In recent months, French President
Emmanuel Macron made headlines by suggesting to “build a new architecture
based on trust and security in Europe, because the European continent will never
be stable, will never be secure, if we do not ease and clarify our relations with
Russia.”93
For the French President, Europe has to prepare for a world, in which
the United States may not care about European interests to the extent it used to.94
Macron’s initiatives drew criticism from almost all parts of the Alliance.95
For the vast
majority, the reason why an “architecture based on trust” does not exist is found in
Moscow, not in the West.
Meanwhile, other Europeans have argued that even if Russia cannot be a reliable
political partner for the time being, a stable economic partnership with Russia is
both possible and desirable. According to this logic, even during the height of the
Cold War, the Soviet Union was a reliable source of energy, and further European
economic disengagement would further alienate Russia from Europe.96
For a
bipartisan majority in the United States (and other NATO member states), in
contrast, in particular one such economic project, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline,
is detrimental to European security. For critics, the pipeline demonstrates that
Germany is only pursuing a “European” foreign policy when it suits its interests.97
“The EU has the option
of becoming a player, a
true geostrategic actor,
or being mostly the
playground.”154
JOSEP BORRELL,
9 DECEMBER 2019
“While the Europeans
have allowed
themselves to be
involved in a senseless
confrontation with Russia
and are sustaining
billions in losses from
the sanctions that have
been handed down
from overseas, the world
continues to change
rapidly. In practical terms,
the EU no longer has
the monopoly on the
regional integration
agenda. The balance of
power is being modified
on the huge Eurasian
continent, primarily due
to the new centers in the
Asia Pacific region.”155
SERGEI LAVROV,
16 FEBRUARY 2019

19
WHAT CITIZENS IN EU
MEMBER STATES THINK:
WHOSE SIDE SHOULD
YOUR COUNTRY TAKE IN
A CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE US AND RUSSIA?
Opinion poll, 2019, percent
14 8 13 11 10 9
16
85
53
76 63 70 71
65 45
7
9
28
12 18 12 13 17
33
6
6
Finland
5
Austria Denmark
4
4
France Germany
6
Hungary Italy
6
Poland
Side with US Remain neutralSide with Russia Do not know
15 9 13 11 10 10 16
86 59
80
64 73 73
63 54
7
20
8
18
10 13
20 24
4
4
6
Austria Finland
3
6
Denmark
5
France
6
Germany
5
Hungary Italy
6
Poland
Source: European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)172
100%
100%
4
EVOLUTION OF
DEFENSE SPENDING
AROUND THE GLOBE
Defense spending by region, 2008-19, constant 2015 USD billions
Source: International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)170
2008 11
400
1009 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2019
0
200
600
800
WHAT CITIZENS IN EU
WHOSE SIDE SHOULD
YOUR COUNTRY TAKE IN
A CONFLICT BETWEEN
THE US AND CHINA?
Source: European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR)171
Side with US Side with China Remain neutral Do not know
Asia
Sub-Saharan Africa Europe
North America Middle East
and North Africa

20
According to Senator Tom Cotton, the pipeline “would enhance Russia’s ability to
blackmail countries like Poland and the Baltic States by threatening their energy
supplies, while deepening NATO members’ reliance on Russia.”98
In November,
the US Congress introduced sanctions targeted at companies involved in Nord
Stream 2. While many foreign policy specialists and lawmakers in Europe are
opposed to the pipeline project, too, many are poised to defend it because they
disagree with what they see as illegitimate US interference.99
In addition, the EU
built infrastructure and diversified supply to protect against overdependence on
Russia, while Berlin helped broker a gas transit deal via Ukraine.100
As Chancellor
Merkel put it: “A Russian gas molecule is a Russian gas molecule, whether it
comes via Ukraine or via the Baltic Sea. That means that the question of how
dependent we are on Russian gas cannot be resolved by asking which pipeline
it flows through.”101
Many Germans also have a hard time understanding why the
US Senate with a Republican majority is able to sanction Nord Stream 2 because it
believes it gives Russia too much influence over Europe, while being quite reluctant
to take necessary measures to guard against repeated Russian interference in
US elections.102
For many critics, the United States uses security concerns “as
a smokescreen for its own economic interests,” as it considers cheap gas from
Russia a competition for US shale gas exports to Europe.103
In sum, both sides see
the other as acting against the spirit of the transatlantic partnership.
A similar dynamic is at play when it comes to Western approaches toward China
(→ China). At first sight, there has been at least some rhetorical convergence
between Europe and the United States. China’s more assertive policies and
increasing awareness of them in the Western world have drawn ever more
criticism, as more people are beginning to suspect what an international order
dominated by China would look like – in stark contrast to Chinese rhetoric of
“peaceful coexistence,” which claims that “China will never seek hegemony,
expansion or sphere of influence no matter how the international landscape
evolves and how much development China achieves.”104
Key examples
catching international attention include the detention of two Canadian citizens
widely seen as an “act of diplomatic hostage-taking in revenge” for the arrest
of a Huawei representative in Vancouver,105
or new reports about an expanding
surveillance state106
and the “re-education camps” for millions of Uighurs in
Xinjiang.107
Unsurprisingly, public opinion in both North America and Europe has
become markedly more critical of China. In 2017, Americans with an unfavorable
view of China (47 percent) only slightly outnumbered those with a favorable
view (44 percent). Two years later, only about a quarter viewed China favorably
(26 percent), while the percentage of those having an unfavorable view reached
a new high (60 percent). And 81 percent of Americans said that China’s growing
military power is a bad thing for the United States.108
A similar trend, though on a
lower level, is visible in Western Europe. Whereas the population in Central and
Eastern Europe has a slightly more favorable view of China on balance, pluralities
or majorities in almost all Western European countries see China unfavorably.109
Western governments have also begun to change their rhetoric. In December,
NATO, for the first time, mentioned the need to jointly address “China’s growing
influence and international policies” in its London Declaration.110
And as the EU-
China Strategic Outlook of March 2019, a joint communication by the European
Commission and the High Representative, put it, “there is a growing appreciation
in Europe that the balance of challenges and opportunities presented by
China has shifted.”111
In the same document, the Europeans noted that “China
is, simultaneously, in different policy areas, a cooperation partner with whom
“[W]e did an awful lot
that accommodated
China’s rise in the hope
that communist China
would become more
free, more market-driven,
and ultimately, hopefully
more democratic. […]
Today, we’re finally
realizing the degree
to which the Chinese
Communist Party is truly
hostile to the United
States and our values,
and its worse deeds and
words and how they
impact us.”156
MIKE POMPEO,
30 OCTOBER 2019

21
the EU has closely aligned objectives, a negotiating partner with whom the EU
needs to find a balance of interests, an economic competitor in the pursuit of
technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of
governance.”112
Yet, while perceptions draw closer, Western countries do not see
eye to eye on how they should be translated into specific policies.
For Europe, the 5G debate foreshadows the potential implications of a “G2” world,
in which Europe is merely an object of US-Chinese rivalry.113
What some initially
dismissed as a technical matter has turned out to be an issue of grand strategy. In
essence, Europe may be forced to make a choice, as it will no longer be possible
to be a full-fledged US ally while engaging in a far-reaching economic partnership
with China. Some analysts have even argued that “Europe’s reluctance to side
with the United States puts liberal democracy in danger” and that it sitting on
the fence is what China wants to achieve.114
Although many factors suggest that
the Europeans will side with the United States if they have to make a choice,115
America’s European allies “feel like they have been relegated to observer status.”
Instead of being consulted, they just receive instructions, further undermining
the relationship: “Europeans are tired of taking orders from Mr. Trump’s America,
which makes them more inclined to ignore American directives on issues like
Huawei.”116
As critics note, “calling on Europe to get tough on China, even as the
US gets tough on Europe,” may not be the most promising strategy.117
Moreover,
Europe is under immense pressure and facing real economic costs, as Chinese
representatives have been clear that an exclusion of Huawei from European
markets would have severe consequences.118
What if US-China tensions came to
a head? According to a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations, clear
majorities in Europe would want to remain neutral in case of a conflict between
China and the United States.119
After all, this may be what China can realistically
achieve: “China can’t win Europe over, but it can neutralize it by fracturing the
continent and co-opting some pieces.”120
Finally, the United States and its European allies have disagreed about the best way
to deal with Iran and prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons since Donald Trump
took office. While Europe wanted to stick to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Deal, the Trump administration decided to
withdraw from it because it felt the deal had unfairly benefitted Tehran, contributed
to Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East and would end restrictions after
just 15 years. Yet, despite Trump’s stated intent to “be working with our allies to find
a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat,”121
Iran’s
potential path to a nuclear weapon is shorter now than it was at the beginning
of the US “maximum pressure” campaign. According to nuclear experts, Iran’s
“breakout time has been reduced from about 8-12 months to 6-10 months [and] will
decrease further as Iran increases its stock of enriched uranium and installs more
centrifuges.”122
Moreover, after the US strike killing Iranian general Qassem Suleimani,
Iran has announced that it would end the restrictions (after just five years), thus
“again bringing [Israel and the United States] closer to the potential of open conflict
with Tehran that was avoided by the accord.”123
Now that their worst predictions are
becoming reality,124
the Europeans are running out of good options,125
even if they
“cannot afford to be bystanders in unfolding developments that may lead to another
disastrous military conflict on Europe’s doorstep.”126
Not only is there no common
Western strategy toward Iran today, a military escalation in the region would cost
many lives and further weaken the West, distracting the United States and its allies
from the great-power competition effort.127
“Having caught up with
the world in great strides,
we are now marching
forward at the forefront
of the times with
boundless energy!”157
XI JINPING,
30 SEPTEMBER 2019
“We solely depend
on our own people.
That is why 40 years
of so-called ‘maximum
pressure – namely
demonization, war,
sanctions and terror […]
has failed to ‘bring Iran
to its knees’; nor has it
affected our people’s
decision-making
calculus”158
MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF,
17 FEBRUARY 2019

22
Moreover, escalation dynamics between the United States and Iran should be a
reminder that major interstate war is not necessarily a thing of the past. In contrast,
a more competitive environment and the return of more intense great-power
competition may make war more likely again. As political scientists Tanisha Fazal
and Paul Poast point out, “it strains credulity that the better angels of our nature
are winning when humanity is armed to the teeth. Global military expenditures are
higher today than during the late Cold War era, even when adjusted for inflation.”
According to them, “deterrence may hold, but there is a real possibility that it will
fail.”128
This suggests that new efforts for renewing arms control and transparency
measures are badly needed – particularly regarding comparatively new or
intensifying challenges in the realm of space, artificial intelligence, or technology
(→ Space). Yet, after the end of the INF Treaty, it is unlikely that New START, the
treaty limiting US and Russian strategic nuclear forces, will be extended, while
even the Open Skies Treaty has come under scrutiny.129
Beyond the Euro-Atlantic
region, regional tensions translate in additional arms races: conflicts involving
North Korea, India and Pakistan (→ South Asia), as well as Iran all hold significant
potential for nuclear escalation. In the overall picture of great-power competition,
these trends may mark “the dawn of a dangerous new nuclear age.”130
Dealing with the implications of this new era will require cooperation with non-
democracies. Some of the world’s most important challenges (→ Climate
Change) cannot be solved by the West alone. But Western countries would do
well to treat the relations among liberal democracies as something special and
worth preserving. The cohesion of the West needs a convincing narrative that
sets the community of liberal democracies apart from illiberal autocracies131
and
could also be reflected in special institutional arrangements.132
This may take
the form of a “non-monolithic form of international order: a thin network of global
cooperation on certain key issues, a thicker ‘club model’ of economic integration
among liberal democracies, and a set of national policies to support international
openness.”133
If done smartly, this is possible without provoking a counter-alliance
of non-democracies. The West thus needs a “dual-track strategy” for the new
era of great-power competition, cooperating with autocratic states where it is in
its best interests but at the same time strengthening Western cohesion for an
even more competitive environment.134
Requiem or Renaissance? The Future of the West
These days, it is hard to escape the impression that the West is in retreat, in
decline, and under constant attack – both from within and from without. Yet,
there are still many reasons for liberal optimism. Despite a frightening illiberal
zeitgeist, autocratic governments are not necessarily on a never-ending winning
streak. After all, a closer look reveals that those countries that Western strategists
have identified as the main challengers are facing their own domestic crises
that may easily dwarf the challenges that Western countries have to deal with.
Russia remains “a ‘one-crop economy’ with corrupt institutions and serious
demographic and health problems.”135
And China’s increasingly authoritarian
policies and Xi’s “imperious style” have also triggered a new wave of criticism
at home – both among intellectuals and the party cadres.136
For them, it may
become ever more difficult to deal with large-scale discontent at home.137
In
contrast, Western countries, at least in theory, possess the necessary ideational,
material, and institutional resources for a revitalization that will provide them with
long-term advantages in a competitive environment.138

23
Most importantly, liberal ideals are still powerful, autocrats’ proclamations of the
death of liberalism notwithstanding. While the liberal triumphalism of the early Cold
War period exaggerated the ease with which liberal values would take over the
whole globe, a requiem for the West as a set of ideas is premature. Quite strikingly,
people outside the traditional world remind us of the unabated power of Western
ideals. In Hong Kong, millions of people take to the streets to demand their
democratic rights. And in Lebanon, citizens protest by singing Beethoven’s Ode to
Joy.139
People may be dissatisfied with how liberal ideas have been translated into
political practice. But liberal ideas themselves will always be attractive.
Moreover, despite the relative decline of Western economic strength, the combined
powers of the world’s liberal democracies will remain second to none for a long
time to come. The members of the D10, an informal group of nine key democratic
countries and the EU, alone accounted for 57 percent of global GDP in 2018.140
If
they are able to muster their combined political, economic, and military power they
can maintain a version of the liberal order – and even improve it.
As recent years have made all too clear, Western liberal democracies are far
from perfect. Checks and balances have been weakened, democratic values
and traditions undermined. A revitalization of the West in the world must start
at home. But, in contrast to autocratic regimes, liberal democracies have built-in
mechanisms that allow for course corrections and democratic renewal.141
There
may be bugs in the system, but it is not the system itself that is the bug.
Defenders of the West would do well to pursue what Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff calls
“robust liberalism” – a modern liberalism that, being aware of its limits, stays clear
of overreach but is more determined to defend the core of the liberal project.142
The West should be able to defend the liberal international order while accepting
that global power shifts will bring competing models with which the liberal order
will have to coexist.143
The transatlantic partners will have to reach out even more
proactively to like-minded states across the world and think about new ways to
ramp up cooperation among liberal democracies, revitalizing the West for the 21st
century. The West may then continue to “decline” successfully, allowing the next
generation of Spenglerians to reexamine the future of the West in the 22nd century.
“For the West, the
cold reality is not that
autocracy will triumph
and democracy will
fail, but rather that
the 500-year-long era
of Western global
supremacy is coming to
an end.”159
TONY BARBER,
6 NOVEMBER 2019

Actors

26
Building on solid support both among his voters and in the Republican Party,1
President Trump has already left a lasting impact on US foreign policy. Scholars
have highlighted that his approach is in line with a longstanding tradition in US
foreign policy – one that does not hesitate to apply force in pursuit of US interests
but avoids long-term military commitments.2
Trump’s criticism of the overreach of
the post-Cold War period with its costly military operations clearly resonates with
significant parts of the US electorate.3
For 2019, Hal Brands has characterized the track record of Trump’s foreign policy as
a series of “reckless choices, bad deals, and dangerous provocations.”4
US efforts
to address the largest challenge to its national interest – China – are a case in point.
Contrary to the president’s initial claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win,”5
a staggering exchange of reciprocal tariff hikes lowered global economic output
by 0.8 percent in 2019, according to IMF estimates.6
The Trump administration has
used this kind of coercive economic statecraft with unprecedented frequency7
–
raising concerns among experts that such excessive implementation of sanctions
could soon dull their efficacy.8
Moreover, US initiatives seeking to stem North Korea’s
nuclear program, to thwart Iranian regional ambitions, or to combat Venezuela’s
dictatorial regime were not only of limited success – some of them backfired.9
And
rather than ending what President Trump and others have referred to as “endless
wars,” US troops in the Middle East have mostly been shifted from one conflict
to another.10
In particular, the swift decision to shuffle US forces in Syria caught
partners by surprise and has left them wondering whether Washington will have
their back.11
Indeed, long-standing US allies in Europe and Canada are troubled
by Washington’s hostile framing of trade imbalances, and some are questioning
whether the United States will stand by its military commitments.12
In a similar
fashion, US partners in East Asia feel frustrated by what they see as US disinterest
in the face of increasing tensions in the region.13
Domestic issues are compounding US foreign policy challenges. A large turnover
in senior foreign and defense policy positions has left Washington’s foreign policy
apparatus impaired.14
More importantly, growing polarization is taking a toll on
the country’s international clout.15
Specifically, the partisan divide has hampered
support for the use of military force and widens the magnitude of future policy
swings from one administration to another.16
Washington’s allies and adversaries
alike may well interpret this as an increasing inability by the United States to make
credible long-term foreign policy commitments.
In the near term, a course correction seems unlikely. The impeachment of President
Trump and the noise surrounding the 2020 presidential elections will likely deepen
political polarization further. And as US grand strategists ponder the United States’
future role in the world, growing domestic rifts risk forcing the US foreign policy
machinery into a major “strategic time-out.”17
“[O]ur nation is stronger
today than it ever was
before. It is its strongest
now.”18
DONALD TRUMP,
4 JULY 2019
“NATO […] only works
if the guarantor of last
resort functions as such.
I’d argue that we should
reassess the reality of
what NATO is in the
light of the commitment
of the United States.”19
EMMANUEL MACRON,
7 NOVEMBER 2019

27
Turnover among senior-level advisors by administration, year to year, percent
Source: The Brookings Institution20
FREQUENCY OF
EFFORTS TO BLOCK
LEGISLATION
THROUGH FILIBUSTERS
IN THE SENATE
Cloture motions filed in the US Senate, 66th-116th Congress
Source: The Brookings Institution21
COMPARISON OF
TURNOVER IN US
PRESIDENTS’ “A TEAM”
DURING FIRST TERM IN
OFFICE
Source: Kenneth Schultz22
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT
IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
FOR THE USE OF
MILITARY FORCE
Share of party members who voted for resolutions authorizing or otherwise
supporting the President’s use of military force, by roll call, percent
0
20
40
60
100
80
President’s party Opposition party
17
7
11
6
9
35
40
18
27 27
15
31
13
32
20
25
43
14
8 9
5 4
78
66
74
63
71
80
Bush Sr.Reagan Clinton
16
Bush Jr. Obama Trump
Total turnoverYear 1 Year 4Year 3Year 2
0
100
50
150
200
250
300
66th
(1919-20)
71th
(29-30)
76th
(39-40)
81th
(49-50)
86th
(59-60)
91th
(69-70)
96th
(79-80)
101th
(89-90)
106th
(99-2000)
111th
(09-10)
116th
(19-2020)

28
Stay outTake on active part
WHAT CITIZENS IN THE
US THINK: WILL IT BE
BEST FOR THE FUTURE
OF THE COUNTRY IF
WE TAKE AN ACTIVE
PART IN WORLD
AFFAIRS OR IF WE STAY
OUT OF WORLD
AFFAIRS?
Opinion polls, selected years, percent
Source: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs23
50
40
0
10
20
30
60
70
80
781974 86 9482 102002 0690 98 14
201904 08 12
16 18
21.8 21.1
16.5
20.7
8.38.0 8.4
10.1
14.4
18.3 18.2
20.7
Mar May NovJul Sep Mar JulMay Sep Nov
7.2
ChinaUS
Jan
2018
Jan
19
Dec
2019
3.1
8.2
3.2 3.8
6.7
12.0 12.0
17.6
21.0
21.0
20.9
EVOLUTION OF TARIFFS
IN THE “TRADE WAR”
BETWEEN CHINA AND
THE US
15 17
Source: Peterson Institute for International Economics25
Average tariff rate, 2018-19, percent
WHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED NATO
DO YOU THINK THE US
WOULD OR WOULD
NOT USE MILITARY
FORCE TO DEFEND A
NATO ALLY?
Opinion polls, 2015 and 2019, percent
72 65
57
68 63
49 47
66 73
18 25 34
37
26 31
31 30
24
22
10
20 23
10
69
61 55 6 6 100%
15 19
UK
15 19
Poland
15 19
Germany
15 19
France
15 19
Canada
Do not know/refuseNo, would not useYes, would use

29
THE SCALE OF THE
US MILITARY
PRESENCE IN
SELECTED REGIONS
OVER TIME
Source: The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)26
EVOLUTION OF THE US
DEFENSE BUDGET
UNDER RECENT
ADMINISTRATIONS
Annual real growth rates in Department of Defense total obligation authority, by
year of presidential administration, 1989-2020, percent
Source: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)27
20
-30
40
0
-20
-10
10
30
50
60
70
80
Reagan
Clinton
Bush Jr.
Obama
Trump
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
US forward-deployed personnel, by combatant command, selected years,
thousands
326
112
81 76
1 13
189
60
121
82
62
95
1989 20091999 2019
European Command Pacific/Indo-Pacific CommandCentral Command
Bush Sr.
WHAT CITIZENS IN
THE US THINK:
SHOULD THE US
INCREASE, MAINTAIN,
REDUCE, OR
WITHDRAW ITS
MILITARY FORCES
FROM THE
FOLLOWING
COUNTRIES?
Source: The Chicago Council on Global Affairs28
11
10
5
13
12
9
5
3
60
53
53
43
44
41
46
46
15
21
23
23
21
25
27
30
11
14
16
18
20
22
19
19
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
Afghanistan
The Persian Gulf
Iraq
South Korea
Japan
Germany
Syria
Poland
Do not know/refuseIncrease WithdrawMaintain Reduce

30
With the 70th anniversary of the People’s Republic, 2019 was a both momentous
and challenging year for China’s leadership. The anniversary festivities on 1 October
gave President Xi opportunity to flaunt China’s continuing rise towards normative,
economic, and military power on par with the West. The cabinet released a
white paper in July 2019 denouncing “growing hegemonism, power politics,
unilateralism” and provocations in China’s neighborhood by the United States1
–
with the clear message: China is prepared to push back. In the same spirit,
Beijing is continuously developing capabilities to project its power in the Asia-
Pacific. It has upgraded outposts in the South China Sea, is constructing a third
aircraft carrier, and has developed a “credible” sea-based nuclear deterrent and
ballistic missiles that could target the US base on Guam.2
These moves are also
the backdrop for military posturing and hardening rhetoric toward Taiwan, with
vows to take “all necessary means” to quell “separatist forces.”3
Beyond military hardware, the leaps China is making in other technological spheres
are also being felt around the world. In 2019, it completed prestigious spacefaring
projects and cemented itself as a pioneering space power.4
Looming Chinese
superiority in foundational emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum
computing, and connectivity technology has caused consternation in the West –
and, particularly in the case of 5G, an intense debate over how to balance close
economic ties with China against growing security concerns.5
Meanwhile, Beijing
is steadily exporting surveillance technology and “know-how” in the field of internet
regulation.6
The growing concern is that the future holds a technological segregation
of the world into those countries operating on Western technologies and norms and
those running on Chinese ones.7
Internally, too, China’s leadership – and Xi in particular – is tightening its grip.
To date, Xi’s anti-corruption purge has targeted 2.7 million party officials.8
The
party is also increasingly reinserting itself into China’s economy, for instance
by strengthening party committees within enterprises.9
But these moves do
not come without cost. Resistance to Xi’s centralization of power is reportedly
growing.10
China’s economic growth hit a 30-year low in 2019, struggling to stay
abreast of rising debt levels and demographic change.11
If growth suffers under
the new political rigidity, this dissatisfaction may be compounded. In Hong Kong,
the backlash12
against a Beijing power grab is already boiling over. The Chinese
reaction to the protracted and incendiary protests has come under scrutiny from
abroad, but foreign governments have been largely noncommittal. A growing
list of interventions – from manufacturing international praise for the mass
internment of China’s Uighurs, to arbitrarily jailing Canadians in retribution for
Canada arresting a Huawei executive, or censuring the US National Basketball
Association13
– has shown countries how far China will go to stifle criticism not
only at home but also abroad. Beijing faces a steep challenge if it wants to
square domestic repression, shows of military force, and heightening nationalism
with its narrative of China’s “peaceful rise” for international audiences.
“There is no force that
can shake the status
of this great nation.
No force can stop the
Chinese people and
the Chinese nation
forging ahead.”14
XI JINPING,
1 OCTOBER 2019
“Far too many
American multinational
corporations have
kowtowed to the lure
of China’s money and
markets by muzzling
not only criticism of the
Chinese Communist
Party, but even
affirmative expressions
of American values.”15
MIKE PENCE,
24 OCTOBER 2019

31
CHINA’S CAPABILITIES
FOR ANTI-ACCESS/
AREA DENIAL (A2AD) IN
THE EAST AND SOUTH
CHINA SEAS
Source: Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS)17
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on The Economist and Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)16
CHINESE MILITARY
POSTURING IN THE
WATERS AROUND
TAIWAN
3
13
10
7
2
2
3
3
2015 18
1
1
1
1716
1
2019
1
Aircraft carrier passages
Training exercisesLive-fire exercises
Combined air-naval exercises
Chinese naval ports
US naval ports Surface-to-air-missile system (range up to 400 km)
Cruise-missile system (range up to 400 km)
Chinese air force and naval activities in proximity to Taiwan, 2015-19

32
WHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES
THINK: IS CHINA’S
GROWING MILITARY
POWER GOOD OR BAD
FOR YOUR COUNTRY?
POLICIES TOWARD
HUAWEI 5G
TECHNOLOGY IN
OECD COUNTRIES
Huawei involvement in telecommunications networks, November 2019
11
24
12
28
5
36
7
84
49
44
90
39
46
27
90
5
26
16
28
5
7
18
15
3
57
Indonesia
Brazil
Australia
Kenya
Japan
73India
53
Mexico
Nigeria
South Korea
Good Do not know/refuseBad
100%
Countries with trial/pilot
deployments of Huawei
5G technology
Countries without trial/
pilot deployments of
Huawei 5G technology
Austria
Belgium
Finland
Greece
Hungary
Chile
Luxembourg
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Switzerland
Italy
Latvia
Denmark
Estonia
France
Netherlands
UK
Canada
Czech Republic
Mexico
Norway
Australia
Japan
New Zealand
Israel
US
Full exclusion of
Huawei tech-
nology from 5G
networks
Partial exclusion
of Huawei tech-
nology from 5G
networks
Partial exclusion*
of Huawei
technology from
5G networks; full
exclusion being
considered
Full exclusion
being considered
No restrictions in
place or being
considered
Partial exclusion
being considered
Germany
Poland
* E.g., exclusion from core networks, government networks, military networks,
or networks of certain regions or certain carriers
Ireland
Sweden
Lithuania
Iceland
Portugal
South Korea
Spain
Turkey

33
CORPORATIONS AND
CHINA’S DEBT-FUELED
ECONOMIC GROWTH
Total credit to nonfinancial corporations in relation to GDP, 2008-18, percent
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on Bank for International Settlements21
GDP of Hong Kong as share of China’s GDP, 1988-2018, percent
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on World Bank22
HONG KONG’S
DECLINING SHARE OF
CHINA’S ECONOMY
152008 09 10 1711
150
12 13 14 16 2018
0
50
100
200
0
5
30
10
15
20
25
031988 060391 94 97 2000 12 15 2018
Opinion poll, 2019, percentWHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES
THINK: IS CHINESE
INVESTMENT IN YOUR
COUNTRY A GOOD OR
A BAD THING?
Brazil
36
59 12
4
29
6630Australia
35
22
75
5424India
South Korea
9
214832
Kenya
Indonesia
9
Nigeria
16Japan
30
560
61Mexico
41482
261
Do not know/refuseGood because
it creates jobs
Bad because it gives
China too much influence
100%
China Japan
USIndia
Emerging economies except China (average)
Euro area

34
Playing a weak hand well, Russia scored several diplomatic wins in 2019.
Despite no substantial change in the Kremlin’s foreign policy, the past year saw
Russia’s readmission into the Council of Europe, a NATO member state receiving
the Russian-built S-400 air-defense system, and the cementation of Moscow’s
“status as a power broker in the Middle East.”1
Most significantly, however, it
featured a “diplomatic overture”2
by French President Emmanuel Macron, who
urged Europeans to “rethink the fundamentals”3
of their relations with Russia.4
Yet, many European leaders view Macron’s outreach as a rather “undeserved
détente.”5
They find it is at odds with Russia’s persistent destabilization of
Ukraine,6
its challenge to nuclear stability, Moscow’s ongoing efforts to “discredit
and damage Western liberal institutions and values,”7
and Russian involvement
in extraterritorial killings.8
In light of a protracted crisis of trust in Western-Russian relations, the Kremlin
has accelerated its outreach to other world regions, including to Latin America,
the Middle East, and Africa.9
Most significant, however, is Moscow’s “pivot to the
east,”10
towards Beijing. Russia has revived arms sales to China,11
invited Beijing
to participate in the Vostok-2018 military exercise,12
and in July 2019 joined China
in conducting air patrols over the East China Sea.13
According to Beijing, bilateral
trade between both countries increased by 27 percent in 2018.14
Yet, the strongest
asset of the Sino-Russian alignment seems to be the close personal bond with
China’s Xi Jinping, whom Putin calls his “dear friend”15
and has already met about
30 times.16
While Western governments anxiously eye the new alignment, it is
hard to deny the considerable power asymmetry between the two countries
that has unfolded in the areas of commerce and trade,17
but is also becoming
more salient in the military realm as well as in space, cyberspace, and artificial
intelligence.18
When adding China’s growing footprint in the Russian Far East and
in Central Asia to the picture, Sino-Russian ties face some tough tests.
On the domestic front, Putin may still be “firmly in charge.”19
Yet, he is currently
“facing the biggest political challenge since his return to the Kremlin in 2012.”20
In
summer 2019, when the Kremlin banned opposition candidates from running for
the Moscow City Council, protests erupted and resulted in the largest sustained
political demonstration in the past seven years.21
The regime reacted with mass
arrests, but in the elections on 8 September, Kremlin-backed candidates were
still dealt a serious blow. In light of ongoing economic stagnation, no growth in
disposable incomes,22
and a highly unpopular pension reform, support for Putin has
plummeted.23
These developments and the government reshuffle of early 2020
suggest that the domestic foundations for Russia’s global power projection may
slowly be wearing thin. Moscow has long been punching well above its weight. In
2019, however, it still landed numerous hits.
“Pushing Russia away
from Europe is a major
strategic error.”24
EMMANUEL MACRON,
27 AUGUST 2019
“I am pleased to note
that Russian-Chinese
relations have reached
an unprecedentedly
high level.”25
VLADIMIR PUTIN,
5 JUNE 2019
“In the world today,
the China-Russia
relationship is the
closest, strongest, most
mature, and most stable
one between two major
countries.”26
WANG YI,
24 DECEMBER 2019

35
4020 30 7050 60 80
WHAT CITIZENS IN
RUSSIA THINK: WOULD
YOU LIKE TO MOVE
PERMANENTLY TO
ANOTHER COUNTRY?
Opinion polls, 2013-18, by age group, positive responses in percent
Source: Gallup World Poll27
WHAT YOUTHS IN
RUSSIA THINK: HOW
MUCH TRUST DO YOU
HAVE IN…
Opinion polls, 2018-19, “fully trust/rather trust” in percent
Source: United Nations Comtrade Database29
Source: Centre for East European and International Studies (ZOiS)28
SINO-RUSSIAN TRADE
IN GOODS AND ITS
SIGNIFICANCE FOR
EACH COUNTRY
Reciprocal trade as share of each country’s total trade, 2000-18, percent
20
15
2000 02 04 06 08 10 12 14
25
16 2018
0
5
10
Russian exports to China
Russian imports from China Chinese imports from Russia
Chinese exports to Russia
President
Army
Security forces
Mass media
Voluntary
organizations
20192018
Change
-14.9
-4.1
-4.0
-5.8
0.8
142013 15 16 17 2018
0
10
20
30
40
50
30-4915-29 50+

36
The debate about Europe’s strategic direction picked up steam in 2019. Amid
increasing great-power competition and a growing risk of getting caught in the
crossfire, Europeans are hotly debating how Europe can assert itself as a global
player in its own right.1
From the US-China “trade war”2
and Washington’s use
of secondary sanctions, to Chinese inroads into European critical infrastructure,
Europe’s ability to safeguard its security and prosperity and conduct an independent
foreign policy with the necessary means is already being challenged on various
fronts. Against this backdrop, French President Emmanuel Macron warned
insistently that if Europe did not learn the language of power, it would “disappear
geopolitically”3
or have others determine its fate. All this comes at a time when the
United Kingdom, one of the European Union’s “few economic, diplomatic, and
military heavyweights,”4
continues its painful long goodbye from the Union.
Making Europe “weltpolitikfähig,”5
as her predecessor called it, is also a core
concern for Ursula von der Leyen and the “geopolitical”6
Commission she is
heading. Strengthening the EU where it “has a real competitive edge,”7
namely in
the economic realm, will be front and center to this effort.8
The Commission also
seeks to accelerate moves “towards a genuine European Defence Union.”9
On
the growing challenge from China, the EU has already become more outspoken,
for the first time calling Beijing “an economic competitor” and “systemic rival.”10
Moreover, it has boosted efforts to present Beijing with a united European front.11
Yet, despite the recent “5G wake-up call,”12
Europe’s China policies still lack
coherence and remain oddly decoupled from the US approach.13
China is not the only file on which Europeans’ shared concern does not translate
into a sufficient “sense of cohesion and strategic purpose.”14
From how to deal with
rule of law infringements in Hungary and Poland to devising a European distribution
system for refugees, little strategic consensus exists on how to strengthen the EU
and its values – despite the EU managing to position itself in selected areas,
including as a norm-setter in the digital space.
The lack of coordination and fundamental differences over Europe’s strategic
direction between France and Germany, the duo that was supposed to spearhead
the empowerment project, certainly has not helped: after a promising restart in
Franco-German relations,15
disagreement has been especially pronounced on EU
enlargement to the Western Balkans, which France recently blocked with a veto,16
on the right approach toward Russia,17
and on Europe’s relations with NATO. While
Macron fears that it will weaken the EU if the Union is not deepened before new
members accede,18
Chancellor Angela Merkel is more concerned about other
powers exploiting the void the EU leaves to its East.19
Similar frictions emerged
after Macron depicted NATO as braindead,20
leaving Germany – and Eastern EU
member states – alarmed that France wants to strengthen the EU at the expense
of transatlantic relations.21
For now, competing visions of Europe’s place in the
world frustrate efforts to build a more competitive Europe.
“Europe needs more
confident thinking. And
we have reason to be
confident. Because we
speak from a position
of strength – the
economic power of
500 million consumers,
representing 20 percent
of the global GDP.”22
CHARLES MICHEL,
20 NOVEMBER 2019
“My Commission
will be a geopolitical
Commission committed
to sustainable policies.”23
URSULA VON DER LEYEN,
10 SEPTEMBER 2019
“Germans and other
Europeans need
a renewed sense
of cohesion and
strategic purpose to
become more than
an appendage to a
Eurasia reshaped by
China and Russia.”24
ROBERT ZOELLICK,
29 OCTOBER 2019

37
GAPS OF SELECTED
EUROPEAN
CAPABILITIES
IN A NATO ARTICLE 5
SCENARIO WITHOUT
THE US
Source: The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)25
In this hypothetical scenario, the US has withdrawn from NATO. Tensions between Russia and NATO
members Lithuania and Poland escalate into war, resulting in the Russian occupation of Lithuania and
some Polish territory seized by Russia. Invoking Article 5, the European members of NATO direct the
Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) to plan Operation “Eastern Shield” to reassure Estonia,
Latvia, Poland, and other frontline NATO member states by deterring further Russian aggression.
European NATO also prepares and assembles forces for Operation “Eastern Storm,” a military operation
to restore Polish and Lithuanian government control over their territories.
Estimated force requirements and inventory available for operation, scenario
based on 2019 data
Opinion poll, 2019, percentWHAT CITIZENS IN EU
COUNTRIES THINK:
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION
ON …
Source: Eurobarometer26
100%
26
20
16
51
27
16
16
17
39 66
580
6
7
3
1
32
316264
33
36
36
25
68
Capability gap Assessed inventory available for operation
Armored/heavy mechanized brigades
Medium- or high-altitude long-
endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
Short-range air-defense battalions
Air-defense destroyers
Nuclear-powered attack submarines
Aircraft carriers
Anti-submarine warfare aircraft
Fighter ground attack aircraft
Anti-submarine warfare/general
purpose destroyers
Long-range air/missile-defense battalions
155 mm self-propelled artillery battalions
74
71
67
66
46
18
19
24
24
42
8
10
9
10
12
… the EU’s common trade policy
… a common foreign policy of the
28 members states of the EU
… a common defense and security
policy among EU member states
… a common European policy
on immigration
… further enlargement of the EU to
include other countries in future years
AgainstFor No answer
1 2
10 16
5
8

38
TOWARD QUALIFIED
MAJORITY VOTING
(QMV) IN EU COMMON
FOREIGN AND
SECURITY POLICY
(CFSP)
European Commission proposal for a gradual extension of QMV to EU foreign
policy, September 2018
Source: Jacques Delors Centre, Hertie School; graph based on European Commission27
EU MEMBER
STATES’ POSITIONS
ON EXTENSION OF
QMV TO CFSP VIA
PASSERELLE
CLAUSE
Source: Jacques Delors Centre, Hertie School28
QMV in selected CFSP issue areasQMV in CFSP implementation
Passerelle clause:
Art. 31 (3) (TEU)
Enabling clause: Art. 31(2) Treaty of the
European Union (TEU)
Initial decision for action by unanimity in
European Council or Council
Decision for permanent passage to
QMV by unanimity in European Council
QMV for implementation of thematic or
regional strategies, civilian crisis
management missions, and for amending
listings of all EU sanctions regimes
Legal basis
Political
threshold
“Juncker
Proposal”
Passage to QMV in three issue areas:
sanctions, human rights positions, and
civilian crisis management
In favor
In favor of extension to CFSP and taxation
Ambiguous, skeptical, or not finalized
Non-members
Opposed
General safeguards:
Emergency brake: return to unanimous European Council decision for “vital and stated
reasons of national policy”
Excluded: “decisions having military or defense implications”

39
Australia
Canada
Ukraine11
23
29
31
25
27
23
44
56
79
69
60
58
53
51
47
37
34
Opinion poll, 2019, percentWHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES
THINK: DO YOU HAVE A
FAVORABLE OR
UNFAVORABLE OPINION
OF THE EU?
Opinion poll, 2019, percentWHAT CITIZENS IN EU
MEMBER STATES
THINK: THE EU IS
MORE EFFECTIVE IN
DEFENDING THE
TRADE INTERESTS OF
ITS MEMBER STATES
THAN MEMBER STATES
ON THEIR OWN
Source: Eurobarometer30
71
69
78
76
56
69
77
65
21
23
16
20
34
19
14
24
8
8
6
4
10
12
9
11
EU-28
Spain
France
Germany
UK
Hungary
Italy
Poland
No answerAgree Against
100%
Brazil
US
Russia
Japan
Turkey
Nigeria
Exports as share of GDP, September 1999-September 2019, percentSELECTED COUNTRIES’
EXPORTS AS SHARE OF
GDP OVER TIME
Source: Oxford Economics; Haver Analytics29
50
10
0
20
30
40
60
1999 03 05 07 09 11 13 15 17 20192001
Japan
Germany France
China
UK US
EU average
Unfavorable Favorable

Regions

42
For observers of the Southern Mediterranean, 2019 was a year of déjà vu: eight
years after people rose up in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), popular
unrest again shook the states of the region. What accompanied the protests,
namely government repression, violence, and displacement, looked equally
familiar. Meanwhile, Western attempts to help stabilize the region and contain the
by-products of instability, including organized crime, terrorism, and mass migration,
are increasingly confronting their limits. With Europe underusing its many levers of
influence, European leverage in its Southern neighborhood seems to decline.1
Across the region, people keep yearning for change.2
In social and economic
terms, little has been achieved since 2011: growth remains stagnant, corruption
pervasive, and youth unemployment rates some of the highest in the world.3
On the
political side, it does not look much brighter: Tunisia remains the Arab Spring’s only
democratic success story, yet is at constant risk of backsliding.4
Other countries saw
autocratic revivals or plunged into instability and war.5
Meanwhile, Libya is turning into a “crisis of Syrian proportions.”6
Another humanitarian
catastrophe seems imminent since in December Khalifa Haftar and his Libyan
National Army launched their “decisive battle”7
for Tripoli, while the UN-backed Tripoli
government secured the military support of Turkey to fend off Haftar’s offensive.8
Against this background, efforts to negotiate a ceasefire, fully implement the UN
arms embargo, and return to the UN-sponsored political process, which Germany
seeks to advance through an international conference, face dire prospects.9
Besides
Haftar’s belief that military victory is still possible10
and the significant involvement
by outside powers,11
efforts to end the fighting are impeded by a “pervasive war
economy”12
that created many spoilers to peace.13
As the European Union in
particular is lacking “unity of purpose,”14
the West gradually cedes leverage over a
Libyan solution to others.
Torn by instability, Mediterranean states continue to be a source, recipient, and
transit hub for displaced people – many of them destined for Europe.15
Although
the number of maritime crossovers and migrant deaths in the Mediterranean Sea
sharply declined in recent years,16
the depiction of the Sea as a “watery graveyard”17
has not lost its truth. In fact, on the Central and Western Mediterranean routes, the
rate of deaths and disappearances per sea arrival is again on the rise.18
What is
more, European efforts to enlist Libya and other countries in migration control come
at significant costs, as migrants divert to other, potentially more dangerous routes,19
and those intercepted are often detained under dreadful conditions.20
These developments forcefully remind both European and MENA leaders of the
limits of “piecemeal containment.”21
Without the sweeping political and economic
reforms that people rightly demand, lasting stability will not be attained – and the
next iteration of uprisings is only a matter of time.
“The tragedy of the
Mediterranean cannot
be allowed to continue.
We cannot turn a
blind eye to the high
numbers of people
dying on Europe’s
doorstep.”22
FILIPPO GRANDI,
19 JANUARY 2019
“The aspirations of the
Arab Spring have too
often been betrayed.”23
JOHANNES HAHN,
27 MARCH 2019

43
TUNISIA
Source: Freedom House25
DEVELOPMENT OF
CIVIL AND POLITICAL
LIBERTIES SINCE THE
ARAB SPRING
17132011 12 14 15 16
80
2018
-20
0
20
40
60
* 0 = least free, 100 = most free
* For 2019 only until 23 November
PROTESTS AND RIOTS
IN NORTH AFRICA
Source: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)24
Number of protest and riot events, 2011 and 2019*
Number of
events
1 176
2011
2019
MOROCCO
ALGERIA
LIBYA
EGYPT
ALGERIA
LIBYA
EGYPT
MOROCCO
Freedom in the World Index, 2011-18, aggregate scores*
TUNISIA
Morocco
LibyaEgypt
AlgeriaTunisia Lebanon
Syria

44
60
40
0
20
80
100
Jul OctJanJan Apr JanOct Apr Jul Oct Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul
MIGRATION ACROSS
THE MEDITERRANEAN
SEA SINCE 2015
Number of sea arrivals in the EU as well as deaths and disappearances of
migrants in the Mediterranean Sea, 2015-19
MIGRANT
INTERCEPTIONS BY
THE LIBYAN COAST
GUARD (LCG)
Share of migrants intercepted per total departures on the Central
Mediterranean route, 1 January 2016-30 November 2019, percent
Source: Centre for International Security, Hertie School27
SPAIN
ITALY
GREECE
CYPRUS
113,155
485,910
1,128,6621,580
12,557
1,540
Arrivals Recorded deaths
and disappearances
Eastern routeCentral routeWestern route
MALTA
2012
Number of air and artillery strikes, 1 September 2012-31 December 2019AIR AND ARTILLERY
STRIKES IN LIBYA BY
ALL PARTIES
Source: Airwars28
Source: International Organization for Migration (IOM), Missing Migrants Project26
2016 2017 2018 2019
EU funds LCG with
EUR 46 million
EU funds LCG with
EUR 45 million
Battle of Sirte
Battle of Benghazi
Battle for
Tripoli
150
50
0
100
200
250
300
1613 14 15 17 18 2019

45
WHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED NORTH
AFRICAN COUNTRIES
THINK: HAVE YOU EVER
THOUGHT ABOUT
EMIGRATING?
Opinion poll, 2018-19, positive responses by age group, percent
Source: Arab Barometer29
WHAT CITIZENS IN
SELECTED NORTH
AFRICAN COUNTRIES
THINK: WHICH
COUNTRY WERE YOU
THINKING OF
EMIGRATING TO?
Opinion poll, 2018-19, responses aggregated by region, multiple answers,
percent
Source: Arab Barometer30
57
49
35
32
70
56
30 28 26
21
45
33
LebanonAlgeria TunisiaMoroccoEgypt Libya
Age 18-29 All ages
66
17
38 38
64
57
36
39
18
26
1212
62
11 10 10
5
15 15
4
24
12
6
MoroccoLibyaLebanonAlgeria Egypt Tunisia
EU North America Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Non-GCC MENA
14
YOUTH UNEMPLOY-
MENT IN SELECTED
ARAB SPRING
COUNTRIES
Unemployment among ages 15-24, modeled ILO estimate, 2019, percent
Source: The World Bank; International Labour Organization (ILO)31
Upper middle
income
Lower middle
income
Low income
Libya
Morocco
41.9
Egypt
Tunisia
World average
Algeria
Lebanon
World average
Syria
7.3World average
32.6
21.9
34.8
15.7
30.0
17.4
12.3
19.5

46
2019 saw the Middle East dangerously close to a major regional confrontation.1
The attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad by supporters of an Iran-backed
militia group and the subsequent US drone strike that killed Iranian general
Qassem Suleimani were only the most recent in a series of incidents with the
potential to spark a war.2
While that scenario was averted, the latest cycle of
escalation nevertheless ended in mass casualities as Iran accidentally shot down
a civilian airliner.3
Iran has been at the center of growing tensions: it has cemented its military and
political influence in the region and has proven its ability to inflict significant damage
on its opponents, including by means of allied and proxy groups like the Houthis in
Yemen.4
The United States has increased its so-called maximum pressure campaign
on Iran, sending 14,000 additional troops to the Persian Gulf and tightening sanctions
to “bring Iran’s oil exports to zero and deny the regime its principal source of
revenue.”5
Yet, so far, these efforts have failed to reach their goal.
The Iranian economy is down but not out, and Tehran has responded with
pressure of its own – on the US and its allies alike: it has started to gradually
abandon its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) in order to push the agreement’s European parties to deliver on
the JCPOA’s promised economic benefits.6
After the Suleimani killing, Iran
announced it would abandon all nuclear limits of the JCPOA.7
In the region itself,
Washington’s allies have come under direct fire. In September, Saudi Arabian
oil facilities were targeted in a major attack. Riyadh blamed Iran but did not
retaliate.8
In contrast, Israel has escalated its air campaign against suspected
Iranian missile production sites and shipments in Syria and reportedly Iraq.9
Meanwhile, Iran also faces societal backlash – from its own people and from
other societies in the region: in Lebanon and Iraq, demonstrators also heavily
criticized Iranian influence in their countries.10
Few nations joined the US maritime mission to secure freedom of navigation
in the Strait of Hormuz, with France launching a separate European mission
instead.11
Where the United States has ceded strategic space in the region,
others have been quick to move in. In Northern Syria, Turkey and Russia made
fast territorial gains after the hasty second US attempt to leave the country.12
Among US partners, this reinforced the impression that Washington is no longer
willing to stand with its allies – in the Syrian case, first and foremost the Kurds.
The events in Syria also caused a row within NATO, with French President Macron
strongly lamenting the lack of coordination within the alliance.13
Meanwhile, regional actors have embarked on their own efforts to reduce the
risk of all-out war: both the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have quietly
started to engage with Iran and, in September, Riyadh and the Houthis entered
into indirect peace talks on Yemen. However, as long as Washington and Tehran
stay on collision course, détente in the Middle East remains unlikely.
“President Trump
believes that he can
gain by defeating
others. He can gain by
bringing others to their
knees. Maybe he can –
not with Iran.”14
JAVAD ZARIF,
29 OCTOBER 2019
“Iran’s leaders plunder
the nation’s resources
to enrich themselves
and to spread mayhem
across the Middle East
and far beyond.”15
DONALD TRUMP,
22 APRIL 2019
“With the US looking
sometimes elsewhere,
an entire grammar of
deterrents needs to be
reinvented. No place
better exemplifies this
than the Gulf.”16
FLORENCE PARLY,
23 NOVEMBER 2019

47
2.5
1.0
0
3.0
0.5
1.5
3.5
2.0
4.0
182015 16 17 19** 2020
MIXED MESSAGES:
THE US ROLE IN THE
MIDDLE EAST REGION
Source: Congressional Research Service; International Monetary Fund; Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC)18
SANCTIONS AND
IRAN’S ECONOMY
JJaannuuaarryy 22001166
JCPOA implemented
and international
sanctions lifted
MMaayy 22001188
US withdraw from
JCPOA and reinstate
sanctions
-4.8
-1.6
12.5
0*
3.7
-9.5*
GDP growth rate, 2015-20, percent
* Estimate
** Q1-Q3 2019
Volume of crude oil production, 2015-19, million barrels per day
Source: CNN; IHS Markit; The New York Times; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)17
Uncertainty
about the
US role in
the Middle
East
14,000 additional US
troops have been sent to the
Gulf region since May 2019
For 13 out of 15 countries
in the region, the US is among
the top 3 arms suppliers
At least 13 US bases in
northern Syria appear to
have been abandoned
since October 2019
US diplomatic staff in Iraq
is set to be reduced
by 28 percent in 2020

48
Average volume of crude oil flows, 1 January-2 December 2019, million
barrels per day
OIL TRANSPORTS
THROUGH THE STRAIT
OF HORMUZ
Source: ClipperData19
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)20
IRANIAN INFLUENCE IN
THE MIDDLE EAST
Local non-state partners of Iran throughout the region and level of state
penetration, 2019
By load country
3
1
1
2
3
6
4
2
1
3
2
1
3
By destination
India
AFGHANISTAN
JORDAN
KUWAIT
OMAN
PAKISTAN
QATAR
TURKEY
SYRIA
IRAQ
ISRAEL
PALESTINIAN
TERRITORIES
(GAZA STRIP)
SAUDI ARABIA
UAE
Qatar
UAE
Kuwait
Iran
Iraq
Saudi Arabia
China
Other
Singapore
US
South Korea
Japan
Liwa al-Fatemiyoun
Liwa Zainabiyoun
313 Force
Liwa al-Baqir
Local Defense
Forces
Quwat al-Ridha
Asaib Ahl al-Haq
Badr Organization
Harakat Hizbullah al-Nujaba
Kataib Hizbullah
Hamas
Harakat al-
Sabireen
Palestinian
Islamic
Jihad
PALESTINIAN
TERRITORIES
(WEST BANK)
Hamas
YEMEN
Ansarullah (Houthis)
LEBANON
Hizbullah
BAHRAIN
Al-Ashtar
Level of state penetration
High
Medium-high
Medium
Low
Nonexistent
Local non-state partners
IRAN

49
Attacks by target country and number of UAV attacks, quarterly figuresHOUTHI MISSILE AND
UNMANNED AERIAL
VEHICLE (UAV)
ATTACKS IN THE GULF
REGION
Source: IHS Markit21
WHAT CITIZENS IN IRAN
THINK: SHOULD IRAN
NEGOTIATE A NEW
DEAL WITH EUROPE
THAT INCLUDES ITS
MILITARY ACTIVITIES?
Source: Center for International and Security Studies at the
University of Maryland (CISSM); IranPoll23
Opinion poll, December, 2019, percent
FREQUENCY OF
PROTESTS AND RIOTS
IN IRAN, IRAQ, AND
LEBANON IN 2019
Number of protests and riot events, by country, 1 January-23 November 2019
Source: Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED)22
100%
100
0
50
150
250
200
300
350
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
2015 2016 2017 20192018
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
0
20
40
60
80
100
UAE Yemen Saudi Arabia
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
4 10 34 46 5
OtherNoYes
If Europe fully complies with
the JCPOA
If Europe and the US
fully comply with JCPOA
Iraq Iran Lebanon
UAV attacks

50
Disillusioned with the results of almost two decades of state building in Afghanistan,
the West, and the United States in particular, desires to hand over responsibility
for regional security to South Asian actors. Yet, conflicts and rivalries between the
main powers active in the region, namely India, Pakistan, and increasingly also
China, picked up steam in 2019. With India having completed its nuclear triad
and Pakistan intending to do so,1
the risk of a regional nuclear arms race adds
another delicate component to a worsening security situation.
In 2018, the United States entered direct talks with the Taliban about the conditions
for a US retreat.2
A significant reduction of US troops in Afghanistan3
– with or
without a US-Taliban deal – will likely also entail a withdrawal of the other allies in
NATO’s Resolute Support Mission.4
In this scenario, neighboring Pakistan, which
has long played an ambivalent role5
in Western counterterrorism efforts, would
become the main lynchpin for efforts to prevent transnational terrorist groups
from regaining strength.6
While the security situation in Afghanistan remains volatile,7
Kashmir, another
regional hotspot, has reignited: in February 2019, a young Kashmiri Islamist
committed a suicide attack in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, killing
40 Indian soldiers. In response, both India and Pakistan attacked sites across the
Line of Control that has divided Kashmir since 1948. The situation deteriorated
further when India stripped the Muslim majority region of Jammu and Kashmir off
its autonomy rights8
and imposed a security lockdown, during which Kashmiris
suffered arrests, shortage of medicine, communication cuts and a rising death
toll of both civilians and militant fighters.9
In this strained situation, any attack
committed by the Kashmiri insurgency10
bears the risk of escalation, including
into military confrontation between the two nuclear-armed powers. Increasing
ethno-religious nationalism and anti-Muslim sentiment in India11
heighten this risk,
as they might induce Indian authorities to respond with particular force.12
China’s growing role in the region adds another layer of complexity. With one
of the main corridors of its Belt and Road Initiative running through Pakistani-
administered Kashmir, Beijing has a strong stake in regional stability.13
Despite
Chinese support for Pakistan on Kashmir,14
Beijing might thus exercise a
moderating influence on its close economic partner. On the other hand, the China-
Pakistan Economic Corridor stokes Chinese tensions with India. Meanwhile, the
United States has sought closer relations with India, perceiving New Delhi as
a crucial partner for efforts to counterbalance China. However, with substantial
progress on closer US-Indian strategic alignment still lacking,15
the extent to
which India can manifest its status as a regional – let alone global – ordering
power will depend not least on the handling of its own territorial conflicts.
“Two nuclear-armed
countries will come
face to face, as they
did in February. Yet
the United Nations
has a responsibility to
stop us from heading
in that direction. That
is precisely why the
United Nations came
into being in 1945.”16
IMRAN KHAN,
27 SEPTEMBER 2019
“The international
troops have been
here for almost 18
years now, a very long
and painful time. I am
aware that Afghanistan
cannot be a millstone
around the international
community’s neck
forever.”17
ASHRAF GHANI,
7 OCTOBER 2019

51
CIVILIAN DEATH TOLL
BY CONFLICT PARTY IN
AFGHANISTAN UNTIL
THIRD QUARTER 2019
Number of civilian deaths by party to the conflict in Afghanistan,
1 January 2009-30 September 2019
Source: United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)18
Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC)20
CONFLICT-INDUCED
DISPLACEMENT IN
AFGHANISTAN
Number of internally displaced persons in Afghanistan caused by conflict,
2010-18, millions
588
430
528
324
354
610
628 905 747
291
323
350
414
613 467 390
376
2,471 2,677
2009
2,412
10
107
11 1312
2,155
3,804
1442,794
14 15 16 17 18 2019
3,133 2,769
2,969
3,701 3,565 3,527
2,243
2,563
3,440
1,533
2,041
1,185
2,255 2,338 2,324 2,303
1,207
1,149
207
16
0.6
2010 11 12 13 1514 17 2018
0.4
0.5 0.5
0.8
2.6
1.2
1.6
1.3
STAFF OF NON-
GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS
IMPACTED IN MAJOR
ARMED CONFLICTS
Pakistan
Source: International NGO Safety Organisation (INSO)19
Sum of NGO staff killed, injured, and abducted in selected countries,
1 January 2015-31 October 2019
172015 16 18 2019
0
50
100
150
200
Afghanistan
Central African Republic
Democratic Republic of Congo
Mali
Somalia
Syria
3,804
Pro-government forces OtherAnti-government elements

52
POSSIBLE IMPACT OF
A REGIONAL NUCLEAR
WAR BETWEEN INDIA
AND PAKISTAN
SINO-PAKISTANI
INFRASTRUCTURE
COOPERATION
50-125 million
immediate deaths
16-36 million tons of black
carbon smoke released and
20-35 percent decline in
surface sunlightPossible
impact of an
Indo-
Pakistani
nuclear war
in 2025*
Source: Owen B. Toon et al.22
Projects within the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative and the China-
Pakistan Economic Corridor, November 2019
2-5o
C cooling of the
global surface temperature
and 15-30 percent
reduction in precipitation
15-30 percent decline
in productivity on land and
5-15 percent in oceans
* Based on an estimate of nuclear arsenals in 2025, this scenario assumes that India uses 100 and
Pakistan 150 strategic nuclear weapons with yields from 15 to 100 kilotons to attack urban centers

53
EVOLUTION OF
TERRORIST VIOLENCE
IN PAKISTAN
Source: Observer Research Foundation (ORF)25
AGE AND EDUCATION
PROFILES OF KASHMIRI
MILITANT RECRUITS
Age and education profiles of militant Kashmiri recruits killed or arrested in
encounters with Indian armed forces, percent
MILITANT
RECRUITMENT IN
KASHMIR
Number of terrorist attacks in Pakistan and resulting casualties,
1 January 2009-10 November 2019
Source: Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS)23
2,000
8,000
6,000
0
2,000
4,000
0
1,000
3,000
20192009 1610 1511 12 13 14 17 18
Injured AttacksKilled
Number of Kashmiris recruited* by militant armed groups, 2010-19
Source: Observer Research Foundation (ORF)24
54
23 21 16
53
66
88
126
218
139
112010 12 13 14 15 16 201917 18
Post graduate
PhD
Religious studies
29
49
16
21-25
6
Age profile
15-20
31+
26-30
10
23
11
35
16
College graduate
1
Class 10 and under
4
Education profile
High school
100%
Drop out
* Local Kashmiri recruits in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir excluding cross-border infiltrators

54

55
Issues

56
Space exploration has always been intertwined with geopolitics and military
interests. Military space activities have indeed led to many revolutionary civilian
applications. The US Global Positioning System (GPS), for instance, has become the
basis for multi-billion-dollar civilian industries. Today, over 2,000 satellites operated
by around 75 countries orbit our planet,1
enabling essential aspects of modern
life – communication, navigation, science – regardless of national boundaries.
Rapidly sinking production and launch costs have lowered the entry threshold
for space activities.2
As a result, the number of active satellites has increased by
more than two-thirds since 2015,3
driven significantly by constellations of private
mini-satellites. In the last ten years, private investment has risen from a negligible
share to 15 percent of all space-related spending.4
This “democratization” has
been possible because space has long been viewed as a global commons – a
domain that all states rely on and that requires cooperation to use safely.
However, as numerous new state and non-state players gain access to the space
arena, concern about the security of space assets, especially military ones, is rising.
Established space powers like the United States have asserted that “space is no
longer a sanctuary. It is now a warfighting domain.”5
The US, which invests three
times more into military space capabilities than the rest of the world combined,6
relies on its extensive array of satellites for its ability to project force. And strategic
warning satellites are vital for nuclear deterrence and stability – not only for the
United States. However, all of these systems are vulnerable: China, Russia, and
most recently India have successfully tested anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles – but
ASAT weapons can also take the shape of lasers, electronic jammers, or cyber
tools.7
For their part, NATO declared space an “operational domain,”8
and the
United States and France unveiled plans for dedicated “space forces.”9
But
demonstratively gearing up for a “shooting war” in space may invite calamity rather
than deter it: in 2007, one Chinese ASAT test alone spiked the amount of major
debris in orbit by nearly 25 percent.10
While space agencies track over 20,000
pieces of debris, they estimate there are around 900,000 objects that could cause
fatal collisions with satellites.11
Even a brief ASAT skirmish could therefore cause
disastrous fallout for the entire orbital landscape.
Effective arms control and a space “code of conduct” could head off some of
these risks, but new international treaties have long been a nonstarter. The United
States, Russia, and China have been at odds over the basics of space arms control
for years.12
More limited measures – for instance, banning destructive ASAT tests
or a consensus against attacking strategic warning systems – could be a starting
point. With an ever more crowded orbit and the threat of a spiraling contest for
primacy, the patchwork of institutions and initiatives intended to facilitate the use
of space is “hurtling towards obsolescence.”13
A return to cooperation is urgently
needed to maintain space, in the spirit of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, as the
“province of all mankind.”14
“Satellites can be
jammed, hacked, or
weaponized. Anti-
satellite weapons could
cripple communications
and other services our
societies rely on, such
as air travel, weather
forecast, or banking.”15
JENS STOLTENBERG,
20 NOVEMBER 2019
“SPACECOM will
protect US vital interests
in space, the next
warfighting domain.
I think that’s pretty
obvious to everybody,
it’s all about space.”16
DONALD TRUMP,
29 AUGUST 2019

57
2,000
0
500
1,000
1,500
1957 8070 90 2000 2030
0
15,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
HIGH EXPECTATIONS
FOR FUTURE NUMBER
OF SATELLITE
LAUNCHES
Number of (projected) satellite launches per year, 1957-2030
Source: German Aerospace Center (DLR), based on space.skyrocket.de17
DEVELOPMENT OF
MILITARY ASSETS
IN SPACE
Share of total mass of military satellites in Earth orbit, 2009 and 2019, percent
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on European Space Agency19
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on Union of Concerned Scientists18
DANGERS OF ORBITAL
CONGESTION AND
SPACE DEBRIS
Tracked objects in Earth orbit, 1957-2017
2007: China destroys own
weather satellite with ASAT missile
2009: accidental collision between
US and Russian satellites
2017
10
Launches until 2019 High LowMediumProjection until 2030:
20
69
19
12 14
14 13
5
US
20192009
55
Russia
Rest of world
China
100%
Total objects
Rocket bodies
Debris
Mission-related objects
Active/inactive satellites; other instruments
1957 62 67 72 77 82 87 92 97 2002 07 12

58
2019 was the year of climate advocacy, with millions of students across the
world participating in the “Fridays for Future” protests calling for decisive action
on climate change.1
The unprecedented scale of Australian wildfires underlined
the sense of urgency characterizing public debate.2
So far, efforts to curb global
warming have clearly fallen short: according to the United Nations, rather than
limit global warming to 1.5°C, as governments agreed in the landmark 2015
Paris Agreement, the world is currently on the path to 3.2°C warming by 2100.3
Greenhouse gas emissions are still rising as the G20 – the world’s twenty largest
economies accounting for 78 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions –
have so far largely failed to make the necessary transformative changes.4
These are no abstract debates about numbers: for many people, the changing
climate is already a security threat. Between 2008 and 2018, 87 percent of internal
displacements worldwide were caused by weather-related disasters rather than
conflicts.5
Going beyond 1.5°C warming will increase both “intensity and frequency”
of such events.6
More than 140 million people could become internally displaced by
2050 due to climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America
alone.7
Often, those experiencing the most extreme effects of climate change
are also the most vulnerable to them: two-thirds of the world’s most fragile states
are highly exposed to climate change.8
At the same time, the Least Developed
Countries receive only a fraction of global climate assistance: of USD 71.2 billion
raised in 2017, less than 15 percent were allocated to them.9
Furthermore, where
climate exposure coincides with a lack of state efficiency or legitimacy, the risk of
violent internal conflict increases.10
While the effect of climate change on armed
conflict within states has only been modest so far, it is expected to rise with global
temperatures.11
The same holds true for interstate conflict, as climate change may
exacerbate resource scarcity or create new and contested abundance.12
Meanwhile, in parts of the world, warming already exceeds 1.5°C compared
to pre-industrial times. For example, in many areas of the Arctic, average
temperatures have risen by more than 3°C.13
This raises the risk of triggering so-
called climate tipping points. Once these points are reached, the damage caused
to the environment is irreversible and, in some cases, may further accelerate
climate change.14
For instance, the Arctic permafrost region is thought to hold
ten times as much carbon as the Amazon.15
With global warming, the frozen soil
thaws and carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, further adding to the
greenhouse effect.16
In addition, there is increasing evidence that some of these
tipping points may interact with and amplify each other.17
Upholding the 1.5°C goal is still feasible: it would require global emissions to drop
by 7.6 percent each year from now through 2030.18
Every delay increases the
cuts required in the future.19
However, despite overwhelming scientific evidence,
some political leaders continue to question the threat of climate change and the
necessity of global action.20
The disappointing results of the Madrid climate summit
in December hence raise doubts whether 2020 will see advocacy turn into action.21
“We need quick wins,
or the 1.5°C goal of the
Paris Agreement will
slip out of reach.”22
INGER ANDERSEN,
26 NOVEMBER 2019
“I want you to act [...].
I want you to act as if
the house was on fire,
because it is.”23
GRETA THUNBERG,
25 JANUARY 2019
“Climate change
threatens the future
of human rights and
risks undoing the last
fifty years of progress
in development, global
health, and poverty
reduction.”24
UN HUMAN RIGHTS
COUNCIL,
25 JUNE 2019

59
Evaluation of national climate change mitigation commitments and
corresponding degree of global warming, 2019
TRACK RECORD OF
SELECTED COUNTRIES
REGARDING THEIR
EFFORTS TO LIMIT
CLIMATE CHANGE
Source: Climate Action Tracker25
Paris Agreement compatible
<1.5°C
Highly insufficient
<4°C
Insufficient
<3°C
2°C compatible
<2°C
Critically insufficient
4°C +
No evaluation

60
2050 2100
Greenhouse gas emissions, 2018, by country
Greenhouse gas emissions per year, 1990-2100, gigatons and respective
global warming by 2100 compared to pre-industrial levels
GLOBAL EMISSIONS
AND WARMING
PROJECTIONS
Source: Climate Action Tracker26
SELECTED COUNTRIES’
CHANGES IN
EMISSIONS
Source: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)27
Total emissions,
gigatons per year
71
63
9
8
-21
-27
India
Japan
China
US
Russia
EU-28
1990
Baseline
4.1-4.8°C
Current policies
2.8-3.2°C
Pledges and targets
2.5-2.8°C
1.5°C consistent
1.3°C
2.5
13.7
3.7
6.7
1.4
4.4
Relative change since 1990,
percent
RENEWABLE ENERGY
COSTS
Global levelized cost of energy for key renewable energy technologies,
2018
Source: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)28
0.126
Geothermal
Hydro
Bioenergy
0.072
Offshore wind
Solar photovoltaic
Onshore wind
Concentrating
solar power
0.047
0.061
0.185
0.055
0.085
Change since 2010
Percent
Fossil fuel cost range
USD per kWh
-18
50
31
-77
-35
-21
-46
100
0
50
150
200

61
5.4
9.3
17.2
10.8
17.2
28.0
16.1
16.1
People in very high climate exposure areas by country, 2018, millions
DRIVERS OF INTERNAL
DISPLACEMENT:
DISASTERS VS.
CONFLICTS
VULNERABILITY TO
CLIMATE CHANGE IN
SELECTED HIGHLY
FRAGILE COUNTRIES
Source: United States Agency for International Development (USAID)29
Source: Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre30
Number of newly displaced people by cause, 2018, millions
44
14
8
5
3
2
2
1
1
India
Pakistan
Egypt
Iraq
Burma
Nigeria
Cambodia
Iran
Colombia
Conflict related
Disaster related
Geophysical
Weather
related
Storms
Floods
0.4 Wildfires
Droughts
0.2 Landslides
0.8
CLIMATE CHANGE AND
PEACE OPERATIONS
Countries hosting largest multilateral peace operations, 2018, total international
personnel and country’s exposure to climate change
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)31
Mali
Afghanistan
Somalia
Central African
Republic
8,971
South Sudan
Democratic Republic
of the Congo
Lebanon
Sudan (Darfur)
21,732
18,046
17,691
17,191
16,129
14,460
10,556
Most exposed Least exposed
1.1

62
“Around the world, we
see a groundswell of
xenophobia, racism
and intolerance, violent
misogyny, anti-Semitism,
and anti-Muslim
hatred.”19
ANTONIO GUTERRES,
18 JUNE 2019
“There is no question
that ideas and language
of division and hate
have existed for
decades, but their form
of distribution, the tools
of organization – they
are new.”20
JACINDA ARDERN,
19 MARCH 2019
While vast resources have been spent on the “war on terror” fighting jihadist
extremism since 9/11, another type of extremism has not received the same
attention: right-wing extremism. Its death toll again produced dire headlines
in 2019. While its adherents are highly heterogeneous,1
right-wing extremism
commonly refers to the act of supporting or committing violence based on the
belief in one’s racial, ethnic, or cultural supremacy, fierce nationalism, and/or
opposition to government authority.2
Less prominent on the public and political
agenda,3
it has killed more people in the United States since 9/11 than the
jihadist variant.4
The fact that until recently, right-wing extremist attacks have been
more frequent, yet less deadly on average than those committed by jihadists,
has contributed to a misperception of the size of the threat.5
A series of highly
lethal extreme-right attacks committed in 2018 and 2019, among them the killing
of 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in October 2018, of 51
people in the March 2019 mosque attacks in Christchurch, and of 22 people in
El Paso in August 2019 might have begun to change this perception.
Although most right-wing extremists conduct their attacks alone, they are
increasingly embedded in transnational networks. These networks rely on a
strong sense of common identity, based on the belief in white supremacy and
the perceived need to protect it.6
This global “intellectual cohesion of ideas”7
was
evident in the manifestos and social media posts released for example by the
perpetrators of Christchurch, Pittsburgh, El Paso, and Halle.8
Explicitly referring to
each other and seeking to inspire others, these attacks do not describe “one-off
events, but a loosely coordinated chain of far-right attacks across the world.”9
While right-wing extremists also connect offline,10
the internet plays a central
role in breeding and amplifying extremist thought. Frequently outpacing jihadist
extremists in the use and reach of social media posts,11
right-wing extremists
strongly rely on internet platforms to communicate and disseminate their ideas.
With the increased takedowns of extremist content by platforms like Twitter,
Facebook, and YouTube, right-wing extremists have shifted more and more to
encrypted apps like Telegram and Discord as well as unregulated platforms such
as 8chan or Gab.12
These “far corners of the internet”13
also decisively contribute
to self-radicalization processes.14
Beyond the opportunities provided by social media and the internet, the extreme
right capitalizes on fears of demographic and socioeconomic change,15
as
illustrated by upticks in violence following the election of the first African American
president in the United States16
or the refugee crisis in Europe.17
The fears
extremists exploit have been nurtured by far-right, nationalist parties. As such,
right-wing extremism is part of a much broader problem: the rise of actors who
are mainstreaming radical views and are thereby eroding the fabric of Western
liberal democracies from within.18

63
Events
0
60
40
20
80
100
2002 0804 06 10 161412
RIGHT-WING FATAL
EVENTS AND
FATALITIES IN
WESTERN COUNTRIES
FATAL EVENTS AND
FATALITIES BY
IDEOLOGY IN THE US
SINCE 9/11
Number of fatal events and fatalities attributed to right-wing and jihadist
extremism, 12 September 2001-31 December 2018
Number of fatal events and fatalities in Western countries attributed to right-
wing extremism, 2002-19
Source: The United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB)22
Source: The United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB); Jacob Aasland Ravndal; Center for
Research on Extremism (C-REX) at the University of Oslo21
July 22,
Oslo/Utøya: 77
Fatalities
THE EXTREME RIGHT
FORGES
TRANSNATIONAL
LINKS BY…
Source: Munich Security Conference, based on Anti-Defamation League (ADL); The Soufan Center23
18 2019*
* Figures for 2019 are preliminary as cases are still being vetted
March 15, Christchurch: 51
August 3, El Paso: 22
105
36
136
187
Right-wing extremism Jihadist extremism
Events Fatalities
October 27,
Pittsburgh: 11
… connecting online on mainstream platforms such as Facebook,
YouTube, and Twitter, fringe platforms such as Gab, Reddit, and Voat,
encrypted apps such as Telegram and Discord, and image boards like
4chan and 8chan.
… building organizational ties such as between the US-based
“Atomwaffen Division” and its European counterparts.
… conducting joint combat trainings for the alleged defense of the
white race, as in the paramilitary corps “Asov Batallion“ in Ukraine.
… convening at conferences across Europe and the US, at marches
such as “Unite the Right” in Charlottesville in August 2017 or the annual
“Independence March” in Poland, and at concerts such as “Fortress
Europe” in Kyiv in June 2019.

64
Technology and Innovation: It’s All About
Politechs
The discussion around technology has rarely – if ever – been so closely linked to the
discussion on sovereignty of nation states. President Macron made it clear last year
that technology is no longer seen as politically neutral:1
“The battle we’re fighting is
one of sovereignty […]. If we don’t build our own champions in all areas – digital,
artificial intelligence – our choices will be dictated by others.”2
It is against this backdrop that Europe, with its historically strong industrial base,
sees its economic position increasingly challenged by other global powers.3
The
US holds the leading position in many tech areas and China is stepping up. This is
evident in the rise of Chinese tech giants such as Huawei, Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent,
and Xiaomi.4
China’s powerful catch-up is also borne out by the numbers: the
country almost tripled its share of R&D spending in technology and hardware
equipment between 2012 and 2019.5
The main challenge for Europe lies in its
structural disadvantages vis-à-vis China and the US.6
Its fragmented markets,
including capital markets, and governance – for example, with regard to taxation –
stand in the way of rapid scale-up and make it difficult for “superstars” to emerge.7
To be sure, Europe still has technology leadership in industries such as automotive,
where it provides more than half of global R&D investment.8
However, Europe is
losing ground as a home of leading companies in the world. A 2018 analysis of
the top 100 global companies by market capitalization found that 18 of those
companies from China and 13 from the United States were founded in the past 30
years;9
by contrast, the share of “superstars” in Europe has dropped by 50 percent
over the past two decades and no new company made it to the list.10
Europe needs its own approach for innovating at scale that both builds on its
unique strengths and overcomes its unique challenges.11
“Mission-led” innovation,
whereby Europe’s diverse stakeholders rally around a joint, concrete, and ambitious
goal to collaborate at scale, could be a potential solution.12
Such large, ambitious
missions can then galvanize public-private collaborations to stimulate innovation.13
The security, defense, and space sector in Europe offers real and concrete
opportunities to create such missions today. As an example, building a “digital Galileo”–
Galileo is the EU’s global navigation satellite system – to ensure European digital
end-to-end sovereignty and independence, could potentially unleash a similarly
unifying force.14
If Europe were to take this chance, it would also demonstrate
that European cooperation can produce tangible wins in a landscape of rapid
technological change.
This page was prepared by the MSC’s knowledge partner
McKinsey & Company.

65
Share of aggregated private sector R&D spending by country/region, 2012
and 2019, percent
CONDITIONS FOR
INNOVATION IN
SELECTED COUNTRIES
RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT
SPENDING (R&D) BY
TOP GLOBAL 250
COMPANIES IN
COMPARISON
Source: McKinsey, based on European Commission15
Source: McKinsey Global Institute16
Country scores on indicators for (digital) innovation potential, 2018, quartiles
This page was prepared by
the MSC’s knowledge partner:
45 52
18 18 13
27 23
13
35 26
32 25
13
14
17
16
55
49 79
77
47
60
12
15
44 44
19 17
6
2 5 7
7
2
4
7
8
6
6
13
8
4
5
7 100%
12 19
Technology
hardware and
equipment
Software and
computer
services
Pharmaceu-
ticals and
biotechnology
Electronic and
electrical
equipment
Automobiles
and parts
Rest of worldUSJapanEU China
12 19 12 19 12 19 12 19
Innovation
foundation:
R&D investment
and industry
dynamism
Digital
absorption:
corporations
using latest
technologies
Human capital:
skills for
technology-
intense value
added
Connectedness:
flows of goods,
services, capital,
people and data
US
Germany
UK
Netherlands
Sweden
Japan
South Korea
China
Canada
France
Belgium
Australia
Spain
Poland
Italy
India
Brazil
Romania
Bottom quartileThird quartileSecond quartileTop quartile

66

67
Food for Thought

68
Books DARON ACEMOGLU, JAMES A. ROBINSON: The Narrow
Corridor
States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty
Drawing on cases across geographies and time periods, the
authors show that political liberty is never static, but “originates
from a delicate balance of power between state and society.”
To uphold political freedom, and protect prosperity and safety,
they argue for a mobilized society and a responsive state.1
WILLIAM J. BURNS: The Back Channel
A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its
Renewal
Having served as American diplomat for more than three
decades, Burns provides a rare insight into US diplomatic
history. By illustrating what has characterized and facilitated
effective US leadership in the past, the author makes the case
for diplomacy’s enduring value amidst international turmoil.3
KIMBERLY CLAUSING: Open
The Progressive Case for Free Trade, Immigration, and
Global Capital
As nationalism and protectionism increasingly guide policy
making around the world, Clausing argues that a more
globally connected economy can help especially the
weakest. Outlining a progressive agenda, she advocates for
better management of, rather than retreat from, globalization.4
JESSICA TRISKO DARDEN: Aiding and Abetting
U.S. Foreign Assistance and State Violence
Building on statistical analyses and case studies, Darden
examines how US economic and military assistance has
affected the human rights situation in recipient countries.
Showing that aid given to nondemocratic regimes
repeatedly led to more violence and repression, the author
argues for only providing aid to countries unlikely to use
such resources coercively.6
JOANA COOK: A Woman’s Place
US Counterterrorism Since 9/11
Drawing on extensive interviews, official documents, and
existing scholarship on women in international security, Cook
analyzes how women have become a key part of US counter-
terrorism efforts since 9/11. In describing their multifaceted role
as agents, partners, and targets, Cook argues for an inclusive
engagement of women in all aspects of security.5
HAL BRANDS, CHARLES EDEL: The Lessons of Tragedy
Statecraft and World Order
Building on an ancient Greek approach to history, modernist
thinkers, and contemporary observations, the authors assess
past attempts to create a stable world order. Concluding that
a peaceful international order was the exception, not the rule,
they argue that US leadership was key for 75 years of great-
power peace and warn against a US retreat.2

69
ALICE C. HILL, LEONARDO MARTINEZ-DIAZ: Building
a Resilient Tomorrow
How to Prepare for the Coming Climate Disruption
Highlighting the economic, social, and geopolitical impact of
climate change, the authors stress the need to foster resilience.
Citing cases from across the globe and drawing on their
personal experience as senior Obama administration officials,
the authors offer several pragmatic policy recommendations.8
MICHAEL E. O’HANLON: The Senkaku Paradox
Risking Great Power War Over Small Stakes
Introducing the idea of “integrated deterrence,” O’Hanlon
argues that the United States should draw on a mix of
economic and military tools to effectively deter and respond
to competitors. The need for this strategy results both from the
impact of technological progress and the risks of a potential
escalation of local crises to major great-power conflict.7
ANDREI P. TSYGANKOV: Russia and America
The Asymmetric Rivalry
Providing one of the first analyses of the Trump-Putin
relationship, Tsygankov offers a nuanced assessment of
US-Russian relations across a range of policy issues. While
stressing that both sides have “no choice but to look for
opportunities to cooperate,” the author highlights prospects
for continued conflict given mutual distrust and deep
political divisions.12
PETER R. NEUMANN: Bluster
Donald Trump’s War on Terror
ComparingtheTrumpianrhetoricwiththeadministration’sactual
policies, Neumann offers an in-depth analysis of the past two
years of US counterterrorism strategy. He argues that President
Trump, despite continuing many of his predecessors’ policies,
has had a tangible impact by transforming fundamental values
that have so far guided US policy.11
IVAN KRASTEV, STEPHEN HOLMES: The Light That
Failed
Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy
Krastev and Holmes explain why post-Cold War hopes for
an eastward spread of liberal democracy were dashed.
Making sense of liberalism’s present crisis, they show how
the “politics of imitation” sparked resentment and fueled anti-
liberal populism in the post-Soviet space and beyond.9
LUUK VAN MIDDELAAR: Alarums & Excursions
Improvising Politics on the European Stage
Blending political theory with his profound governance
experience, van Middelaar traces the transformation of EU
policy-making in response to recent major crises. Pointing to
increased public scrutiny and the need for swift action, the
author shows how the Union’s traditional technocratic approach
has shifted to more pragmatic, event-based policies.10
O’HANLONTHESENKAKUPARADOX
China claims the tiny and uninhabited Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China
Sea. Japan also claims them, and they are covered by the U.S.-Japan Security
Treaty. If China seizes one or more of the Senkakus, what should the United States
do? Presumably, the U.S. would feel obliged to come to Japan’s military assistance to
reestablish control of the occupied territory. But, if the conflict escalated, a major war
between nuclear-armed countries could result—all over a few barren pieces of land
with little if any inherent importance.
This is what Michael O’Hanlon calls the Senkaku paradox. The logical application
of a formal U.S. security commitment could lead to a war far out of proportion to the
importance of the immediate stakes. The Senkaku scenario is only one example of a
broader set of scenarios that could, for example, also involve small-scale Russian attacks
against NATO allies of the United States. Such scenarios may be more likely in today’s
world because both Russia and China have an interest in testing, and weakening, the
U.S.-led global security order, even where they might not have territorial ambitions of a
more traditional sort. With the Obama and Trump administrations’ renewed emphasis
on great power strategic competition, this question has become even more urgent.
In The Senkaku Paradox, O’Hanlon develops an integrated military-economic-
diplomatic strategy to reduce the risks of great power war and military escalation over
very limited stakes.
“Although the U.S. has the world’s largest military, Russia and China have the
local advantage in areas of contention near their borders, and in a masterful
treatment Michael O’Hanlon shows that traditional direct ways of coping
with the possible aggression are inadequate. Instead, he persuasively presents
an alternative mix of military and economic asymmetric strategies that could
bolster deterrence and put the U.S. in position to respond effectively to Russian
or Chinese adventures without triggering destructive escalation.”
— Robert Jervis, author of How Statesmen Think:
The Psychology of International Politics
MICHAEL E. O’HANLON is a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings
Institution. He is the author of numerous books on U.S. defense and global security,
including Beyond NATO: A New Security Architecture for Eastern Europe; Strategic
Reassurance and Resolve: U.S.-China Relations in the Twenty-first Century, with James
Steinberg; and The Future of Land Warfare.
Cover design: Ann Weinstock
Photo: Getty Images / The Asahi Shimbun
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.brookings.edu/press
RISKING
GREAT POWER
WAR OVER
SMALL STAKES
THE SENKAKU
PARADOX
MICHAEL E. O’HANLON
O'Hanlon_Senkaku Paradox, The_pb_9780815736899_Cover.indd 1 3/4/19 3:05 PM

70
Reports CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL
PEACE: Think Peace: Essays for an Age of Disorder
Growing tensions and increasing great-power competition
mandate a reimagined international peace project. Reviewing
the last century’s overarching historical narratives and
examining some of today’s most pressing challenges, this
report maps a way toward a renewal of diplomacy.1
EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY STUDIES
(EUISS): What if...? Scanning the Horizon: 12 Scenarios
for 2021
From a territory swap between Kosovo and Serbia and
another Arab Spring to a continental debt crisis in Sub-Saharan
Africa, this collection of policy briefs explores possible future
scenarios that might occur in 2021. This report provides an
overview of such emerging policy challenges and invites the
reader to exercise strategic foresight.6
CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY (CNAS):
New Voices in Grand Strategy
In recent years, US grand strategy has been controversially
debated by Washington’s policy establishment – whether with
regard to the role of its underlying values, the country’s national
interests or the importance of burden sharing with partners.
In this report, academics and policy planners offer thought-
provoking contributions on the future of US foreign policy.2
CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN REFORM (CER): Can Europe
Learn to Play Power Politics?
This report analyzes why the EU, faced with a shifting global
order, is “punching below its weight” on foreign policy.
Arguing that the European project was built against the idea
of international power politics, the author outlines how instead
the EU could enhance its foreign policy clout by using its soft
power instruments as a source of hard power.5
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL
STUDIES (CSIS): Out of the Shadows: Shining a
Light on Irregular Migration
Assessing the cases of Mexico, Eritrea, and Ghana, this report
assesses the complex nature of irregular migration. The policy-
oriented analysis of this global phenomenon identifies a lack of
opportunities at home as the main driver for the movement of
an estimated 107 million irregular migrants around the world.4
CENTER FOR ADVANCED DEFENSE STUDIES (C4ADS):
Money Tree: Teak and Conflict in South Sudan
This report highlights the interconnectedness of armed
conflict and natural resource exploitation by illicit actors.
The authors analyze how corruption in the South Sudanese
teak sector, legal grey areas, and foreign companies’ profit
seeking exacerbate instability in the country and contribute
to persisting conflict at the expense of local communities.3

71
RAND CORPORATION: A Consensus Proposal for a
Revised Regional Order in Post-Soviet Europe and
Eurasia
Cooperation in the post-Soviet space faces many
impediments. This proposal, drafted by experts from the Euro-
Atlantic space outlines a regional order aimed at economic
integration, resolution of regional conflicts, and a revised
security architecture acceptable to all actors involved.10
THE GERMAN MARSHALL FUND OF THE UNITED
STATES (GMF): Reassessing 1989
Events proceeded at breakneck speed in 1989, from the
Tiananmen Square protests to the fall of the Berlin Wall and
the breakup of Yugoslavia. This essay collection looks back
at this momentous year’s historical upheavals, examines
lasting consequences for liberal democracy and provides a
critical review of the year’s global legacy until today.7
THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC
STUDIES (IISS): Defending Europe: Scenario-based
Capability Requirements for NATO’s European Members
Drawing on open source data, this report puts European
defense capabilities to the test in fictitious scenarios set in the
early 2020s following a US withdrawal from NATO. Analyzing
capability and funding shortfalls, it adds important substance
to the ongoing discussion on European strategic autonomy.8
STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (SIPRI): Advancing United Nations
Responses to Climate-related Security Risks
This policy brief describes the recent evolution of the climate
security debate in the UN and in the UN Security Council in
particular. It suggests three interrelated policy areas where the
UN could enhance its role: resilience building, climate security
knowledge provision, and financing climate security action.11
WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR
SCHOLARS: Geopolitical Implications of a New Era on
the Korean Peninsula
This essay collection offers perspectives from US-American
and Japanese scholars on North Korea-United States
relations, their geopolitical as well as regional impact, and
nuclear security in the Indo-Pacific. Examining the recent
summit diplomacy on the Korean peninsula, the authors
review different policies that might promote regional stability.12
MERCATOR INSTITUTE FOR CHINA STUDIES (MERICS):
China’s Digital Rise: Challenges for Europe
Examining how Chinese state-backed companies are co-
shaping the global digital architecture and norms, this report
analyzes the Chinese Communist Party’s corresponding
strategy. The authors find that Beijing’s digital foray poses
more security risks than cooperation opportunities for Europe
and outline recommendations for a joint European strategy.9

72

73
Acknowledgments

74
Acknowledgments
Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), Airwars, Arab Barometer,
The Brookings Institution, Center for International and Security Studies at the
University of Maryland (CISSM), Center for Research on Extremism at the University
of Oslo (C-REX), Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), Centre
for East European and International Studies (ZOiS), Centre for International Security
at the Hertie School, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Climate Action Tracker,
ClipperData, The Economist, European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR),
European Space Agency (ESA), German Aerospace Center (DLR), Gallup World
Poll, Global Migration Data Analysis Centre/International Organization for Migration
(IOM), IHS Markit, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), International
Crisis Group, The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), International
NGO Safety Organisation (INSO), Jacques Delors Centre at the Hertie School,
McKinsey & Company, Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS), Observer
Research Foundation (ORF), Oxford Economics, Pak Institute for Peace Studies
(PIPS), Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), Pew Research Center,
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Union of Concerned Scientists (USC), United
Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
The United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB).
We would also like to extend special thanks to those partners who collected data
specifically for this report or who allowed us to use previously unpublished material.
Partner logos are displayed alongside their respective charts, maps, or tables.
Jacob Aasland Ravndal (C-REX), Julia Black (Global Migration Data Analysis
Centre, IOM), Stephanie Blenckner (SIPRI), Joshua Busby (University of Texas at
Austin), Andrew Cohen (Pew Research Center), Joshua D. Freilich (ECDB), Bastian
Giegerich (IISS), Laura Grego (Union of Concerned Scientists), James Hackett
(IISS), Patrick W. Harned (Arab Barometer), Jessica Harris (The Brookings Institution),
Thomas Hövelmann (Wintershall Dea GmbH), Craig Kafura (The Chicago Council
on Global Affairs), Peter Kouretsos (CSBA), Janis Klenk (Oxford Economics), Nicole
Koenig (Jacques Delors Centre), Wolfram Lacher (German Institute for International
and Security Affairs/SWP), Frank Laczko (Global Migration Data Analysis Centre,
IOM), Colleen E. Mills (ECDB), Caelum Moffatt (INSO), Jens Osterhaus (Oxford
Economics), Michael Robbins (Arab Barometer), Gwendolyn Sasse (ZOiS), Kenneth
Schultz (Stanford University), Khalid Shah (Observer Research Foundation), Dina
Smeltz (The Chicago Council on Global Affairs), Ermina Strutinschi (INSO), Leila
Urekenova (UNEP), Christian Wagner (SWP), Jan Weidenfeld (MERICS), Dirk
Zimper (DLR).
The Munich Security Conference would like to thank McKinsey & Company for
their contribution to the report as well as for its support in the design and layout
process, in particular: Birgit Ansorge, Marc Bachmann, Tanja Barrall, Stephanie
Lingemann, Quirin Maderspacher, Jacqueline Oueslati, Gundbert Scherf, Wolff
van Sintern, Julie Zemanek.
THIS REPORT DRAWS
ON THE RESEARCH
AND INPUT FROM
MANY GENEROUS
INSTITUTIONS AND
THEIR STAFF. THE
MUNICH SECURITY
CONFERENCE
WOULD LIKE TO
THANK:
THE MUNICH
SECURITY
CONFERENCE
WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE
THE FOLLOWING
INDIVIDUALS
FOR THEIR
CONSIDERABLE
SUPPORT:

75
REPORT TEAM
DISCLAIMER
Tobias Bunde, Randolf Carr, Sophie Eisentraut, Christoph Erber, Julia Hammelehle,
Laura Hartmann, Juliane Kabus, Franziska Stärk, Julian Voje
The information and data in the Munich Security Report, or on which this report
is based, has been obtained from sources that the authors believe to be reliable,
accurate, and trustworthy – however, we cannot guarantee their accuracy or
completeness. The Munich Security Conference (MSC) has secured the rights
to publish all the information and data included in this report. Note that this report
went into print on 17 January 2020.
This report presents research and input on a variety of security policy topics
prepared by staff and partners of the MSC as well as other institutions. The primary
goal of the report is to present this thought-provoking material to a broad audience.
We consequently do not endorse every quote or every line of analysis in this report.
The Munich Security Report 2020 is published by the Munich Security Conference
Foundation gGmbH (Prinzregentenstr. 7, 80538 Munich, Germany), on the
occasion of the 56th edition of the Munich Security Conference. The Munich
Security Conference is the world’s leading platform for the discussion of security
policy. In addition to its annual flagship conference, the MSC regularly convenes
high-profile events around the world. More information on the MSC, its structure,
goals, and activities can be found at www.securityconference.org/en. Should you
require further information on this report or wish to share criticism, suggestions, or
ideas for future improvements, please e-mail us at msr@securityconference.de.
Shouldyouwishtoreproducepartsofthisreport,pleaseensurethatyouacknowledge
the original source and consult the contributing organization or institution.
All parts of this report not specifically attributed to a third party may be reproduced
freely as long as the Munich Security Report is acknowledged as source. Copyright
of reprinted cover illustrations of books and reports remains with the respective
publisher.
Suggested citation: Tobias Bunde, Randolf Carr, Sophie Eisentraut, Christoph Erber,
Julia Hammelehle, Laura Hartmann, Juliane Kabus, Franziska Stärk, and Julian
Voje, “Munich Security Report 2020,” Munich Security Conference, February 2020,
https://securityconference.org/en/publications/munich-security-report-2020/.
The Munich Security Report is published on the occasion of the annual Munich
Security Conference. Since its first edition in 2015, it has compiled data, analyses,
and maps which illuminate major developments and critical challenges to
international security. The report serves as a conversation starter for the Munich
Security Conference and as background reading for MSC participants, but is also
made available to security professionals and the interested public.
IMPRESSUM
COPYRIGHT
MORE ABOUT THIS
SERIES
PRINT DETAILS © Stiftung Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz
(gemeinnützige) GmbH, February 2020
Printed by experts (www.ppa-office.com)
ISSN (Print) 2365-2179
ISSN (Internet) 2365-2187

76

77
Endnotes

78
Endnotes
Please note that all links were last checked on 10 January 2020. All quotes and descriptions in British English have been changed
to American English. Note that deviations from 100 percent in visualized data are due to rounding.
Westlessness
1. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West: Outlines of a Morphology of World History, Alfred Knopf (New York), 1927, originally
published as Der Untergang des Abendlandes: Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte (Vol. 1, Vienna: Braumüller,
1918, rev. edition, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1923; Vol. 2, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1924).
2. For some examples see Bill Emmott, The Fate of the West: The Battle to Save the World’s Most Successful Political Idea,
PublicAffairs (New York), 2017; Edward Luce, The Retreat of Western Liberalism, Atlantic Monthly Press (New York), 2017;
Kishore Mahbubani, Has the West Lost It? A Provocation, Penguin (London), 2018; Vessela Tcherneva, “The End of the
Concept of ‘the West’?,” ECFR Commentary, 18 May 2018, https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_the_end_of_the_concept
_of_the_west; Carl Bildt, “It’s the End of the West As We Know It,” The Washington Post, 15 November 2016, https://www
.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/its-the-end-of-the-west-as-we-know-it/2016/11/15/9e3ce89a-ab54-11e6-977a
-1030f822fc35_story.html; Joschka Fischer, “Das Ende des Westens,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12 December 2018, https://sz.de
/1.3289483; Andreas Whittam Smith, “This Is the End of the West – But the Western Establishment Only Has Itself to Blame,”
The Independent, 15 February 2017, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/end-of-west-western-establishment-wolfgang
-ischinger-munich-security-conference-blame-a7582081.html.
3. Roger Cohen, “Munich or a Requiem for the West,” The New York Times, 15 February 2019, https://nyti.ms/2EbAbbr. In a similar
vein, Jacob Heilbrunn noted that the 2019 edition “exposed the decline of the West.” See Jacob Heilbrunn, “Munich Conference
Exposes the Decline of the West,” The National Interest, 18 February 2019, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/munich-conference
-exposes-decline-west-44922.
4. Griff Witte and Michael Birnbaum, “Trump Foreign Policy Under Attack from All Sides at European Security Conference,” The
Washington Post, 16 February 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/trump-foreign-policy-under-attack-from
-all-sides-at-european-security-conference/2019/02/16/9b1a713a-2fac-11e9-8781-763619f12cb4_story.html.
5. See, e.g., Benjamin Herborth and Gunther Hellmann, “Introduction: Uses of the West,” in Gunther Hellmann and Benjamin
Herborth, (eds.), Uses of the West: Security and the Politics of Order, Cambridge University Press (Cambridge), 2017, pp. 1-9,
p. 1: “In everyday political language ‘the West’ is usually understood to refer to a grouping of states and societies in Europe
and North America, which share a few characteristics, are tightly connected among each other, and have amassed the
overwhelming bulk of military capabilities, economic power, and cultural attraction. Defying geographical common sense,
however, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly even Japan are widely considered to be ‘Western’ outliers in the Paciﬁc. While
the idea of ‘the West’ as well as the array of images, practices, and institutions associated with it did originate in Western
Europe, today the imaginary dimension of ‘the West’ has taken on a life of its own.”
6. See endnote 5.
7. Mattias Kumm, Jonathan Havercroft, Jeffrey Dunoff, Antje Wiener, “Editorial: The End of ‘the West’ and the Future of Global
Constitutionalism,” Global Constitutionalism, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2017, pp. 1-11, p. 2.
8. Tom McTague, “The Spiritual Disunity of the West,” The Atlantic, 4 December 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/international
/archive/2019/12/nato-summit-west-torn/602998/.
9. According to many political scientists, the open-closed cleavage has replaced the traditional left-right divide, reshaping
politics in the Western World. See, e.g., The Economist, “Drawbridges Up,” 30 July 2016, https://www.economist.com
/briefing/2016/07/30/drawbridges-up.
10. Interestingly, there is a new push for fences, as The Economist noted in 2016: “Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, over 40 countries
around the world have built fences against more than 60 of their neighbours. The majority have cited security concerns and
the prevention of illegal migration as justifications. More than 30 of those decisions were made following 9/11, 15 of them last
year.” See The Economist, “More Neighbours Make More Fences,” 7 January 2016, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail
/2016/01/07/more-neighbours-make-more-fences.
11. Quoted by Louie Dean Valencia-García, “The Ups and Downs and Clashes of Western Civilization,” openDemocracy, 23 July
2019, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/countering-radical-right/ups-and-downs-and-clashes-western-civilization/.
12. Patrick Buchanan, “The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization,
“Thomas Dunne Books (New York), 2001. On the role of Buchanan for the thinking of the radical right see Edward Ashbee,
“Patrick J. Buchanan and the Death of the West,” in: Mark Sedgwick, Key Thinkers of the Radical Right: Behind the New Threat
to Liberal Democracy, Oxford University Press (Oxford), 2019, pp. 121-136.

79
13. In his manifesto, Breivik approvingly cited Buchanan’s assertion that “the rise of feminism spells the death of the nation and the
end of the West.” See Michelle Goldberg, “Norway Massacre: Anders Breivik’s Deadly Attack Fueled by Hatred of Women,” The
Daily Beast, 13 July 2017, https://www.thedailybeast.com/norway-massacre-anders-breiviks-deadly-attack-fueled-by-hatred-of
-women?ref=scroll.
14. Viktor Orbán, “Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s ‘State of the Nation’ Address,” 10 February 2019, https://www.kormany.hu/en/the
-prime-minister/the-prime-minister-s-speeches/prime-minister-viktor-orban-s-state-of-the-nation-address-2019.
15. See Selam Gebrekidan, Matt Apuzzo and Benjamin Novak, “The Money Farmers: How Oligarchs and Populists Milk the E.U.
for Millions,” The New York Times, 3 November 2019, https://nyti.ms/2NNuW5J.
16. Donald J. Trump, “Remarks to the 74th Session of the United Nations General Assembly,” 24 September 2019, https://www
.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-74th-session-united-nations-general-assembly/.
17. For an overview of recent trends see, e.g., Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2019: Democracy in Retreat,” Washington,
DC, 2019, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2019.
18. Mitchell A. Orenstein and R. Daniel Kelemen, “Trojan Horses in EU Foreign Policy,” Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 55,
No. 1, 2017, pp. 87-102.
19. Mike Pence, “Remarks by Vice President Pence at the 2019 Munich Security Conference,” Munich, 16 February 2019, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-2019-munich-security-conference-munich-germany/.
20. Tobias Bunde, “Die Entwertung der NATO: Warum die ‘Illiberale Internationale’ das Nordatlantische Bündnis gefährdet,”
Sicherheit + Frieden, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2019, pp. 19-23.
21. See Dani Rodrik, “What’s Driving Populism?” Project Syndicate, 9 July 2019, https://prosyn.org/dqh0Cco.
22. Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes, The Light That Failed: Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy, Pegasus Books
(New York), 2019.
23. Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism, Cambridge University Press
(Cambridge), 2019.
24. Jan Zielonka refers to the “illiberal counterrevolution” in Central and Eastern Europe. Jan Zielonka, Counter-Revolution. Liberal
Europe in Retreat, Oxford University Press (Oxford), 2018.
25. Jeff D. Colgan and Robert O. Keohane, “The Liberal Order Is Rigged. Fix It Now or Watch It Wither,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 96, No. 3,
2017, pp. 36-44, p. 37.
26. As Ash Jain and Matthew Kroenig write, “the West has lost its way. The model of open-market democracy that has proven so
effective and inspiring throughout history has been tarnished in the eyes of many.” Ash Jain and Matthew Kroenig, “Present
at the Re-Creation: A Global Strategy for Revitalizing, Adapting, and Defending a Rules-Based International System,” Atlantic
Council, 30 October 2019, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/present-at-the-re-creation/, p. 27.
27. Salvatore Babones, The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts, Polity (Cambridge), 2018. For an
analysis of the contestation of global governance, in particular the challenges of politicization and counter-institutionalization,
see Michael Zürn, “Contested Global Governance,” Global Policy, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2018, pp. 138-145.
28. See in detail Abdurashid Solijonov, “Voter Turnout Trends Around the World,” International Institute for Democracy and Electoral
Assistance (IDEA), 2016, https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/voter-turnout-trends-around-the-world.pdf. For an
excellent overview of the driving forces for this disenchantment see Robin Wright, “The Story of 2019: Protests in Every
Corner of the Globe,” The New Yorker, 30 December 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-story-of
-2019-protests-in-every-corner-of-the-globe.
29. Robin Wright, “The Story of 2019: Protests in Every Corner of the Globe.” See also Jackson Diehl, “From Hong Kong to
Chile, 2019 Is the Year of the Street Protester. But, Why?” Washington Post, 28 October 2019, https://www.washingtonpost
.com/opinions/global-opinions/from-hong-kong-to-chile-2019-is-the-year-of-the-street-protester-but-why/2019/10/27/9f79f4c6
-f667-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html.
30. Elise Lambert, “Liban, Chili, Hong Kong, Soudan… Pourquoi le monde est-il en train de se soulever?” Interview with Mathilde
Larrère, Franceinfo, 29 October 2019, https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/proche-orient/liban/liban-chili-hong-kong-soudan
-pourquoi-le-monde-est-il-en-train-de-se-soulever_3672025.html. See also an editorial in Le Monde that saw “the rage against
the seizure of power and wealth by a class, a caste or a mafia” as the commonality of the protests. See Le Monde, “Une
exigence planétaire: reconquérir la démocratie,” 8 November 2019, https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/11/08/une
-exigence-planetaire-reconquerir-la-democratie_6018485_3232.html, author’s translation.
31. For a critique of the all-pervasive nostalgia see Edoardo Campanella and Marta Dassù, Anglo Nostalgia: The Politics of Emotion
in a Fractured West, Hurst (London), 2019.
32. See endnote 25. In his tour de force addressing French ambassadors, Emmanuel Macron hinted at this challenge, pointing
out that others “have a lot more political inspiration than Europeans today.” Emmanuel Macron, “Ambassadors’ Conference
– Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic,” 27 August 2019, https://lv.ambafrance.org/Ambassadors
-conference-Speech-by-M-Emmanuel-Macron-President-of-the-Republic. In this speech, Macron also noted that “Catholic
Hungary” or “Orthodox Russia” had “a cultural, civilizational vitality that is inspiring, although for my part I consider it misplaced.”
33. On the various stages of liberal order building see G. John Ikenberry, “Liberal Internationalism 3.0. America and the Dilemmas
of Liberal World Order,” Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2009, pp. 71-87.
34. David Miliband, “The New Arrogance of Power: Global Politics in the Age of Impunity,” International Rescue Committee,
19, 20 and 21 June 2019, https://www.rescue.org/press-release/new-arrogance-power-global-politics-age-impunity. See also
Wolfgang Ischinger’s comments at the Aurora Dialogues in Berlin. Global Perspectives Initiative, “Aurora Dialogues Berlin 2018

80
Humanity in a Fragile World. Partnering for Change. A Summary of the Results,” February 2019, https://bit.ly/GPI-FollowUP, p. 11.
35. Anne Applebaum, “The West Has Lost Confidence in Its Values. Syria Is Paying the Price,” Washington Post, 6 September 2019,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/the-west-has-lost-confidence-in-its-values-syria-is-paying-the-price
/2019/09/06/b8b73dee-d0ac-11e9-b29b-a528dc82154a_story.html.
36. Georg Sørensen, A Liberal World Order in Crisis: Between Imposition and Restraint, Cornell University Press (Ithaca), 2011.
37. For a critique of Western interventionism see, e.g., Stephen Walt, The Hell of Good Intentions. America’s Foreign Policy Elite
and the Decline of U.S. Primacy, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux (New York), 2018.
38. Ruth Igielnik and Kim Parker, “Majorities of U.S. Veterans, Public Say the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan Were Not Worth Fighting,”
Pew Research Center, 10 July 2019, https://pewrsr.ch/30nIVDJ. See also Jennifer Steinhauer, “Trump’s Opposition to ‘Endless
Wars’ Appeals to Those Who Fought Them,” The New York Times, 1 November 2019, https://nyti.ms/2N6FmOm.
39. If one adds the costs for veterans that will occur in the future, it amounts to almost USD 6 trillion. See Neta C. Crawford,
“United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2019: $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated,” Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, 14 November 2018, https://watson.brown.edu/files/watson/imce/news
/ResearchMatters/Crawford_Costs%20of%20War%20Estimates%20Through%20FY2019%20.pdf.
40. See, e.g., Bernie Sanders, “Ending America’s Endless War. We Must Stop Giving Terrorists Exactly What They Want,” Foreign
Affairs, 24 June 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-06-24/ending-americas-endless-war.
41. Richard Fontaine, “The Non-Intervention Delusion. What War Is Good For,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 98, No. 6, 2019, pp. 84-98, p. 93.
42. Robert Malley, “10 Conflicts to Watch in 2020,” International Crisis Group, 27 December 2019, https://www.crisisgroup.org
/global/10-conflicts-watch-2020.
43. See endnote 34.
44. A New York Times investigation analyzed four hospital bombings on 5 May 2019 and could tie Russian pilots to each one of
them. See Evan Hill and Christiaan Triebert, “12 Hours. 4 Syrian Hospitals Bombed. One Culprit: Russia,” The New York Times,
13 October 2019, https://nyti.ms/2IM8M21. At the end of last year, NYT journalists published additional in-depth evidence. See
Malachy Browne et al., “Hospitals and Schools Are Being Bombed in Syria. A U.N. Inquiry Is Limited. We Took a Deeper Look,”
The New York Times, 31 December 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/31/world/middleeast/syria-united
-nations-investigation.html.
45. Patrick Wintour, “Cross-Border Aid to Syria at Risk Amid UN Security Council Split,” The Guardian, 20 December 2019, https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/20/cross-border-aid-syria-risk-amid-un-security-council-split.
46. Michael R. Pompeo, “Russian Federation’s and China’s Veto of UNSCR 2449 Aid to Syrian Refugees,” Press Statement, 21
December 2019, https://www.state.gov/russian-federations-and-chinas-veto-of-unscr-2449-aid-to-syrian-refugees/.
47. See endnote 34. In a similar vein, Anne Applebaum writes: “So many things have been lost in Syria: our commitment to
‘genocide prevention,’ our consciousness of the ‘responsibility to protect,’ our long-standing commitment to peacemaking
and peacekeeping. But out of all of these things, it is this, our loss of empathy, that will over time prove most damaging and
dangerous, not just to Syria but also to ourselves.” See endnote 35.
48. For some reactions see Najmeh Bozorgmehr and Henry Foy, “Russia, China and Iran Launch Gulf of Oman War Games,”
Financial Times, 27 December 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/3d5a4cf0-288f-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134.
49. See Raja Abdulrahim, “Turkey, Russia Urge Truce in Libya as They Expand Roles in Country,” The Wall Street Journal, 8 January
2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/turkey-russia-urge-truce-in-libya-as-they-expand-roles-in-country-11578511620.
50. See the full transcript of Macron’s interview with The Economist, “Emmanuel Macron in His Own Words,” The Economist, 7
November 2019, https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english.
51. Gideon Rachman, “End of the American Era in the Middle East,” Financial Times, 30 December 2019, https://www.ft.com
/content/960b06d0-2a35-11ea-bc77-65e4aa615551.
52. Angela Merkel, “Speech by Federal Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel on 16 February 2019 at the 55th Munich Security Conference,”
16 February 2019, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/speech-by-federal-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel-on-16
-february-2019-at-the-55th-munich-security-conference-1582318.
53. See endnote 42.
54. See, e.g., Daniel Nexon, “Trump’s a Paper Tiger, and Everyone Knows It,” The Atlantic, 17 October 2019, https://www.theatlantic
.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/trumps-foreign-policy-disaster/600181/; David E. Sanger, “Trump Followed His Guts on Syria.
Calamity Came Fast,” The New York Times, 13 October 2019, https://nyti.ms/2qf1Xj7.
55. See endnote 50.
56. See endnote 51.
57. See, e.g., Constanze Stelzenmüller, “A European Security Force in Syria Is a Courageous Idea,” The Brookings Institution, 30 October
2019, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/10/30/a-european-security-force-in-syria-is-a-courageous-idea/.
58. See in detail Luis Simón, “Preparing NATO for the Future – Operating in an Increasingly Contested Environment,” The
International Spectator, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2017, pp. 121-135.
59. Rose Gottemoeller, “NATO Is Not Brain Dead. The Alliance Is Transforming Faster Than Most People Think,” Foreign Affairs, 19
December 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-12-19/nato-not-brain-dead.
60. Luis Simón, “Preparing NATO for the Future – Operating in an Increasingly Contested Environment,” The International Spectator,
Vol. 52, No. 3, 2017, p. 131.
61. Ashley Townshend, Brendan Thomas-Noone, and Matilda Steward, “Averting Crisis: American Strategy, Military Spending and
Collective Defence in the Indo-Pacific,” United States Study Centre, 19 August 2019, https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/averting

81
-crisis-american-strategy-military-spending-and-collective-defence-in-the-indo-pacific, pp. 6 and 7.
62. See the overview by the Mercator Institute for China Studies in Tobias Bunde, Benedikt Franke, Vera Lamprecht, Adrian Oroz,
Lisa Marie Ullrich, and Kai Wittek, “Munich Security Report 2016: Boundless Crises, Reckless Spoilers, Helpless Guardians,”
Munich Security Conference, February 2016, p. 11., https://securityconference.org/en/publications/munich-security-report
-2016/. See also Naazneen Barma et al., “A World Without the West? Empirical Patterns and Theoretical Implications,” Chinese
Journal of International Politics, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2009, pp. 577-596.
63. See, e.g., the story behind the race for the top job at the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), as reported by Colum Lynch
and Robbie Gramer, “Outfoxed and Outgunned: How China Routed the U.S. in an U.N. Agency,” Foreign Policy, 23 October
2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/23/china-united-states-fao-kevin-moley/.
64. One could argue that it would have been better if European countries had supported a non-Western but liberal-democratic
candidate for the IMF post instead of insisting on an EU candidate. See Thorsten Benner, “Why Europe Should Give Up the
IMF,” Politico Europe, 15 July 2019, https://www.politico.eu/article/why-europe-should-give-up-the-imf-top-job-christine-lagarde
-transatlantic-agreement/.
65. The Editorial Board, “The Misuse of Interpol’s Database,” The New York Times, 11 November 2015, https://nyti.ms/1ODB4cY.
66. See UN News, “Work and Reforms of the UN ‘At Risk’, Guterres Warns Member States, Amidst ‘Record-level’ Cash Crisis,” 8
October 2019, https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048782.
67. General Assembly of the United Nations, Committee on Contributions, “Contributions Received for 2020 for the United Nations
Regular Budget,” https://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/honourroll.shtml.
68. David Bosco, “The U.N. Has a Cash Crunch. Almost a Third of Members Have Yet to Pay Their 2019 Dues,” The Washington
Post, 15 October 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/15/un-has-cash-crunch-almost-third-members-have
-yet-pay-their-dues/.
69. Le Yucheng, “China: A Source of Certainty and Stability in a Changing World,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s
Republic of China, 22 October 2019, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/zyjh_665391/t1709807.shtml.
70. Amrita Narlikar, “Globalwohl ist kein Argument,” Tagesspiegel Causa, 29 September 2019, https://causa.tagesspiegel.de
/kolumnen/amrita-narlikar-1/globalwohl-ist-kein-argument.html. On the need to jointly confront Chinese trade practices see
also Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Die Welt braucht den Westen: Neustart für eine liberale Ordnung, Edition Körber (Hamburg),
2019, pp. 160-161, noting that President Trump and his Trade Representative give the wrong answers even if they pose the
right questions.
71. For some background see Laura von Daniels, Susanne Dröge, and Alexandra Bögner, “Ways Out of the WTO’s December
Crisis. How to Prevent the Open Global Trade Order from Unravelling,” Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, December 2019,
https://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/ways-out-of-the-wtos-december-crisis/.
72. Clark Packard, “Trump’s Real Trade War Is Being Waged on the WTO,” Foreign Policy, 9 January 2020, https://foreignpolicy.com
/2020/01/09/trumps-real-trade-war-is-being-waged-on-the-wto/; see also Federation of German Industries (BDI), “The United
States in the World Trade Organisation: Like a Bull in a China Shop?” 11 November 2019, https://english.bdi.eu/article/news
/the-united-states-in-the-world-trade-organisation-like-a-bull-in-a-china-shop/.
73. The idea was first mentioned by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in a speech in Tokyo. See Heiko Maas, “Speech by
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Heiko Maas at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, Japan,” 25 July 2018,
https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/maas-japan/2121846. For more information on the alliance and its
initiatives see https://multilateralism.org/.
74. Jakub Grygiel, “A New Alliance to Nowhere,” The American Interest, 4 October 2019, https://www.the-american-interest.com
/2019/10/04/a-new-alliance-to-nowhere/.
75. See, e.g., Thorsten Benner, “What’s Left of Multilateralism? Putting Six Hypothesis to the Test,” 4 November 2019, https://
www.gppi.net/2019/11/04/whats-left-of-multilateralism-putting-six-hypotheses-to-the-test; Stewart M. Patrick, “The Alliance for
Multilateralism Makes Sense. Can It Make Good?” World Politics Review, 16 December 2019, https://www.worldpoliticsreview
.com/articles/28414/the-alliance-for-multilateralism-makes-sense-can-it-make-good.
76. Stewart M. Patrick, “The Alliance for Multilateralism Makes Sense. Can It Make Good?” World Politics Review, 16 December
2019, https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/28414/the-alliance-for-multilateralism-makes-sense-can-it-make-good. As
he notes: “China and Russia loom large in this quandary. The participation of both is essential to achieving anything substantive
on climate change, cybersecurity and nuclear proliferation. Yet, it is difficult to envision such authoritarian powers playing a
constructive role in promoting human rights, a subject at the core of several of the alliance’s other initiatives.”
77. See, e.g., Laurent Pech and Kim Lane Scheppele, “Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU,” Cambridge Yearbook
of European Legal Studies, Vol. 19, 2017, pp. 3-47.
78. See in detail endnote 20.
79. See North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “London Declaration. Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the
Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in London 3-4 December 2019,” 4 December 2019, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq
/official_texts_171584.htm, para 7: “Taking into account the evolving strategic environment, we invite the Secretary General to
present to Foreign Ministers a Council-agreed proposal for a forward-looking reflection process under his auspices, drawing
on relevant expertise, to further strengthen NATO’s political dimension including consultation.” Addressing NATO’s political
dimension is likely far more challenging than the military part. See Jens Ringsmose and Sten Rynning, “Now for the Hard Part:
NATO’s Strategic Adaptation to Russia,” Survival, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 129-146; Sten Rynning, “Sustaining NATO by Consultation:
Hard Choices for Europe,” Journal of Transatlantic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2019, pp. 137-156.

82
80. For some guidelines for such a strategy see endnote 26.
81. For a good overview see Simon Shuster, “Russia and China Are Driving a Wedge Between Estranged U.S. and Europe,” Time,
18 February 2019, https://time.com/5531770/munich-security-conference-mike-pence-angela-merkel-china-russia/.
82. Uri Friedman, “The New Concept Everyone in Washington Is Talking About,” The Atlantic, 6 August 2019, https://www.theatlantic
.com/politics/archive/2019/08/what-genesis-great-power-competition/595405/. See the discussion in last year’s report: Tobias
Bunde, Randolf Carr, Sophie Eisentraut, Christoph Erber, Jamel Flitti, Benedikt Franke, Laura Hartmann, Juliane Kabus, Quirin
Maderspacher, Julian Voje, and Kai Wittek, “Munich Security Report 2019: The Great Puzzle. Who Will Pick Up the Pieces?,”
Munich Security Conference, February 2019, pp. 6-10, https://securityconference.org/en/publications/munich-security-report
-2019/?menu_2006=&menu_konferenzen=&sprache=de&cHash=3d78945a189e2af02ed2c0a4b27c2c9e.
83. See endnote 50.
84. European Commission, “The von der Leyen Commission: For a Union That Strives for More,” 10 September 2019, https://ec
.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_5542.
85. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, “Speech by Federal Minister of Defence at the Bundeswehr University Munich,” 7 November
2019, https://www.bmvg.de/de/aktuelles/speech-federal-minister-of-defence-security-policy-147072.
86. Ali Wyne, “America’s Blind Ambition Could Make It a Victim of Global Competition,” National Interest, 11 February 2019, https://
nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-blind-ambition-could-make-it-victim-global-competition-44227.
87. Evan S. Medeiros, “The Changing Fundamentals of US-China Relations,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2019, pp.
93–119, p. 113.
88. See Zaki Laïdi, “Can European Learn to Play Power Politics?” Centre for European Reform, 28 November 2019, https://www
.cer.eu/publications/archive/essay/2019/can-europe-learn-play-power-politics.
89. Jean-Claude Juncker, “Speech by President Jean-Claude Juncker at the 54th Munich Security Conference,” 17 February
2018, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_18_841. The German word “Weltpolitikfähigkeit” only
appears in the German transcript although Juncker used it in his speech.
90. For an overview see NATO, “NATO and the INF Treaty,” 2 August 2019, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_166100.htm.
See Jacek Durkalec, “European Security Without the INF Treaty,” NATO Review, 30 September 2019, https://www.nato.int/docu
/review/articles/2019/09/30/european-security-without-the-inf-treaty/index.html: “The process that led the United States to
withdraw from the INF Treaty was a test of NATO cohesion. So far, the Alliance has passed this test, even though it was not easy.”
91. See Michael Birnbaum and Craig Timberg, “E.U.: Russians Interfered in Our Elections, Too”, The Washington Post, 14 June 2019,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/14/eu-russians-interfered-our-elections-too/; Shaun Walker, “Polish
PM Furious at Putin Rewriting History of Second World War,” The Guardian, 30 December 2019, https://www.theguardian
.com/world/2019/dec/30/polish-pm-furious-at-putin-rewriting-history-of-second-world-war; Anne Applebaum, “Putin’s Big Lie,”
The Atlantic, 5 January 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/putin-blames-poland-world-war-ii/604426/;
William Booth, “A Former Spy Was Poisoned in Britain One Year Ago. The Kremlin Still Denies Everything,” The Washington
Post, 4 March 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/a-former-russian-spy-was-poisoned-in-britain-one-year-ago-the
-kremlin-still-denies-everything/2019/03/04/7f6ed2a2-3e73-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html; Melissa Eddy and Katrin
Bennhold, “Germany Says Russia Is Suspected in Berlin Assassination,” The New York Times, 4 December 2019, https://nyti
.ms/2YglIn7.
92. The Economist, “A Thaw in EU-Russia Relations Is Starting. Undeserved Détente,” 12 October 2019, https://www.economist.com
/europe/2019/10/12/a-thaw-in-eu-russia-relations-is-starting.
93. Emmanuel Macron, “Ambassadors’ Conference – Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic,” Paris, 27 August
2019, https://lv.ambafrance.org/Ambassadors-conference-Speech-by-M-Emmanuel-Macron-President-of-the-Republic.
94. See endnote 50.
95. See, e.g., Steven Erlanger, “Merkel and Macron Publicly Clash Over NATO,” The New York Times, 23 November 2019, https://
nyti.ms/2OGiKnF; Kristi Raik, “Illusions About EU-Russia Relations: Macron’s New Opening Is Destined to Fail,” International
Centre for Defence and Security, 23 September 2019, https://icds.ee/illusions-about-eu-russia-relations-macrons-new-opening
-is-destined-to-fail/.
96. See endnote 52: “Nobody wants to become totally and unilaterally dependent on Russia. But if we even imported Russian
gas during the Cold […] then I don’t know why the situation today should be so much worse that we can’t say that Russia
remains a partner. […] Do we want to make Russia dependent on China or rely on China to import its natural gas? Is that in
our European interests? No, I don’t think so, either. We also want to be involved in trade relations. That, too, is something we
need to discuss frankly.”
97. Yaroslaw Trofimov, „Germany’s Multilateralist Talk Isn’t Always Matched by Its Deeds,” The Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2019,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-multilateralist-talk-isnt-always-matched-by-its-deeds-11556798400.
98. Tom Cotton, “Putin and Xi Want to Split Apart Allies,” Berlin Policy Journal, 19 December 2019, https://berlinpolicyjournal.com
/putin-and-xi-want-to-split-apart-allies/.
99. For some reactions see Deutsche Welle, “Germany, EU Decry US Nord Stream Sanctions,” 21 December 2019, https://p.dw
.com/p/3VAxj.
100. See Kostis Geropoulos, “Germany Helps Broker Russian Gas Transit Deal Via Ukraine to EU,” New Europe, 20 December 2019,
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/germany-helps-broker-russian-gas-transit-deal-via-ukraine-to-eu/.
101. See endnote 52.
102. See David E. Sanger and Catie Edmondson, “Russia Targeted Election Systems in All 50 States, Report Finds,” The New York

83
Times, 25 July 2019, https://nyti.ms/2Y82GCu; Elaine Kamarck, “Trump’s Hostility to Election Security Preparedness,” The
Brookings Institution, 28 August 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/28/trumps-hostility-to-election-security
-preparedness/; Tim Fernholz, “No One Is Protecting the 2020 Election,” Quartz, 23 November 2019, https://qz.com/1754314
/no-one-is-protecting-the-2020-election/.
103. See Dave Keating, “Trump Imposes Sanctions to Stop Nord Stream 2 – But It’s Too Late,” Forbes, 21 December 2019,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davekeating/2019/12/21/trump-imposes-sanctions-to-stop-nord-stream-2--but-its-too-late/
#547ddddd5df1.
105. Peter Humphrey, “The Cruel Fate of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in China,” The Diplomat, 10 December 2019, https://
thediplomat.com/2019/12/the-cruel-fate-of-michael-kovrig-and-michael-spavor-in-china/.
106. For overviews see Charlie Campbell, “‘The Entire System Is Designed to Suppress Us.’ What the Chinese Surveillance State
Means for the Rest of the World,” Time, 21 November 2019, https://time.com/5735411/china-surveillance-privacy-issues/; Xiao
Qiang, “The Road to Digital Unfreedom: President Xi’s Surveillance State,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2019, pp. 53-67.
107. See Austin Ramzy and Chris Buckley, “‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of
Muslims,” The New York Times, 16 November 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang
-documents.html; Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Myunghee Lee, and Emir Yazici, “Counterterrorism and Preventive Repression:
China’s Changing Strategy in Xinjiang,” International Security, Vol. 44, No. 3, 2019/20, pp. 9-47.
108. Laura Silver, Kat Devlin, and Christine Huang, “U.S. Views of China Turn Sharply Negative Amid Trade Tensions,” Pew Research
Center, 13 August 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/08/13/u-s-views-of-china-turn-sharply-negative-amid-trade
-tensions/.
109. See in detail Laura Silver, Kat Devlin, and Christine Huang, “People Around the Globe Are Divided in Their Opinions of
China,” Pew Research Center, 5 December 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/people-around-the
-globe-are-divided-in-their-opinions-of-china/.
110. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “London Declaration. Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in
the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in London 3-4 December 2019,” 4 December 2019, https://www.nato.int/cps/en
/natohq/official_texts_171584.htm, para 6.
111. European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “Joint Communication to
the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council. EU-China – A Strategic Outlook,” 12 March 2019, https://ec
.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication-eu-china-a-strategic-outlook.pdf, p. 1.
113. See Matthias Gebauer et al., “In a New Bipolar World, Europe Is Caught in the Middle,” Der Spiegel, 25 June 2019, https://www
.spiegel.de/international/world/europe-caught-in-tensions-between-china-and-u-s-a-1273640.html.
114. Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Rachel Rizzo, “The U.S. or China? Europe Needs to Pick a Side,” Politico, 12 August 2019, https://politi
.co/2yV5fcg; see also Hal Brands, “Europe Has to Choose a Side in the U.S.-China Rivalry,” Bloomberg Opinion, 27 September
2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-27/europe-has-to-choose-a-side-in-the-u-s-china-rivalry.
116. Julie Smith, “If Trump Wants to Take on China, He Needs Allies,” The New York Times, 12 June 2019, https://nyti.ms/2MJ5xg9.
For a similar assessment see Andrea Kendall-Taylor and Rachel Rizzo, “The U.S. or China? Europe Needs to Pick a Side,”
Politico, 12 August 2019, https://politi.co/2yV5fcg: “The United States has done little to help move Europe off the fence. Instead,
the Trump administration has actively pushed the continent away.” See also Carl Bildt, “Which Way for Europe on China?”
Project Syndicate, 12 December 2019, https://prosyn.org/GaiO2Mx: “The US wants the EU to fall into line with its position; but,
other than making that demand clear, it has pursued almost no strategic dialogue with Europe on the issue.”
117. Hal Brands, “Europe Has to Choose a Side in the U.S.-China Rivalry,” Bloomberg Opinion, 27 September 2019, https://www
.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-27/europe-has-to-choose-a-side-in-the-u-s-china-rivalry.
118. See Tony Czuczka and Steven Arons, “China Threatens Retaliation Should Germany Ban Huawei 5G,” Bloomberg News, 15
December 2019, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-14/china-threatens-germany-with-retaliation-if-huawei
-5g-is-banned.
119. Susi Dennison, “Give the People What They Want: Popular Demand for a Strong European Foreign Policy,” European Council
on Foreign Relations Policy Brief, 10 September 2019, https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/popular_demand_for_strong
_european_foreign_policy_what_people_want, p. 10.
121. Donald J. Trump, “Remarks by President Trump on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” 8 May 2018, https://www
.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-joint-comprehensive-plan-action/.
122. David Albright and Andrea Stricker, “IAEA Iran Safeguards Analysis – Iran Commits Multiple Violations of the Nuclear Deal, Several
Non-Reversible,” Institute for Science and International Security/Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, 13 November
2019, http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_Report_Analysis_rev._Nov_14.pdf. Other experts have
estimated that the breakout time could be even shorter – with some estimating as little as two months. See David Sanger and
William J. Broad, “Iran Challenges Trump, Announcing End of Nuclear Restrictions,” New York Times, 5 January 2020, https://
nyti.ms/35tbDoM.
123. David Sanger and William J. Broad, “Iran Challenges Trump, Announcing End of Nuclear Restrictions,” The New York Times, 5
January 2020, https://nyti.ms/35tbDoM. As the authors note, “Mr. Trump’s gambit has effectively backfired.”

84
124. Ellie Geranmayeh, “Crisis in Iran Will Drive Wedge Between Europe and Washington,” Politico Europe, 3 January 2020, https://
www.politico.eu/article/crisis-in-iran-will-drive-wedge-between-europe-and-washington/.
125. See Loveday Morris, “E.U. Leaders Rally Behind Tattered Iran Deal, Ignoring Trump’s Call to Ditch It,” The Washington Post, 11
January 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/eu-leaders-rally-behind-tattered-iran-deal-ignoring-trumps-call
-to-ditch-it/2020/01/10/780332d4-30c5-11ea-971b-43bec3ff9860_story.html.
126. Carl Bildt et al., “A Call for Increased European De-escalation Efforts in the Middle East,” European Council on Foreign Relations,
8 January 2020, https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_a_call_for_increased_european_de_escalation_efforts_in_the_middl.
127. Elbridge Colby, one of the intellectual fathers of the concept of “great-power competition,” warned last summer: “What can
do a lot of damage to the great-power-competition effort is starting a big war with Iran. That would be fatal.” Quoted in Uri
Friedman, “The New Concept Everyone in Washington Is Talking About,” The Atlantic, 6 August 2019, https://www.theatlantic
.com/politics/archive/2019/08/what-genesis-great-power-competition/595405/.
128. Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast, “War Is Not Over. What the Optimists Get Wrong About Conflict,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 98, No. 6,
2019, pp. 74-83, p. 83. The notion of “the better angels of our nature” refers to Stephen Pinker’s book of the same name that
popularized the claim that violence and war are in decline. See Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence
Has Declined, Viking Adult (New York), 2011. Recent research has debunked Pinker’s general claim. See, in particular, Bear
Braumoeller, Only the Dead: The Persistence of War in the Modern Age, Oxford University Press (Oxford), 2019.
129. See Gustav Gressel, “Open Skies: Trump’s Next Big Blunder?” ECFR Commentary, 4 December 2019, https://www.ecfr.eu
/article/commentary_open_skies_trumps_next_big_blunder; Anna Péczeli, “Five Reasons Why the US Should Not Withdraw
from the Open Skies Treaty,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 11 December 2019, https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/five-reasons
-why-the-us-should-not-withdraw-from-the-open-skies-treaty/.
130. See the excellent overview of the current state of nuclear arms control by Nicholas L. Miller and Vipin Narang, “Is a New
Nuclear Age Upon Us? Why We May Look Back on 2019 as the Point of No Return,” Foreign Affairs, 30 December 2019,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-12-30/new-nuclear-age-upon-us.
131. As Colgan and Keohane point out for the case of the United States, US support for the necessary reforms will only come
about if there is a “uniquely American social identity and a national narrative. That will require othering authoritarian and illiberal
countries. Fostering U.S. opposition to illiberalism does not mean imposing democracy by force, but it does require more than
occasional diplomatic criticism of countries such as China or Saudi Arabia. A willing president could, for instance, make it
clear that although the United States may have an interest in cooperating with nondemocratic countries, it identifies only with
liberal democracies and reserves its closest relationships for them. Done properly, that sort of othering could help clarify the
American national identity and build solidarity. It might at times constrain commercial relationships. However, a society is more
than just an economy, and the benefits of social cohesion would justify a modest economic cost.” This logic applies to other
liberal democracies, too.
132. Jain and Kroenig call for a „two-track steering system,” including the D10 as “a steering group of the world’s leading
democracies” and a reformed G20 that brings together the world’s most important economies. See Ash Jain and Matthew
Kroenig, “Present at the Re-Creation: A Global Strategy for Revitalizing, Adapting, and Defending a Rules-Based International
System,” Atlantic Council, 30 October 2019, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/present-at-the-re
-creation/,.pp. 42-44.
133. Jeff D. Colgan, “Three Visions of International Order,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2019, pp. 85-98, p. 86.
134. The debate on such a strategy has only begun. A crucial issue is the question whether liberal democracies should explicitly
exclude non-democratic states from specific types of international cooperation. E.g., Ash Jain and Matthew Kroenig, “Present
at the Re-Creation: A Global Strategy for Revitalizing, Adapting, and Defending a Rules-Based International System,” Atlantic
Council, 30 October 2019, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/present-at-the-re-creation/,.p. 47,
call for a “Free-World Trade Agreement”. See also Colgan, “Three Visions,” p. 93: “It is with regret, but also a dose of real
urgency, that liberal democracies should tighten market access against non-liberal societies. The main reason for doing so is
to help ensure that the gains from such integration are shared internally, and that trade deals do not undermine the working
classes or national security.”
135. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “How to Deal with a Declining Russia,” Project Syndicate, 5 November 2019, https://prosyn.org/GRu20nT.
136. For overviews see Ian Johnson, “A Specter is Haunting Xi’s China: ‘Mr. Democracy’,” The New York Review of Books, 19 April
2019, https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/04/19/a-specter-is-haunting-xis-china-mr-democracy/; Steven Lee Myers, Chris
Buckley, and Keith Bradsher, “Is Xi Mishandling Hong Kong Crisis? Hints of Unease in China’s Leadership,” The New York Times,
7 September 2019, https://nyti.ms/2zVbLAa; Richard McGregor, “The Backlash Is Growing Against Xi Jinping in China and Around
the World,” CNN, 17 July 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/16/opinions/xi-jinping-backlash-opinion-intl-hnk/index.html.
137. See, e.g., The Economist, “Repression in Russia No Longer Works As Well As It Did,” 5 September 2019, https://www.economist
.com/europe/2019/09/05/repression-in-russia-no-longer-works-as-well-as-it-did.
138. See Matthew Kroenig, The Return of Great Power Rivalry: Democracy Versus Autocracy from the Ancient World to the U.S. and
China, Oxford University Press (Oxford), forthcoming.
139. Rosie Pentreath, “Lebanese Protestors Pause to Sing Beethoven’s Ode to Joy in Arabic,” Classic FM, 28 October 2019, https://
www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/lebanese-protestors-sing-arabic-ode-to-joy/.
140. See endnote 132. The members of the D10 are the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada,
the Republic of Korea, Australia, and the European Union.
141. As Claus Offe once put it: “If there is a positive concept of the ‘West’ at all, it includes self-criticism, self-reflection and ongoing

85
self-observation; these reflexive processes are based in the West both on cultural dispositions and on institutional conditions of
their possibility.” Claus Offe, “Rekonstruktion oder Deskonstruktion des ‘Westens’?” in Tine Stein, Hubertus Buchstein, and Claus
Offe, (eds.), Souveränität, Recht, Moral: Die Grundlagen politischer Gemeinschaft, Campus (Frankfurt am Main), 2007, pp- 185-
195, p. 185, author’s translation.
142. Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Die Welt braucht den Westen: Neustart für eine liberale Ordnung, Edition Körber (Hamburg), 2019.
143. See endnote 142. On the prospects of a “multi-order world,” see Trine Flockhart, “The Coming Multi-Order World,” Contemporary
Security Policy, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2016, pp. 3-30.
144. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, “Commemoration of the Beginning of the Second World War at Warsaw,” 1 September 2019,
http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/EN/Frank-Walter-Steinmeier/Reden/2019/09/190901-Poland-
Commemoration-Warsaw.html
145. Mike Pence, “Remarks by Vice President Pence at the 2019 Munich Security Conference,” 16 February 2019, https://www
.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-2019-munich-security-conference-munich-germany/.
146. Arun Kakar, “Francis Fukuyama: On Trump, And Why Brexit Could Be the End of Britain,” Spear’s, 25 September 2019, https://
www.spearswms.com/francis-fukuyama-interview-spears/.
148. Donald J. Trump, “President Donald J. Trump’s State of the Union Address,” 5 February 2019, https://www.whitehouse.gov
/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-state-union-address-2/.
150. Donald Tusk, “Address by President Donald Tusk to the 74th United Nations General Assembly,” 26 September 2019, https://www
.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/09/26/address-by-president-donald-tusk-to-the-74th-united-nations-general
-assembly/.
151. Jean-Yves Le Drian and Heiko Maas, “No, Multilateralism Is Not Outdated!” 12 November 2019, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en
/french-foreign-policy/united-nations/alliance-for-multilateralism-63158/article/joint-article-by-jean-yves-le-drian-and-heiko-maas-no
-multilateralism-is-not.
152. Jens Stoltenberg, “Questions and Answers by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the ‘NATO Engages: Innovating
the Alliance’ Conference,” 3 December 2019, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_171550.htm?selectedLocale=en.
153. Angela Merkel, “Speech by Federal Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel on 16 February 2019 at the 55th Munich Security Conference,”
16 February 2019, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/speech-by-federal-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel-on-16
-february-2019-at-the-55th-munich-security-conference-1582318.
154. Quoted in Permanent Representation of the Federal Republic of Germany to the European Union, “High Representative Josep
Borrell Takes Office: Germany Supports an Active EU Foreign Policy,” 9 December 2019, https://bruessel-eu.diplo.de/eu-en
/aktuelles/-/2287872.
155. Sergei Lavrov, “Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s Remarks and Answers to Media Questions at the Munich Security Conference,” 16
February 2019. https://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/meropriyatiya_s_uchastiem_ministra/-/asset_publisher/xK1BhB2bUjd3/content
/id/3520272.
156. Michael R. Pompeo, “The China Challenge. Hudson Institute’s Herman Kahn Award Gala,” New York, 30 October 2019, https://
translations.state.gov/2019/10/30/the-china-challenge/.
157. Xi Jinping, “Speech by Xi Jinping at the Reception in Celebration of the 70th Anniversary of The Founding of the People’s
Republic of China,” 30 September 2019, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/zyjh_665391/t1704400.shtml.
158. Quoted in “Iran Raps US Officials for Hate-Speech, Threatening International Peace,” 17 February 2019, https://en.farsnews
.com/13971128000665.
159. Tony Barber, “Rise of Autocracies Spells End to the West’s Global Supremacy,” 6 November 2019, https://www.ft.com/content
/cc420908-e910-11e9-aefb-a946d2463e4b
161. Financial Times, “Transcript: ‘Europe Is No Longer at the Centre of World Events’,” 16 January 2020, https://www.ft.com/content
/00f9135c-3840-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4.
162. Stefan Löfven, “Speech by Prime Minister Stefan Löfven in European Parliament 3 April 2019,” 3 April 2019, https://www
.government.se/speeches/20192/04/speech-by-prime-minister-stefan-lofven-in-european-parliament-3-april-2019/.
163. Jacinda Ardern, “New Zealand National Statement to United Nations General Assembly 2019”, 25 September 2019, https://
www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/new-zealand-national-statement-united-nations-general-assembly-2019.
164. Donald Trump, “Remarks by President Trump to the People of Poland,” 6 July 2017, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings
-statements/remarks-president-trump-people-poland/.
165. Viktor Orbán, “Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s speech at the 29th Bálványos Summer Open University and Student Camp,” 28
July 2018, http://www.miniszterelnok.hu/prime-minister-viktor-orbans-speech-at-the-29th-balvanyos-summer-open-university
-and-student-camp/.
166. Vladimir Putin, “Vladimir Putin: Liberalism Has ‘Outlived Its Purpose’,” 27 June 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/2880c762-98c2
-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd229.
167. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference, based on World Bank, “World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD
National Accounts Data Files,” https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.
168. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference, based on data provided by Pew Research Center. Note that ‘other responses’
includes people who said other countries, people who said there is no leading economic power, and people responding who

86
did not know or refused to respond.
169. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference, based on International Crisis Group, “10 Conflicts to Watch in 2020,” 27
December 2019, https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2020. See also endnote 42.
170. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference, based on data provided by The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
171. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference, based on data provided by the European Council on Foreign Relations. See
also endnote 119. Note that the original question asked was: “Imagine there was a disagreement between the US and Russia.
What would you like your country to do in a conflict between the US and Russia?”
172. See endnote 171. Note that the original question asked was: “Imagine there was a disagreement between the US and China.
What would you like your country to do in a conflict between the US and China?”
Actors
1. Ronald Brownstein, “Just How Far Will Republicans Go for Trump?” The Atlantic, 14 November 2019, https://www.theatlantic
.com/politics/archive/2019/11/impeachment-trump-republicans/601984/.
2. See, e.g., Walter Russel Mead, “The Jacksonian Revolt,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2017, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles
/united-states/2017-01-20/jacksonian-revolt and Colin Dueck, Age of Iron: On Conservative Nationalism, Oxford University Press
(Oxford), 2019.
3. Ruth Igielnik and Kim Parker, “Majorities of U.S. veterans, public say the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting,”
10 July 2019, Pew Research Center, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/10/majorities-of-u-s-veterans-public-say
-the-wars-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-were-not-worth-fighting/
4. Hal Brands, “Reckless Choices, Bad Deals, and Dangerous Provocations,” Foreign Affairs, 27 September 2019, https://www
.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-09-27/reckless-choices-bad-deals-and-dangerous-provocations.
5. Donald Trump, Twitter, 2 March 2018, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/969525362580484098.
6. Hites Ahir, Nicholas Bloom, and Davide Furceri, “New Index Tracks Trade Uncertainty Across the Globe,” International Monetary
Fund, September 2019, https://blogs.imf.org/2019/09/09/new-index-tracks-trade-uncertainty-across-the-globe/.
7. See, e.g., Daniel W. Drezner, “Economic Statecraft in the Age of Trump,” Washington Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2019, https://www
.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1663072 and Peter E. Harrell, “Trump’s Use of Sanctions Is Nothing Like Obama’s,”
Foreign Policy, October 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/05/trump-sanctions-iran-venezuela-russia-north-korea-different-
obamas/. See also Ville Sinkkonen, “Sanctions and US Foreign Policy in the Trump Era: A Perfect Storm,” Finish Institute for International
Affairs, September 2019, https://www.fiia.fi/en/publication/sanctions-and-us-foreign-policy-in-the-trump-era-a-perfect-storm.
8. Kathy Gilsinan, “A Boom Time for US Sanctions,” The Atlantic, 3 May 2019, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/05
/why-united-states-uses-sanctions-so-much/588625/.
9. See S. Nathan Park, “Trump’s Penny-Pinching Dooms His Korean Diplomacy,” Foreign Policy, 10 December 2019, https://
foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/10/trump-moon-jae-in-us-south-korea/, Henry Rome, “Iran Is Doing Just Fine,” Foreign Affairs, 5
November 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2019-11-05/iran-doing-just-fine, and Michael J. Camilleri, “Plan B in
Venezuela,” Foreign Affairs, 3 September 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/venezuela/2019-09-03/plan-b-venezuela.
10. Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Eric Schmitt, “Despite Vow to End ‘Endless Wars,’ Here’s Where About 200,000 Troops Remain,”
The New York Times, 21 October 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/middleeast/us-troops-deployments.html.
11. Uri Friedman, “What America’s Allies Really Think About Trump’s Syria Decision,” The Atlantic, 14 November 2019, https://www
.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/11/trumps-green-light-moment-in-syria-shook-the-world/601963/.
12. See Rick Gladstone, “In Harvard Speech, Merkel Rebukes Trump’s Worldview in All but Name,” The New York Times, 30 May
2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/world/europe/merkel-harvard-speech.html and Emmanuel Macron, “Emmanuel
Macron in His Own Words: The French President’s Interview with The Economist,” 21 October 2019, Paris, https://www
.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english.
13. Ben Doherty, “Asean Summit: US Condemns Chinese ‘Intimidation’ in the South China Sea,” The Guardian, 4 November 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/04/asean-summit-us-condemns-chinese-intimidation-in-the-south-china-sea.
14. Kathryn Dunn Tenpas, “Tracking Turnover in the Trump Administration,” The Brookings Institution, November 2019, https://www
.brookings.edu/research/tracking-turnover-in-the-trump-administration/.
15. For an overview see Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue (eds.), Democracies Divided: The Global Challenge of Political
Polarization, The Brookings Institution Press (Washington, DC), 2019. On the role of dysfunctional political institutions see e.g.,
Julia Azari, “It’s the Institutions, Stupid: The Real Roots of America’s Political Crisis,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2019, https://www
.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2019-06-11/its-institutions-stupid; on the role of the Republican Party see, e.g., Jacob S.
Hacker and Paul Pierson, “The Republican Devolution: Partisanship and the Decline of American Governance,” Foreign Affairs, July/
August 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-06-11/republican-devolution. On current research findings suggesting
that the partisan divide may be arbitrary, rather than rooted in ideological differences, see Michael Macy, Sebastian Deri, Alexander
Ruch, and Natalie Tong, “Opinion Cascades and the Unpredictability of Partisan Polarization,” Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 8, 2019
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax0754.
16. Kenneth A. Schultz, “Perils of Polarization for U.S. Foreign Policy,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2017, https://www
.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2017.1406705?af=R&.

87
17. Carl Bildt, “Impeachment and the Wider World,” Project Syndicate, 20 November 2019, https://www.project-syndicate.org
/commentary/impeachment-impact-on-us-foreign-policy-by-carl-bildt-2019-11.
18. Donald Trump, “Remarks by President Trump at a Salute to America,” Washington, DC, 4 July 2019, https://www.whitehouse
.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-salute-america/.
19. The Economist, “Emmanuel Macron in His Own Words: The French President’s Interview with The Economist,” 21 October
2019, https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english.
20. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data gathered by Kathryn Dunn Tenpas of The Brookings Institution.
Note that the data collection for President Trump’s “A Team” turnover is ongoing and figures illustrated are as of 1 January 2020.
21. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by The Brookings Institution. Note that the number of
cloture motions filed is considered a useful proxy for measuring filibusters. See Sarah Binder, “What Senate cloture votes tell
us about obstruction,” The Washington Post, 12 November 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp
/2013/11/12/what-senate-cloture-votes-tell-us-about-obstruction/.
22. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Kenneth A. Schultz, “Perils of Polarization for U.S.
Foreign Policy,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2017, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2017
.1406705?af=R&.
23. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. See Dina
Smeltz, Ivo Daalder, Karl Friedhoff, Craig Kafura, and Brendan Helm, “Rejecting Retreat: Americans Support US Engagement in
Global Affairs,” 6 September 2019, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/rejecting-retreat.
24. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Pew Research Center.
25. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
See Chad P. Bown, “US-China Trade War Tariffs: An Up-to-Date Chart,” 19 December 2019, https://www.piie.com/research/piie
-charts/us-china-trade-war-tariffs-date-chart. Note that trade-weighted average tariffs were computed from product-level tariff
and trade data, weighted by US exports to the world and Chinese exports to the world in 2017.
26. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by The International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Note that figures are for forward-deployed personnel by combatant command, which is not the same as assigned personnel.
27. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
See Travis Sharp, “Did Dollars Follow Strategy? A Review of the FY 2020 Defense Budget,” Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, 13 August 2019, https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/did-dollars-follow-strategy-a-review-of-the-fy-2020
-defense-budget.
28. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. See endnote 23.
1. TheStateCouncilInformationOfficeofthePeople’sRepublicofChina,“FullText:China’sNationalDefenseintheNewEra,”TheState
Council, 24 July 2019, http://english.www.gov.cn/archive/whitepaper/201907/24/content_WS5d3941ddc6d08408f502283d
.html. See also Helena Legarda, “China Global Security Tracker, No.5,” The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1 August
2019, https://www.iiss.org/blogs/research-paper/2019/08/china-security-tracker-jan-to-june.
2. Tobias Bunde, Randolf Carr, Christoph Erber, Jamel Flitti, Benedikt Franke, Quirin Maderspacher, Adrian Oroz, and Kai Wittek,
“Munich Security Report 2018,” Munich Security Conference, February 2018, https://securityconference.org/en/publications
/munich-security-report-2018/, p.27; Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Tracking China’s Third Aircraft Carrier,”
China Power, 17 October 2019, https://chinapower.csis.org/china-carrier-type-002/. David Lague and Greg Torode, “PLA’s
Furtive Underwater Nukes Test the Pentagon,” Reuters, 2 May 2019, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/china
-army-nuclear/. Lee Jeong-ho, “China Releases Footage of ‘Guam Killer’ DF-26 Ballistic Missile in ‘Clear Message to the
US’,” South China Morning Post, 28 January 2019, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2183972/china-releases
-footage-guam-killer-df-26-ballistic-missile-clear.
3. Lily Kuo, “‘All Necessary Means’: Xi Jinping Reserves Right to Use Force Against Taiwan,” The Guardian, 2 January 2019, https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/all-necessary-means-xi-jinping-reserves-right-to-use-force-against-taiwan.
4. Todd Harrison, Kaitlyn Johnson, and Thomas G. Roberts, “Space Threat Assessment 2019,” Center for Strategic and International
Studies, April 2019, https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SpaceThreatAssessment2019-compressed.pdf, p. 9.
5. Kristin Shi-Kupfer and Mareike Ohlberg, “China’s Digital Rise: Challenges for Europe,” Mercator Institute for China Studies, April
2019, https://www.merics.org/sites/default/files/2019-04/MPOC_No.7_ChinasDigitalRise_web_final.pdf.
6. Chris Meserole and Alina Polyakova, “Exporting Digital Authoritarianism: The Russian and Chinese Models,” The Brookings
Institution, August 2019, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/FP_20190827_digital_authoritarianism
_polyakova_meserole.pdf.
7. Dhruva Jaishankar, “From the iPhone to Huawei: The New Geopolitics of Technology,” The Brookings Institution, 31 July 2019,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/07/31/from-the-iphone-to-huawei-the-new-geopolitics-of-technology/.
8. Elizabeth C. Economy, “The Problem with Xi’s China Model,” Foreign Affairs, 6 March 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com
/articles/china/2019-03-06/problem-xis-china-model.
9. See endnote 8.
10. Richard McGregor, “Party Man: Xi Jinping’s Quest to Dominate China,” Foreign Affairs, 14 August 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs
.com/articles/china/2019-08-14/party-man.

88
11. Christopher Balding, “What’s Causing China’s Economic Slowdown,” Foreign Affairs, 11 March 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs
.com/articles/china/2019-03-11/whats-causing-chinas-economic-slowdown.
12. Mike Ives, “What Is Hong Kong’s Extradition Bill?” The New York Times, 10 June 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10
/world/asia/hong-kong-extradition-bill.html.
13. See Nick Cumming-Bruce, “China’s Retort Over Its Mass Detentions: Praise from Russia and Saudi Arabia,” The New York Times,
12 July 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/world/asia/china-human-rights-united-nations.html. See also Michael
Martina, “China Formally Arrests Two Canadians on State Secrets Charges,” Reuters, 16 May 2019, https://www.reuters.com
/article/us-china-canada/china-formally-arrests-two-canadians-on-state-secrets-charges-idUSKCN1SM0OB. See also Sarah
Cook, “State-Led Content Manipulation Drove the Backlash Against the NBA in China,” Freedom House, 13 November 2019,
https://freedomhouse.org/blog/state-led-content-manipulation-drove-backlash-against-nba-china. See also Chris Buckley and
Austin Ramzy, “‘Absolutely No Mercy’: Leaked Files Expose How China Organized Mass Detentions of Muslims,” The New
York Times, 16 November 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/world/asia/china-xinjiang-documents.html.
14. Edward Wong, “China’s Global Message: We Are Tough but Not Threatening,” The New York Times, 2 October 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/world/asia/china-world-parade-military.html.
15. The White House, “Remarks by Vice President Pence at the Frederic V. Malek Memorial Lecture,” 24 October 2019, https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-frederic-v-malek-memorial-lecture/.
16. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on illustrations by The Economist and the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments. See The Economist, “Aircraft-Carriers Are Big, Expensive, Vulnerable – and Popular,” 14 November
2019, https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/11/14/aircraft-carriers-are-big-expensive-vulnerable-and-popular. Note that
indicated deployment locations for a US carrier group and Chinese surface-to-air-missile systems and cruise-missile systems
were chosen for illustrative purposes.
17. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS).
18. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Pew Research Center.
19. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS).
Analysis is based on publicly available information as of December 2019. “5G trial/pilot deployments” refer to a wide range of
different types of demonstrations and/or pre-commercial tests, such as the installation of geographically restricted 5G networks or
the use of non-publicly released applications of 5G connectivity, in preparation for commercial rollout by network providers. Note
that in Israel no Chinese company has ever won a contract to supply network equipment to an Israeli provider, which has been
interpreted by analysts as an unofficial ban. Also note that countries considering the exclusion of Huawei technology have been
categorized according to the most comprehensive restriction that is being considered by national legislatures and/or executives;
less comprehensive measures may also be under consideration.
20. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Pew Research Center. Note that the exact wording of
the survey question posed to respondents was as follows: “Which of these statements comes closer to your view, even if neither
is exactly right? Investment from China is a good thing because it creates jobs in [survey country]. Or: Investment from China is a
bad thing because it gives China too much influence.” See also Kat Devlin, Christine Huang, and Laura Silver, “China’s Economic
Growth Mostly Welcomed in Emerging Markets, but Neighbors Wary of Its Influence,” Pew Research Center, 5 December 2019,
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/12/05/chinas-economic-growth-mostly-welcomed-in-emerging-markets-but-neighbors
-wary-of-its-influence/.
21. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Bank for International Settlements (BIS), https://www.bis.org/statistics
/totcredit.htm?m=6%7C380%7C669. “Non-financial corporations,” as defined by the BIS, are commercial entities “whose
principal activity is the production of market goods or non-financial services.” Note that “China” for the purpose of this illustration
comprises BIS credit data for China and Hong Kong SAR. Accordingly, based on the BIS definition of emerging economies,
“emerging economies except China” are: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey.
22. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on World Bank, “GDP (current USD) – China, Hong Kong SAR, China,”
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=CN-HK.
1. Reid Standish, “Putin Has a Dream of Africa,” Foreign Policy, 25 October 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/25/russia
-africa-development-soviet-union/.
2. Mark Leonard, “Inside Macron’s Russia Initiative,” Project Syndicate, 2 October 2019, https://www.project-syndicate.org
/commentary/macron-russia-diplomacy-eu-security-strategy-by-mark-leonard-2019-10.
3. Emmanuel Macron, “Ambassadors’ Conference – Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic,” 27 August
4. Gustav Gressel, Kadri Liik, Jeremy Shapiro, and Tara Varma, “Emmanuel Macron’s Very Big Idea on Russia,” European Council on
Foreign Relations, 25 September 2019, https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_emmanuel_macrons_very_big_idea_on_russia.
5. The Economist, “A Thaw in EU-Russia Relations is Starting. Undeserved Détente,” 12 October 2019, https://www.economist.com
/europe/2019/10/12/a-thaw-in-eu-russia-relations-is-starting.
6. Note that on the war in Ukraine, there have also been some small improvements, including a withdrawal of troops in several
areas and revived talks in the Normandy Format, which occurred in December in Paris between the leaders of France,

89
Germany, Russia and Ukraine.
7. Alya Shandra and Robert Seely, “The Surkov Leaks. The Inner Workings of Russia’s Hybrid War in Ukraine,” Royal United Services
Institute for Defence and Security Studies, 16 July 2019. https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201907_op_surkov_leaks_web_final.pdf.
8. Note, for instance, that investigations of the killing of a Georgian of Chechen descent in Berlin last August suggest links to the
Russian state, see Kate Connolly, “Evidence Links Russia to Killing of Chechen in Berlin, Investigation Claims,” The Guardian,
27 September 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/27/evidence-links-russia-to-killing-of-chechen-in-berlin
-investigation-claims; Melissa Eddy and Katrin Bennhold, “Germany Says Russia Is Suspected in Berlin Assassination,” The
New York Times, 4 December 2019, https://nyti.ms/2YglIn7.
9. Note that in October 2019, Moscow organized a Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi, with 54 African nations attending, including 43
heads of government and state, see Henry Foy, “Russia Turns on the Charm at First Africa Summit,” Financial Times, 24 October
2019, https://www.ft.com/content/b042bd8e-f648-11e9-9ef3-eca8fc8f2d65.
10. Zachary Paikin, “Russia’s Pivot to the East: Where Does It Leave the EU?” European Council on Foreign Relations, 21 February
2019, https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_russias_pivot_to_the_east_where_does_it_leave_the_eu. Note that with Beijing,
Moscow shares its opposition toward the United States, its preference for a polycentric global order, and its concern about
outside interference in its domestic affairs and sphere of influence, see Leon Aron, “Are Russia and China Really Forming an
Alliance? The Evidence Is Less Than Impressive,” Foreign Affairs, 4 April 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019
-04-04/are-russia-and-china-really-forming-alliance.
11. Note that this included Russia’s most advanced Su-35 fighter jets and S-400 missile defense systems, see Marcin Kaczmarski,
“The Future of Russia-China Relations,” Atlantic Community, 16 July 2019, https://atlantic-community.org/the-future-of-russia
-china-relations/. Moscow also announced that it is assisting China in building an early warning system against missile attacks,
see Pavel Felgenhauer, “Russia Exports Its Missile Early-Warning Knowhow to China,” The Jamestown Foundation, Eurasia Daily
Monitor, Vol. 16, No. 140, 2019, https://jamestown.org/program/russia-exports-its-missile-early-warning-knowhow-to-china/#!
12. Brian G. Carlson, “Vostok-2018: Another Sign of Strengthening Russia-China Ties. Not an Alliance, but Defense Cooperation
Is Growing,” German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP Comment, No. 47, November 2018, https://www.swp
-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2018C47_Carlson.pdf.
13. Andrew Osborn and Joyce Lee, “First Russian-Chinese Air Patrol in Asia-Pacific Draws Shots from South Korea,” Reuters, 23
July 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-russia-aircraft/first-russian-chinese-air-patrol-in-asia-pacific-draws
-shots-from-south-korea-idUSKCN1UI072.
14. General Administration of Customs of the People’s Republic of China, “China’s Total Export & Import Values by Country/Region,
December 2018 (in USD),” 14 January 2019, http://english.customs.gov.cn/Statics/a35889bb-1336-4a3d-a1af-55156eed4d3a.html.
15. Foreign Policy Editors, “Xi and Putin, Best Friends Forever? A Transcript of the Two Leaders’ Remarks in Moscow,” Foreign
Policy, 6 June 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/06/06/xi-and-putin-best-friends-forever/.
16. Note that until October 2019, the two leaders had already met 28 times, see Jeronim Perović and Benno Zogg, “Russland und
China: Potenzial der Partnerschaft,” Center for Security Studie, ETH Zürich, October 2019, https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz
/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/CSSAnalyse250-DE.pdf.
17. Note that according to UN Comtrade data, in 2018, China was Russia’s top trading partner, while Russia was China’s 11th largest
import and 12th largest export market, see https://comtrade.un.org/labs/dit-trade-vis/?reporter=156&partner=643&type=C&
year=2018&flow=2.
18. Christopher Weidacher Hsiung, “Facing the ‘New Normal’: The Strong and Enduring Sino-Russian Relationship and Its Implications
for Europe,” Swedish Institute of International Affairs, April 2019, https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/ui
-publications/2019/ui-paper-no.-3-2019.pdf and Leon Aron, “Are Russia and China Really Forming an Alliance? The Evidence
Is Less Than Impressive,” Foreign Affairs, 4 April 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-04-04/are-russia-and
-china-really-forming-alliance.
19. Stephen Sestanovich, “Is Putin Burning Out? The Demonstrations of Recent Weeks May Push Him to Mistakes That Test His
Grip on Power,” The New York Times, 2 August 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/opinion/putin-russia.html.
20. Frantisek Markovic, “Vladimir Putin’s Regime is Battling to Survive,” Forbes, 6 September 2019, https://www.forbes.com/sites
/frantisekmarkovic/2019/09/06/vladimir-putins-regime-is-battling-to-survive/.
21. Gwendolyn Sasse and Félix Krawatzek, “Young Russians Are Losing Trust in Putin’s Regime and Thinking of Leaving the Country,”
Carnegie Europe, 6 September 2019, https://carnegieeurope.eu/2019/09/06/young-russians-are-losing-trust-in-putin-s-regime
-and-thinking-of-leaving-country-pub-79806.
22. World Bank Group, “Russia Economic Report: Modest Growth – Focus on Informality,” Russia Economic Report, No. 41, June 2019,
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/332081560895493011/pdf/Russia-Economic-Report-Modest-Growth-Focus-on
-Informality.pdf, p. 7. On the budgetary strains of stagnating economic growth in Russia, also see Janis Kluge, “Mounting Pressure
on Russia’s Government Budget. Financial and Political Risks of Stagnation,” German Institute for International and Security
Affairs, SWP Research Paper, No. 2, February 2019, https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/
2019RP02_klg.pdf.
23. According to polling by Levada, approval for Putin – although still at high levels – has declined from 82 percent in October
2017 to 70 percent in October 2019, see Levada, “Putin’s Approval Rating,” November 2019, http://www.levada.ru/en/ratings/.
24. Emmanuel Macron, “Ambassadors’ Conference – Speech by M. Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic,” 27 August
25. See endnote 15.

90
26. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “Building on 70 Years of Achievements and Pursuing Progress in
the New Era. State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s Exclusive Year-end Interview with People’s Daily,” 24 December
2019, https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/zyjh_665391/t1727381.shtml.
27. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Gallup. Note that the full question asked was “Ideally,
if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in
this country?” See also Neli Esipova and Julie Ray, “Record 20% of Russians Say They Would Like to Leave Russia,” Gallup, 4
April 2019, https://news.gallup.com/poll/248249/record-russians-say-leave-russia.aspx.
28. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Centre for East European and International Studies
(ZOiS). Note that the data is based on two cross-sectional surveys that were conducted online in March 2018 and April 2019
among 2,000 participants aged 16-34. The survey results are part of a broader study on youth in Russia, the first part of which
has already been published, see Félix Krawatzek and Gwendolyn Sasse, “Youth in Russia: Outlook on Life and Political Attitudes,”
ZOiS Report, No. 1, June 2018, https://www.zois-berlin.de/fileadmin/media/Dateien/ZOiS_Reports/ZOiS_Report_1_2018.pdf.
29. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics database, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs/Statistics Division, “International Trade in Goods and Services,” extracted on 25 November 2019, https://
comtrade.un.org/db/.
1. See Lizza Bomassi and Pierre Vimont, “Reimagining a Global Europe,” Carnegie Europe, 11 December 2019, https://carnegieeurope
.eu/2019/12/11/reimagining-global-europepub-80554. See also Carl Bildt and Mark Leonard, “From Plaything to Player: How
Europe Can Stand Up for Itself in the Next Five Years,” European Council on Foreign Relations, Policy Brief, 17 July 2019, https://
www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/how_europe_can_stand_up_for_itself_in_the_next_five_years_eu_foreign_policy. See also
Nathalie Tocci, “Europe’s ‘Just Do It’ Moment,” Istituto Affari Internazionali, 10 October 2019, https://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni
/europes-just-do-it-moment.
2. Note that according to a survey among 585 EU companies operating in China commissioned by the European Union
Chamber of Commerce in China in January and February last year, one-third of the companies claimed that the US-China
trade dispute was hurting them. See Deutsche Welle, “One-third of EU Firms Hit Hard by US-China Trade War,” 20 May 2019,
https://www.dw.com/en/one-third-of-eu-firms-hit-hard-by-us-china-trade-war/a-48800905. See also David McHugh, “US-China
Trade War Leaves Europe as Collateral Damage,” Associated Press, 12 August 2019, https://www.apnews.com/430bfb5fc12
b40758fb41a57e4c9495f.
3. The Economist, “Emmanuel Macron in His Own Words,” 7 November 2019, https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07
/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english. See also Emmanuel Macron, “Ambassadors’ Conference – Speech by M.
Emmanuel Macron, President of the Republic,” 27 August 2019, https://lv.ambafrance.org/Ambassadors-conference-Speech-by
-M-Emmanuel-Macron-President-of-the-Republic.
4. Nicole Koenig, “New Beginnings: Bolstering EU Foreign and Security Policy in Times of Contestation,” Jacques Delors Institute,
2 September 2019, https://hertieschool-f4e6.kxcdn.com/fileadmin/user_upload/4-FOREIGN-SECURITY-POLICY-koenig-1.pdf.
5. Jean-Claude Juncker, “Speech by President Jean-Claude Juncker at the 54th Munich Security Conference,” 17 February 2018,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_18_841. See also Tobias Bunde, Randolf Carr, Sophie Eisentraut,
Christoph Erber, Jamel Flitti, Benedikt Franke, Laura Hartmann, Juliane Kabus, Quirin Maderspacher, Julian Voje, and Kai Wittek,
“Munich Security Report 2019,” Munich Security Conference, February 2019, https://securityconference.org/publikationen/munich
-security-report-2019/, p. 14.
6. European Commission, “The von der Leyen Commission. For a Union That Strives for More,” 10 September 2019, https://ec
7. Jana Puglierin and Niklas Helwig, “Europe’s Geo-Economic Commission,” Berlin Policy Journal, 7 October 2019, https://
berlinpolicyjournal.com/europes-geo-economic-commission/.
8. Note that in 2018 and 2019, the EU signed free trade agreements with Japan and MERCOSUR. By doing so, it sent strong
messages against growing protectionism worldwide that bears considerable risks for the EU’s export-dependent economy. See
also Leo Lewis and Kana Inagaki, “Japan and EU Sign Trade Deal in Move Against Protectionism,” Financial Times, 17 July
2018, https://www.ft.com/content/bd100de0-89b2-11e8-b18d-0181731a0340. See also Anabel González, “The EU-Mercosur
Trade Accord Sends a Signal to the World’s Protectionists,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2 July 2019, https://
www.piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/eu-mercosur-trade-accord-sends-signal-worlds-protectionists. Among others,
the new Commission seeks to increase Europe’s resilience to extraterritorial sanctions and bolster its strategic autonomy in the
digital sphere. See endnote 7.
9. Ursula von der Leyen, “Mission Letter to Josep Borrell,” European Commission, 10 September 2019, https://ec.europa.eu
/commission/sites/beta-political/files/mission-letter-josep-borrell-2019_en.pdf.
10. European Commission and High Representative Contribution to the European Council, “EU-China – A Strategic Outlook,” 12
March 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/communication-eu-china-a-strategic-outlook.pdf. See
also Julianne Smith and Torrey Taussig, “The Old World and the Middle Kingdom: Europe Wakes up to China’s Rise,” Foreign
Affairs, September/October 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-08-12/old-world-and-middle-kingdom.
11. Note that in March 2019, when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron invited German
Chancellor Merkel and European Commission President Juncker to his meetings with Xi.

91
12. Daniel Gros, “Europe’s 5G Wake-Up Call,” Project Syndicate, 8 July 2019, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary
/europe-5g-mobile-networks-security-risks-by-daniel-gros-2019-07?barrier=accesspaylog.
13. Note that the European Commission’s strategy paper on China mentions the US only once. See also Lucrezia Poggetti, “Europe’s
Search for a China Policy,” MERICS Blog, 7 June 2019, https://www.merics.org/en/blog/europes-search-china-strategy.
14. Robert Zoellick, “German Reunification gave Europe Strategic Purpose,” Financial Times, 29 October 2019, https://www.ft.com
/content/ae28da38-f4b8-11e9-bbe1-4db3476c5ff0.
15. Note that this includes the signing of the Franco-German Treaty of Aachen in January, and the signing of a deal on the joint
construction of the Future Combat Air System, the next-generation European fighter jet, between France, Germany, and Spain
in June last year.
16. Laurence Norman, “France Moves to Slow European Union’s Balkan Expansion,” The Wall Street Journal, 22 November 2019,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-moves-to-slow-european-unions-balkan-expansion-11574424004.
17. Note that to strengthen European sovereignty, Macron has urged Europeans to rethink their relations with Russia and work
on a new European security architecture. Macron also signaled openness to considering Putin’s moratorium proposal on
missile deployments in Europe. See Tom Balmforth, “France’s Macron Denies Accepting Putin’s Missile Proposal,” Reuters,
28 November 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-missiles-france/frances-macron-denies-accepting-putins
-missile-proposal-idUSKBN1Y21E4. Donald Tusk, when still President of the European Council, felt urged to clarify that from
his point of view, the EU’s “tough and consistent stance on Russia” constituted European sovereignty at its best. See Donald
Tusk, “Keynote Speech by President Donald Tusk at the Opening Ceremony of the 2019/2020 Academic Year at the College
of Europe,” 13 November 2019, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/11/13/keynote-speech-by
-president-donal-tusk-at-the-opening-ceremony-of-the-2019-2020-academic-year-at-the-college-of-europe/#.
18. Andrew Gray, “Macron Pours Cold Water on Balkan EU Membership Hopes,” Politico Europe, 17 May 2018, https://www
.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-pours-cold-water-balkans-eu-membership-enlargement/.
19. The Federal Government, “Chancellor Visits Rome. Working Together to Take Europe Forward,” 11 November 2019, https://
www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/merkel-trifft-conte-1691256. See also Jasmin Mujanovic and Molly Montgomery,
“Macron’s Veto Leaves Balkans Wide Open for Russia and China,” Foreign Policy, 31 October 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com
/2019/10/31/western-balkans-european-union-veto-russia-china/.
20. See endnote 3.
21. Deutsche Welle, “Germany’s Merkel, Maas Defend NATO After Macron’s Rebuke,” 10 November 2019, https://www.dw.com/en
/germanys-merkel-maas-defend-nato-after-macrons-rebuke/a-51191565.
22. Charles Michel, “‘Common Sense, Common Europe,’ Speech by President-elect Charles Michel at the University of Amsterdam,”
Amsterdam, 20 November 2019, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/press/press-releases/2019/12/01/common-sense
-common-europe-speech-by-european-council-president-elect-charles-michel-at-the-university-of-amsterdam/.
23. European Commission, “The von der Leyen Commission. For a Union That Strives for More,” 10 September 2019, https://ec
24. See endnote 14
25. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by The International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Note that this particular scenario assumes that Canada would still be part of NATO and contribute capabilities, but that the US
had left NATO and hence there would be no US assets and forces available. For details about the scenario and assumptions
about readiness, availability, and force requirements, see Douglas Barrie et al., “Defending Europe: Scenario-based Capability
Requirements for NATO’s European Members,” The International Institute for Strategic Studies, April 2019, https://www.iiss.org
/blogs/research-paper/2019/05/defending-europe.
26. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on selected questions from Standard Eurobarometer 91.4; see European
Parliament Public Opinion Monitoring Unit, “Plenary Newsletter,” October 2019, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service
/files/be-heard/eurobarometer/2019/plenary-october-2019/en-plenary-insights-october-2019.pdf.
27. Data and illustration provided to the Munich Security Conference by the Jacques Delors Centre, based on European Commission,
“A Strong Global Actor: A More Efficient Decision-making for EU Common Foreign and Security Policy,” 12 September 2018,
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-efficient-decision-making-cfsp-communication-647_en.pdf.
28. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Jacques Delors Centre. Note that the information
is based on an expert survey with confidential diplomatic sources conducted in late 2018. The depicted member state
positions concern the use of the passerelle clause and the application of qualified majority voting to legislative acts. Member
state positions are subject to change. For more information see: https://hertieschool-f4e6.kxcdn.com/fileadmin/user_upload
/20181115_Weltpolitikfaehigkeit-Koenig.pdf
29. Data and illustration provided to the Munich Security Conference by Oxford Economics, based on Haver Analytics.
30. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on “Special Eurobarometer 491: Europeans’ Attitudes on Trade and EU
Trade Policy,” 20 November 2019, https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2246_91_4_491_ENG. See also European
Commission, “Eurobarometer Survey: Majority of EU Citizens Positive About International Trade,” 20 November 2019, https://ec
.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_19_6294.
31. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Pew Research Center, “Spring 2019 Global Attitudes Survey,” 21 October
2019; see also Kat Devlin, “Attitudes Toward EU Are Largely Positive, Both Within Europe and Outside It,” Pew Research Center, 21
October 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/21/attitudes-toward-eu-are-largely-positive-both-within-europe-
and-outside-it/.

92
Regions
1. European Council on Foreign Relations, “Mapping European Leverage in the MENA Region,” December 2019, https://www
.ecfr.eu/specials/mapping_eu_leverage_mena.
2. Note that the demands that resurface now were already voiced by protesters in 2011 and include an end to corruption,
more economic opportunities, and a greater say in how their countries are run. See Emma Graham-Harrison, “Beyond Syria:
the Arab Spring’s Aftermath,” The Guardian, 30 December 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/dec/30/arab-spring
-aftermath-syria-tunisia-egypt-yemen-libya; David D. Kirkpatrick, “Arab Spring, Again? Nervous Autocrats Look out Windows as
Crowds Swell,” The New York Times, 8 April 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/world/africa/arab-spring-north-africa
-protesters.html.
3. Uri Dadush and Maria Demertzis, “Youth Unemployment: Common Problem, Different Solutions?” Bruegel, 29 November
2018, https://bruegel.org/2018/11/youth-unemployment-common-problem-different-solutions/; Michael Gordon, “Forecasting
Instability: The Case of the Arab Spring and the Limitations of Socioeconomic Data,” Wilson Center, 8 February 2018, https://
www.wilsoncenter.org/article/forecasting-instability-the-case-the-arab-spring-and-the-limitations-socioeconomic-data.
4. International Crisis Group, “Tunisia in 2019: a Pivotal Year?” 4 February 2019, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north
-africa/north-africa/tunisia/tunisia-2019-pivotal-year; Ben Hubbard and Rick Gladstone, “Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, 83, Tunisia
Autocrat Ousted in Arab Spring, Dies,” The New York Times, 19 September 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/world
/middleeast/tunisia-ben-ali-dead.html.
5. See endnote 2.
6. Tarek Megerisi, “Libya’s Global Civil War,” European Council on Foreign Relations, 26 June 2019, https://www.ecfr.eu
/publications/summary/libyas_global_civil_war1. Note that according to Amnesty International, between April and August 2019
more than 100,000 civilians living in the South and East of Tripoli have been displaced; see Amnesty International, “Libya’s
Relentless Militia War. Civilians Harmed in the battle for Tripoli, April-August 2019,” https://www.amnesty.org/download
/Documents/MDE1912012019ENGLISH.PDF.
7. David A. Wemer, “Haftar Closes in on Tripoli: Where is the International Community?” Atlantic Council, 17 December 2019,
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/haftar-closes-in-on-tripoli-where-is-the-international-community/.
8. Note that Haftar’s offensive to seize Tripoli; began in April 2019, when the field marshal broke off UN-sponsored attempts to
broker a power-sharing agreement between the Libyan National Army and the internationally recognized Government of
National Accord in Tripoli, see Wolfram Lacher, “Think Libya’s Warring Factions Are Only in It for the Money? Think Again,” The
Washington Post, 10 April 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/10/think-libyas-warring-factions-are-only-it
-money-think-again/; Noria Research, “Predatory Economies in Eastern Libya. The Dominant Role of the Libyan National Army,”
Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 27 June 2019, https://globalinitiative.net/eastern-libya-lna/.
9. Wolfram Lacher, “International Schemes, Libyan Realities,” SWP Comment, No. 45, November 2019, https://www.swp-berlin
.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2019C45_lac.pdf; René Wildangel and Tarek Megerisi, “Germany’s Quiet
Leadership on the Libyan War,” European Council on Foreign Relations, 20 November 2019, https://www.ecfr.eu/article
/commentary_germanys_quiet_leadership_on_the_libyan_war.
10. Karim Mezran, “Libya: Locked or Moving Forward?” Atlantic Council, 19 September 2019, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs
/menasource/libya-locked-or-moving-forward/.
11. Note that Haftar’s forces are supported by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Russia, and others, while Turkey
and Qatar support the Government of National Accord. See Jalel Harchaoui, “Libya. When Haftar Obliterates Years of Diplomacy,”
Clingendael, 1 May 2019, https://www.clingendael.org/publication/libya-when-haftar-obliterates-years-diplomacy; see endnote 6.
12. Tim Eaton, “Libya’s War Economy Predation, Profiteering and State Weakness,” Chatham House, April 2018, https://www
.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-04-12-libyas-war-economy-eaton-final.pdf; Tim Eaton,
“Libya. Rich in Oil, Leaking Fuel,” Chatham House, October 2019, https://chathamhouse.shorthandstories.com/libya-rich-in-oil
-leaking-fuel/index.html; United Nations Security Council, “Letter dated 5 September 2018 from the Panel of Experts on Libya
established pursuant to resolution 1973 (2011) addressed to the President of the Security Council,” 5 September 2018, https://
www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2018_812.pdf, p. 2.
13. Interpol and Enact, “Overview of Serious and Organized Crime in North Africa,” 30 September 2018, https://enact-africa.s3
.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/2018-12-12-interpol-north-africa-report.pdf. On the destabilizing effects of illicit economies and
flows, see also Benedikt Franke, Laura Hartmann, Juliane Kabus, Marcel Lewicki, Julian Voje, and Anna Winters, “Transnational
Security Report: Cooperating Across Borders: Tackling Illicit Flows,” Munich Security Conference, June 2019, https://
tsr.securityconference.de/assets/2019/Transnational_Security/MSC_Transnational_Security_Report.pdf.
14. Marc Otte, “The Quest for a Regional Order in the Middle East,” Egmont Institute, Security Policy Brief, No. 94, February
2018, http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2018/02/SPB94.pdf?type=pdf; see also endnote 6. Note that on Libya,
a strong impediment to a collective European approach to Libya has been France’s staunch support for Haftar. In April,
France blocked a European Union statement condemning Haftar’s assault on Tripoli; see Gabriela Baczynska and Francesco
Guarascio, “France blocks EU call to stop Haftar’s offensive in Libya,” Reuters, 10 April 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us
-libya-security-eu-tajani/france-blocks-eu-call-to-stop-haftars-offensive-in-libya-idUSKCN1RM1DO.
15. European Commission Joint Research Centre, “Many More to Come? Migration from and within Africa,” Publications Office of
the European Union, March 2018, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/africa_policy_report_2018_final.pdf.

93
16. Note that in 2015, more than a million refugees reached Europe by sea, and in 2016, more than 5,100 migrants died or
went missing in the Mediterranean Sea; see Missing Migrants Project of the International Organization for Migration, “Missing
Migrants. Tracking Deaths Along Migratory Routes,” https://missingmigrants.iom.int/region/mediterranean.
17. Raphael Shilhav, Oxfam’s EU migration policy advisor, quoted in Oxfam International, “Libya Migration Deal: Two Years on,
Thousands Drowned in the Mediterranean and Sent Back to Human Rights Abuses,” Press Release, February 2019, https://
www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/libya-migration-deal-two-years-thousands-drowned-mediterranean-and-sent-back-human.
18. Note that on the Central Mediterranean route, the share of migrants dead or missing per irregular sea arrival in the EU has
risen from 2.4 percent in 2017 to 6.1 percent in 2019, with the last numbers for 2019 collected in September; see endnote 16.
19. Tasnim Abderrahim, “Pushing the Boundaries: How to Create More Effective Migration Cooperation Across the Mediterranean,”
European Council on Foreign Relations, January 2019, https://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/pushing_the_boundaries
_effective_migration_cooperation_across_Mediterranean.
20. World Bank Group “Migration and Remittances. Recent Developments and Outlook,” April 2019, https://www.knomad.org
/sites/default/files/2019-04/Migrationanddevelopmentbrief31.pdf; Ruben Andersson and David Keen, “Partners in Crime?
The Impacts of Europe’s Outsourced Migration Controls on Peace, Stability and Rights,” Saferworld, July 2019, https://
www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/1217-partners-in-crime-the-impacts-of-europeas-outsourced-migration-
controls-on-peace-stability-and-rights. Note that in July last year, more than 50 refugees died in an airstrike on a detention
center in the East of Tripoli, see UNHCR and IOM, “UNHCR and IOM Joint Statement: International Approach to Refugees
and Migrants in Libya Must Change,” 11 July 2019, https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/7/5d2765d04/unhcr-iom-joint-
statement-international-approach-refugees-migrants-libya.html. The dire consequences of the EU-Turkey deal for migrants
trapped in Greek refugee camps are particularly evident in the overcrowded Moria camp on Lesbos, see Damian Boeselager,
“Europe is Home to a Grave Humanitarian Crisis – But Brussels Looks The Other Way,” The Guardian, 18 December 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/18/europe-humanitarian-crisis-brussels-refugees.
21. Ruben Andersson and David Keen, “Partners in Crime? The Impacts of Europe’s Outsourced Migration Controls on Peace,
Stability and Rights,” Saferworld, July 2019, https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/1217-partners-in-crime-the
-impacts-of-europeas-outsourced-migration-controls-on-peace-stability-and-rights.
22. UNHCR, “UNHCR Appalled at News of Refugee and Migrant Deaths on Mediterranean Sea,” 19 January 2019, https://www
.unhcr.org/news/press/2019/1/5c41e8a04/unhcr-appalled-news-refugee-migrant-deaths-mediterranean-sea.html.
23. Johannes Hahn, “Speech on Behalf of the High Representative/Vice-President at the European Parliament Plenary Debate on
‘Post-Arab Spring: Way Forward for Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region’,” European External Action Service, 27 March
2019, https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/60297/speech-behalf-high-representativevice-president
-european-parliament-plenary-debate-%E2%80%9Cpost-arab_en.
24. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
(ACLED). Note that ACLED codes riot and protest events. Events count as separate when they occur on different days, involve
different types of violence, occur with different types of actors or happen in different locations; see ACLED, “Armed Conflict
Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). User Quick Guide,” April 2019, https://www.acleddata.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm
_uploads/2019/04/General-User-Guide_FINAL.pdf.
25. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Freedom in the World, “Aggregate Category and Subcategory Scores,
2003-2019,” Freedom House, extracted on 25 November 2019, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Aggregate_Category
_and_Subcategory_Scores_FIW2019.xls. Note that Freedom in the World rates countries and territories around the world
according to the state of political rights and civil liberties. The aggregate score ranges from 0 (least free) to 100 (most free),
see Freedom House, “Democracy in Retreat: Freedom in the World 2019,” 2019, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files
/Feb2019_FH_FITW_2019_Report_ForWeb-compressed.pdf. Note that a country’s (or territory’s) aggregate score may also be
negative, as is the case for Syria in the years from 2014 to 2017. This may happen when the country or territory receives negative
total scores for its political rights situation, namely scores between -1 and -4, see Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2019:
Methodology 2019,” 2019, https://freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-freedom-world-2019.
26. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Global Migration Data Analysis Centre of
the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Note that the data on deaths and disappearances comes from IOM’s
Missing Migrants Project; see endnote 16.
27. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Julian Wucherpfennig, Karen Lohse, and Simon
Rabaa from the Centre for International Security at Hertie School. Note that the figures combine data from the Global Migration
Data Analysis Centre of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHRC). The number
of total migrant departures on the Central Mediterranean route is the sum of the number of migrants intercepted, the number
of deaths and disappearances, and the number of sea arrivals in Europe via the Central Mediterranean route. Also note that
while the total of EUR 91 million of EU money was used to strengthen the integrated migration and border management
capacities of the Libyan authorities more broadly, the primary focus was on reinforcing the Libyan Coast Guard; see
European Commission, “EU Trust Fund for Africa Adopts €46 Million Programme to Support Integrated Migration and Border
Management in Libya,” Press Release, 28 July 2017, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_17_2187 and
European Commission, “EU Cooperation on Migration in Libya: EU Trust Fund for Africa - North of Africa Window,” December
2018, https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/eutf-noa-libya.pdf.
28. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Airwars. Note that Airwars defines air strikes as any
action or contested action involving munitions released from a manned or unmanned (drone) aircraft, including helicopters,

94
and artillery strikes as any action or contested action involving ground-based artillery; see Airwars, “Methodology,” https://
airwars.org/about/methodology/.
29. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Arab Barometer. Note that the data is part of the
fifth wave of face-to-face public opinion surveys conducted from 2018 to 2019. In Algeria, the sample included 2,332, in Libya
1,962, and in all other countries 2,400 participants. For more details, see Arab Barometer, “Arab Barometer Wave V, 2018-2019”,
https://www.arabbarometer.org/waves/arab-barometer-wave-v/.
30. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by Arab Barometer. See endnote 29. Note that only
a selection of the destination countries mentioned by participants in the original survey is included in this chart. Destination
countries were grouped into four regions: EU, which includes all EU member states as well as Switzerland; North America,
which includes Canada and the United States; countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which include Bahrain, Kuwait,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates; and countries of the Middle East and North Africa that are not
members of the GCC (non-GCC MENA), which include Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco,
Palestine (or West Bank/Gaza), Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, and Yemen.
31. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on The World Bank, “Unemployment, youth total (% of total labor force
ages 15-24) (modeled ILO estimate),” extracted on 5 December 2019, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.1524.ZS.
Note that the data is current as of September 2019.
1. Robert Malley, “The Unwanted Wars,” Foreign Affairs, 2 October 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east
/2019-10-02/unwanted-wars.
2. Liz Sly, “Iran Has Vowed Revenge Against the U.S. But It Seems to Be in no Hurry.” Washington Post, 5 January 2020, https://www
.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-has-vowed-revenge-against-the-us-but-it-seems-to-be-in-no-hurry/2020/01/04
/150283e8-2e62-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html; Michael D. Shear, Eric Schmitt, Michael Crowley, and Maggie Haberman,
“Strikes on Iran Approved by Trump, Then Abruptly Pulled Back,” The New York Times, 20 June 2019, https://nyti.ms/2Rq3yff.
3. Farnaz Fassihi, “Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner,” The New York Times, 10 January 2020, https://www
.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/world/middleeast/missile-iran-plane-crash.html.
4. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, “Iran’s Networks of Influence in the Middle East,” November 2019, https://www
.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/iran-dossier/iran-19-03-ch-1-tehrans-strategic-intent; Kenneth Katzman, “Assessing US
Policy Toward Iran,” Atlantic Council, 5 December 2019, https://atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/assessing-us-policy-toward
-iran/; The Soufan Center, “Iran’s Playbook: Deconstructing Tehran’s Regional Strategy,” May 2019, https://thesoufancenter.org
/research/irans-playbook-deconstructing-tehrans-regional-strategy/.
5. Kenneth Katzman, “Iran Sanctions,” Congressional Research Service, 15 November 2019, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871
.pdf. Note that 14,000 additional troops have been sent to the region since May 2019. See Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Eric Schmitt,
“Despite Vow to End ‘Endless Wars,’ Here’s Where About 200,000 Troops Remain,” 21 October 2019, https://nyti.ms/2pMwzb9;
The White House, “President Donald J. Trump Is Working to Bring Iran’s Oil Exports to Zero,” 22 April 2019, https://www.whitehouse
.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-working-bring-irans-oil-exports-zero/.
6. Henry Rome, “Iran Is Doing Just Fine,” Foreign Affairs, 5 November 2019, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2019-11
-05/iran-doing-just-fine; The Economist, “A Strike on Saudi Arabia Moves a Shadowy Conflict Closer to Open War,” 19 September
2019, https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2019/09/19/a-strike-on-saudi-arabia-moves-a-shadowy-conflict
-closer-to-open-war. In January, European countries established the Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (INSTEX)
to circumvent US secondary sanctions on Iran but face trouble on implementation. Kenneth Katzman, “Iran Sanctions,”
Congressional Research Service, 15 November 2019, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf.
7. Nasser Karimi, Jon Gambrell, and Zeina Karam, “Blowback: Iran Abandons Nuclear Limits After US Killing,” Associated Press, 6
January 2020, https://apnews.com/e043255bd33ab318f71d1947716a5b94.
8. Rania El Gamal, Stephen Kalin, and Marwa Rashad, “Inside Saudi Arabia’s Response to a Raid on the Heart of the Oil Kingdom,”
Reuters, 20 September 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-attacks-reconstruction-i/inside-saudi-arabias
-response-to-a-raid-on-the-heart-of-the-oil-kingdom-idUSKBN1W51CP.
9. Jonathan Marcus “Israel-Iran: Risk of an All-out Conflict Grows after Syria Strikes,” BCC News, 20 November 2019, https://
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50492169.
10. Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Joseph Krauss, “Protests in Iraq and Lebanon Pose a Challenge to Iran,” Associated Press, 30
October 2019, https://apnews.com/62642940e3fe4b1b87323decc9487fea.
11. Six nations joined the United States in the International Maritime Security Construct: Albania, Australia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the
United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates. United States Central Command, “U.S. Central Command Welcomes Albania’s
Participation in the International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC),” 1 November 2019, https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA
/STATEMENTS/Statements-View/Article/2005518/us-central-command-welcomes-albanias-participation-in-the-international
-maritim/; so far, Denmark and the Netherlands have confirmed their participation in the mission. Euractiv, “French Warship
to Spearhead European Mission in Gulf From Next Year,” 20 December 2019, https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and
-security/news/french-warship-to-spearhead-european-mission-in-gulf-from-next-year/.
12. Allison McCann, Anjali Singhvi, and Jeremy White, “How the New Syria Took Shape,” The New York Times, 30 October 2019,
https://nyti.ms/31Wzsns; Eric Schmitt, “U.S. Resumes Large-Scale Operations Against ISIS in Northern Syria,” 25 November

95
2019, The New York Times, https://nyti.ms/37zoHv3.
13. The Economist, “Emmanuel Macron in His Own Words,” 7 November 2019, https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07
/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-english.
14. Javad Zarif, Remarks made at the Munich Security Conference Core Group Meeting in Doha, 29 October 2019.
15. The White House, “President Donald J. Trump Is Working to Bring Iran’s Oil Exports to Zero,” 22 April 2019, https://www
.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-working-bring-irans-oil-exports-zero/.
16. Florence Parly, “Remarks at the IISS Manama Dialogue,” 23 November 2019, https://www.iiss.org/-/media/files/manama
-dialogue/2019/transcripts/florence-parly-minister-of-the-armed-forces-france.docx.
17. Jennifer Hansler and Kylie Atwood, “State Department Plans to Reduce Staffing Levels in Iraq,” CNN, 18 December 2019,
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/downsize-iraq-personnel-us/index.html; data provided by IHS Markit; 14,000
additional troops have been sent to the region since May 2019; see Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Eric Schmitt, “Despite Vow to
End ‘Endless Wars,’ Here’s Where About 200,000 Troops Remain,” 21 October 2019, https://nyti.ms/2pMwzb9; Munich Security
Conference based on Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Importer/Exporter TIV Tables,” December 2019,
http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/values.php. Note that data is for 2014 to 2018. Countries included: Bahrain, Iraq, Iran,
Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
18. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Kenneth Katzman, “Iran Sanctions,” Congressional Research Service, 15
November 2019, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS20871.pdf; International Monetary Fund, “Real GDP Growth,” October 2019,
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDP_RPCH@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/IRN; Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries, “Monthly Oil Market Report,” December 2019, https://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/publications/338.htm.
19. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by ClipperData.
20. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference, adapted from a map provided by The International Institute for Strategic
Studies (IISS), “IISS Strategic Dossier: Iran’s Networks of Influence in the Middle East,” November 2019, https://www.iiss
.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/iran-dossier.
21. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by IHS Markit.
22. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project
(ACLED). Note that ACLED codes riot and protest events. Events count as separate when they occur on different days, involve
different types of violence, occur with different types of actors, or happen in different locations; see ACLED, “Armed Conflict
Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). User Quick Guide,” April 2019, https://www.acleddata.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm
_uploads/2019/04/General-User-Guide_FINAL.pdf.
23. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Center for International and Security
Studies at Maryland and IranPoll. Note that the original question read: “In Europe there has been talk of trying to negotiate
an agreement with Iran that would be broader than the JCPOA and would cover Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile
development, and its military activities in the Middle East in return for the lifting of all current sanctions on Iran. Let’s
suppose that Germany, France, and Britain, with no US participation, proposed such negotiations to Iran. What would you
think would be best for Iran to do?” Data has been collected nationally representative through phone interviews. CISSM’s
studies of public opinion in Iran are available at: https://go.umd.edu/CISSMIranSurveys.
1. Mia Zian, “Nuclear Submarines in South Asia: New Risks and Dangers,” Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, Vol. 2,
No. 1, 2019, pp. 184-202, p. 184.
2. For a bleak assessment of the US involvement in Afghanistan by high-ranking officials, see the “Afghanistan Papers,” published
by the Washington Post in 2019. Previously withheld from the public, the internal documents from the Special Inspector
General for Afghanistan Reconstruction were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act. Craig Whitlock, “The Afghanistan
Papers: A Secret History of War,” The Washington Post, 9 December 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019
/investigations/afghanistan-papers/afghanistan-war-confidential-documents/.
3. The United States already started to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan. For a detailed analysis see Thomas Gibbons-
Neff and Mujib Mashal, “U.S. Is Quietly Reducing Its Troop Force in Afghanistan,” The New York Times, 21 October 2019, https://
www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/world/asia/afghanistan-troop-reduction.html.
4. Isabel Green Jonegård, “‘In Together, Out Together’: If the US Withdraws its Troops from Afghanistan, what Will the NATO Framework
Nations Do?” Swedish Defence Research Institute, June 2019, https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI%20Memo%206770.
5. Tricia Bacon, “Slipping the Leash? Pakistan’s Relationship with the Afghan Taliban,” Survival, Vol. 60, No. 5, 2018, pp. 159-180.
6. RFE/RL, “U.S. Seeks to Guard Afghan Peace Talks from Kashmir Crisis,” Gandhara, 4 March 2019, https://gandhara.rferl.org
/a/u-s-seeks-to-guard-afghan-peace-talks-from-kashmir-crisis/29802394.html.
7. Despite increased conflict activity during the US-Taliban negotiations neither pro-government forces nor anti-government
elements achieved significant territorial gains. While the number of suicide attacks decreased, the Taliban increasingly put
pressure on infrastructure. The international and government forces relied heavily on airstrikes and targeted night-time
operations. For an overview of the security situation in Afghanistan in 2019 see United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan,
“The Situation in Afghanistan and its Implications for International Peace and Security,” Report of the Secretary General, 3
September 2019, https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/sg_report_on_afghanistan_-english-_3_september_2019.pdf.
On the impact of the conflict in Afghanistan on children see Save the Children, “Afraid to Go Outside: The Impact of Conflict on

96
Children in Afghanistan,” 11 February 2019, https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/library/afraid-go-outside-impact-conflict
-children-afghanistan.
8. The Indian government revoked articles 370 and 35A of its constitution in August 2019. These articles guarantee special rights
to the region Jammu and Kashmir now considered Union Territory by the Indian state.
9. Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, “Six-monthly HR Review: 271 Killings, 177 CASOs, 51 Internet Blockades,” JKCCS
Press Release, 3 July 2019, http://jkccs.net/six-monthly-hr-review-271-killings-177-casos-51-internet-blockades/.
10. For a contextualization of the increasingly renewed and home-grown Kashmiri insurgency, see Zia Mian, Abdul H. Nayyar,
Sandeep Pandey, and M. V. Ramana, “India, Pakistan, Kashmir: Taking the War Option off the Table,” The Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 23 September 2019, https://thebulletin.org/2019/09/india-pakistan-kashmir-taking-the-war-option-off-the-table/.
11. Annie Gowen and Manas Sharma, “Rising Hate in India,” The Washington Post, 31 October 2018, https://www.washingtonpost
.com/graphics/2018/world/reports-of-hate-crime-cases-have-spiked-in-india/.
12. Karthika Sasikumar, “India-Pakistan Crisis under the Nuclear Shadow: The Role of Reassurance,” Journal for Peace and
Nuclear Disarmament, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2019, pp. 151-169, p. 163.
13. A referendum along the lines of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 [The India-Pakistan Question, 21 April
1948, S/RES/47] with unsure results regarding territorial modifications could jeopardize Chinese interests. Moreover, financially
struggling Pakistan is pressured to comply with strict anti-terror financing requirements in order not to get blacklisted and
potentially lose Chinese multi-billion-dollar investments. For a detailed analysis of Chinese-Pakistani relations against the
background of the Belt and Road Initiative, see Christian Wagner, “The Effects of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor on
India-Pakistan Relations,” German Institute for International and Security Affairs, SWP Comment, No. 25, April 2016, https://www
.swp-berlin.org/en/publication/effects-of-the-china-pakistan-economic-corridor-on-india-pakistan-relations/.
14. Reuters, “China’s Xi Voices Support for Pakistan over Kashmir: Xinhua,” 9 October 2019, https://www.reuters.com/article/us
-china-pakistan-kashmir/chinas-xi-voices-support-for-pakistan-over-kashmir-xinhua-idUSKBN1WO0ST.
15. For a review of US-Indian relations, see Sameer Lalwani and Heather Byrne, “Great Expectations: Asking Too Much of the US-
India Strategic Partnership,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2019, pp. 41-64.
16. Imran Khan, “74th Session: 9th Plenary Meeting,” General Assembly Official Records, 27 September 2019, https://digitallibrary
.un.org/record/3835055?ln=en, p. 21.
17. Matthias Gebauer, “Afghan President Ghani: ‘The Taliban Miscalculated Massively on All Fronts’,” Spiegel Online, 7 October 2019,
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/afghan-leader-women-in-afghanistan-will-never-be-caged-again-a-1290001.html.
18. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, “Quarterly Report
on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict: 1 January to 30 September 2019,” 17 October 2019, https://unama.unmissions
.org/sites/default/files/unama_protection_of_civilians_in_armed_conflict_-_3rd_quarter_update_2019.pdf, and United Nations
Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, “Civilian Deaths from Afghan Conflict in 2018 at Highest Recorded Level – UN Report,”
Press Release, 24 February 2019, https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/24_february_2019_-_civilian_deaths_from
_afghan_conflict_in_2018_at_highest_recorded_level_-_un_report_english.pdf.
19. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the International NGO Safety Organisation, www
.ngosafety.org. Note that all figures are understood to be an underestimation due to frequent underreporting particularly in cases
of abductions.
20. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, “Annual Conflict and Disaster
Displacement Figures Afghanistan,” http://www.internal-displacement.org/countries/afghanistan.
21. Data and illustration provided to the Munich Security Conference by the Mercator Institute for China Studies. Note that five
uncompleted renewable energy power plants close to Islamabad, all located at different sites, have been grouped together for the
purpose of this illustration.
22. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Owen B. Toon et al., “Rapidly Expanding Nuclear Arsenals in Pakistan
and India Portend Regional and Global Catastrophe,” Science Advances, Vol. 5, No. 10, 2019, https://advances.sciencemag.org
/content/5/10/eaay5478. Note that the decline in productivity on land and in oceans is measured in net primary productivity
(NPP). NPP represents the net amount of inorganic carbon converted into organic plant matter through photosynthesis after
accounting for plant respiration. In addition to the reductions in temperature and precipitation, the decline in net primary
productivity on land and in oceans suggests major disruptions to the global ecosystem.
23. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies, www.pakpips.com.
24. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Observer Research Foundation, “Kashmir Conflict Tracker,” 22 October
2018, updated for the Munich Security Conference in January 2020, https://www.orfonline.org/kashmir-conflict-tracker-45120/.
25. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Observer Research Foundation, “Kashmir Conflict Tracker,” 22 October
2018, updated for the Munich Security Conference in November 2019, https://www.orfonline.org/kashmir-conflict-tracker-45120/.
Note that the data presented is not exhaustive since it is based on open source information collected mainly from the two leading
news reports of Jammu and Kashmir (“Rising Kashmir” and “Greater Kashmir”) from January 2018 until June 2019.
Issues
1. Union of Concerned Scientists, “UCS Satellite Database,” 16 December 2019, https://ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database.
2. Wendy Whitman Cobb, “How SpaceX Lowered Costs and Reduced Barriers to Space,” The Conversation, 1 March 2019,

97
https://theconversation.com/how-spacex-lowered-costs-and-reduced-barriers-to-space-112586.
3. See endnote 1.
4. The Economist, “A New Age of Space Exploration Is Beginning,” 18 July 2019, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/07/18
/a-new-age-of-space-exploration-is-beginning.
5. The Economist, “Attacking Satellites Is Increasingly Attractive – and Dangerous,” 18 July 2019, https://www.economist.com
/briefing/2019/07/18/attacking-satellites-is-increasingly-attractive-and-dangerous.
6. See endnote 5.
7. Todd Harrison, Kaitlyn Johnson, and Thomas G. Roberts, “Space Threat Assessment 2019,” Center for Strategic and International
Studies, April 2019, https://aerospace.csis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SpaceThreatAssessment2019-compressed.pdf.
8. North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “London Declaration. Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the
Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in London 3-4 December 2019,” 4 December 2019, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq
/official_texts_171584.htm.
9. Joshua Posaner, “Macron to Create French Military Space Force,” Politico Europe, 14 July 2019, https://www.politico.eu/article
/macron-to-create-french-military-space-force/.
10. Based on data provided to the Munich Security Conference by the European Space Agency (ESA).
11. See endnote 10. See also European Space Agency, “Hypervelocity Impacts and Protecting Spacecraft,” https://www.esa
.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Hypervelocity_impacts_and_protecting_spacecraft. See also Hans-Albert Eckel, Dennis
Göge, and Dirk Zimper, “Laser-Based Space Debris Removal: An Approach for Protecting the Critical Infrastructure Space,”
Journal of the JAPCC, Vol. 22, 2016, p. 75-84.
12. Stewart Patrick and Kyle L. Evanoff, “The Right Way to Achieve Security in Space,” Foreign Affairs, 17 September 2018, https://
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/space/2018-09-17/right-way-achieve-security-space.
13. See endnote 12.
14. United Nations, “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including
the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, 27 January 1967, http://disarmament.un
.org/treaties/t/outer_space/text.
15. Holly Ellyatt, “Putin Fears the US and NATO Are Militarizing Space and Russia is Right to Worry, Experts Say,” CNBC, 5
December 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/05/nato-in-space-putin-is-worried-about-the-militarization-of-space.html.
16. Thomas Barrabi, “US Space Command Launches Amid Trump Push for Military’s ‘Space Force’,” Fox Business, 29 August 2019,
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/us-space-command-launch-trump.
17. Illustration and projection by German Aerospace Center (DLR) based on data from Gunter Krebs, “Chronology of Space
Launches,” https://space.skyrocket.de/directories/chronology.htm.
18. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Union of Concerned Scientists, “UCS Satellite Database,” https://
ucsusa.org/resources/satellite-database. Note that countries’ shares of satellite mass in orbit were calculated on the basis
of aggregate “launch mass” (satellite mass at launch including propellant) of a country’s active satellites. Taking into account
uncertainty due to estimations and limitations in data availability, actual aggregate values may be up to 10 percent higher or lower.
19. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the European Space Agency (ESA). “Debris” for the
purpose of this illustration include “payload debris,” “payload fragmentation debris,” “rocket debris,” “rocket fragmentation debris,”
and “unidentified” objects as defined by ESA. For more on terminology and definitions, see ESA Space Debris Office, “ESA’s
Annual Space Environment Report,” European Space Agency, 17 July 2019, https://www.sdo.esoc.esa.int/environment_report
/Space_Environment_Report_latest.pdf.
1. Fridays for Future, “Statistics / Graph”, 12 December 2019, https://www.fridaysforfuture.org/statistics/graph.
2. Spencer Bokat-Lindell, “The Crucial Lessons From Australia’s Wildfires,” The New York Times, 7 January 2020, https://www
.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/opinion/australia-fires-climate-change.html.
3. Note that the 2015 Paris Agreement aims at limiting global warming to “well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
levels” and if possible below 1.5 degrees Celcius in addition to other goals. United Nations Climate Change, “What Is the Paris
Agreement?” November 2019, https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement.
4. United Nations Environment Programme, “Emissions Gap Report 2019,” 20 November 2019, https://www.unenvironment.org
/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019.
5. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, “Disaster Displacement – A Global Review, 2008-2018,” May 2019, http://www.internal
-displacement.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/201905-disaster-displacement-global-review-2008-2018.pdf .
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5ºC,” 8 October 2018, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
7. TheWorldBank,“Groundswell:PreparingforInternalClimateMigration,”19March2018,https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2018/03/19/climate-change-could-force-over-140-million-to-migrate-within-countries-by-2050-world-bank-report.
8. Ashley Moran et al., “The Intersection of Global Fragility and Climate Risks,” United States Agency for International Development,
September 2018, https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TBFH.pdf.
9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Climate Finance Provided and Mobilized by Developed Countries
in 2013-17,” 13 September 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/39faf4a7-en.
10. Ashley Moran, Joshua Busby, and Clionadh Raleigh, “Stretched Thin: When Fragile States Face Climate Hazards,” The Peace

98
Research Institute Oslo, 27 November 2018, https://blogs.prio.org/ClimateAndConflict/2018/11/stretched-thin-when-fragile-states
-face-climate-hazards/.
11. Katharine Mach et al., “Climate as a Risk Factor for Armed Conflict,” Nature, 12 June 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586
-019-1300-6.
12. The Climate and Security Advisory Group, “A Climate Security Plan for America,” 24 September 2019, https://climateandsecurity
.org/climatesecurityplanforamerica/.
13. The Economist, “The Past, Present and Future of Climate Change,” 19 September 2019, https://www.economist.com/briefing
/2019/09/21/the-past-present-and-future-of-climate-change.
14. See endnote 13. See also Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, “Tipping Elements – the Achilles Heels of the Earth
System,” https://www.pik-potsdam.de/services/infodesk/tipping-elements/kippelemente.
15. The Economist, “The Consequences of a Rapidly Warming Arctic Will Be Felt Far Afield,” 19 September 2019, https://www
.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/09/21/the-consequences-of-a-rapidly-warming-arctic-will-be-felt-far-afield.
16. See endnote 15.
17. Timothy Lenton et al., “Climate Tipping Points – Too Risky to Bet Against,” Nature, 27 November 2019, https://www.nature
.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0.
18. See endnote 4.
19. See endnote 17.
20. Reuters, “Brazil Foreign Minister Says ‘There is No Climate Change Catastrophe’,” 11 September 2019, https://www.reuters.com
/article/us-brazil-environment-araujo/brazil-foreign-minister-says-there-is-no-climate-change-catastrophe-idUSKCN1VW2S2;
Josh Busby, “Changing the Atmosphere in Political Science: Ten Key Political Questions About Climate Change,” Duck of
Minerva, 11 September 2019, https://duckofminerva.com/2019/09/changing-the-atmosphere-in-political-science-ten-key
-political-questions-about-climate-change.html; Brady Dennis, “Trump Makes It Official: U.S. Will Withdraw from the Paris Climate
Accord,” The Washington Post, 5 November 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/11/04/trump
-makes-it-official-us-will-withdraw-paris-climate-accord/.
21. The Economist, “The COP25 Meeting on the Climate Yields Little,” 18 December 2019, https://www.economist.com/science
-and-technology/2019/12/18/the-cop25-meeting-on-the-climate-yields-little.
22. See endnote 4.
23. James Workman, “‘Our House Is on Fire.’ 16 Year-old Greta Thunberg Wants Action,” World Economic Forum, 25 January 2019,
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/our-house-is-on-fire-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-speaks-truth-to-power/.
24. United Nations Human Rights Council, “Climate Change and Poverty,” 25 June 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues
/Poverty/A_HRC_41_39.pdf.
25. Illustration adapted from Climate Action Tracker, “Countries,” December 2019, https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/.
26. Munich Security Conference based on Climate Action Tracker, “Temperatures,” December 2019, https://climateactiontracker
.org/global/temperatures/.
27. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on United Nations Environment Programme, “Emissions Gap Report 2019,”
20 November 2019, https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019. Note that the data does not include
land-use change.
28. See endnote 26.
29. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Ashley Moran et al., “The Intersection of Global Fragility and Climate
Risks,” United States Agency for International Development, September 2018, https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00TBFH.pdf.
30. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, “Global Report on Internal Displacement 2019,” May 2019, http://www.internal
-displacement.org/global-report/grid2019/.
31. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Florian Krampe, “Climate Change, Peacebuilding and Sustaining
Peace,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, June 2019, https://www.sipri.org/publications/2019/sipri-policy-briefs
/climate-change-peacebuilding-and-sustaining-peace. Note that data presented is as of 31 December 2018.
1. The Soufan Center, “White Supremacy Extremism: The Transnational Rise of the Violent White Supremacist Movement,” September
2019, https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Report-by-The-Soufan-Center-White-Supremacy-Extremism-The-
Transnational-Rise-of-The-Violent-White-Supremacist-Movement.pdf, p. 11.
2. See Erin Miller, “Ideological Motivations of Terrorism in the United States, 1970-2016,” National Consortium for the Study of
Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) of the University of Maryland, November 2017, https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs
/START_IdeologicalMotivationsOfTerrorismInUS_Nov2017.pdf, p. 6.
3. Note that financial, legal and political resources have so far been predominantly used to target jihadist extremism. A similar bias
is evident in the media and in academic research. For instance, examining news coverage in the United States, Kearns et al.
show that Muslim perpetrators of violence received on average 357 percent more coverage than others who commit violent
attacks, see Erin M. Kearns, Allison E. Betus, and Anthony F. Lemieux, “Why Do Some Terrorist Attacks Receive More Media
Attention than Others?” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 6, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1524507, pp. 985-1022.
Assessing academic research conducted between 2007 and 2016, Schuurman also observes a one-sided, event-driven focus
on jihadist terrorism. See Bart Schuurman, “Topics in Terrorism Research: Reviewing Trends and Gaps, 2007-2016,” Critical

99
Studies on Terrorism, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/17539153.2019.1579777, pp. 463-480.
4. Data based on the United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB). William Braniff, “Testimony on Countering Domestic Terrorism:
Examining the Evolving Threat,” US. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 25 September 2019,
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Testimony-Braniff-2019-09-25.pdf, p. 10. For an in-depth discussion about the data
collection process, see Joshua D. Freilich, Steven M. Chermak, Roberta Belli, Jeff Gruenewald, and William S. Parkin, “Introducing
the United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB),” Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1080
/09546553.2012.713229, pp. 372-384.
5. See Tore Bjørgo and Jacob Aasland Ravndal, “Extreme-Right Violence and Terrorism: Concepts, Patterns, and Responses,”
International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), September 2019, https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Extreme-Right
-Violence-and-Terrorism-Concepts-Patterns-and-Responses.pdf.
6. Rosa Schwartzburg, “The ‘White Replacement Theory’ Motivates Alt-right Killers the World Over,” The Guardian, 5 August 2019,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/05/great-replacement-theory-alt-right-killers-el-paso.
7. Farah Pandith, “Countering Violent Extremism in the United States,” Aspen Security Forum 2019, 19 July 2019, https://
aspensecurityforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Countering-Violent-Extremism-in-the-United-States.pdf.
8. Weiyi Cai and Simone Landon, “Attacks by White Extremists Are Growing. So Are Their Connections,” The New York Times, 3
April 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/world/white-extremist-terrorism-christchurch.html.
9. Peter Neumann in: Jason Burke, “Norway Mosque Attack Suspect ‘Inspired by Christchurch and El Paso Shooting’,” The
Guardian, 11 August 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/11/norway-mosque-attack-suspect-may-have-been
-inspired-by-christchurch-and-el-paso-shootings.
10. Seth G. Jones, “The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 7 November
2018, https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states.
11. Jeffrey Berger, “Nazis vs. ISIS on Twitter: A Comparative Study of White Nationalist and ISIS Online Social Media Networks,” George
Washington University Program on Extremism, September 2016, https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/downloads
/Nazis%20v.%20ISIS.pdf.
12. Maura Conway, Ryan Scrivens, and Logan Macnair, “Right-Wing Extremists’ Persistent Online Presence: History and
Contemporary Trends,” International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), October 2019, https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads
/2019/11/Right-Wing-Extremists-Persistent-Online-Presence.pdf.
13. Jacob Aasland Ravndal, “The Dark Web Enabled the Christchurch Killer,” Foreign Policy, 16 March 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com
/2019/03/16/the-dark-web-enabled-the-christchurch-killer-extreme-right-terrorism-white-nationalism-anders-breivik/.
14. Note that the exposure to extreme right views increases with the viral spread of content, algorithmic recommendations, and
echo chamber effects. See Daniel Köhler, “The Radical Online: Individual Radicalization Processes and the Role of the Internet,”
Journal for Deradicalization, No. 1, Winter 2014/15, http://journals.sfu.ca/jd/index.php/jd/article/viewFile/8/8.
15. Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware, “Are We Entering a New Era of Far-Right Terrorism?” War on the Rocks, 27 November 2019,
https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/are-we-entering-a-new-era-of-far-right-terrorism/.
16. US Department of Homeland and Security. Office of Intelligence and Analysis, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and
Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” 7 April 2009, https://fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf.
17. For a study on right-wing extremism in Germany, see Daniel Koehler, “Violence and Terrorism from the Far-Right: Policy
Options to Counter an Elusive Threat,” International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), February 2019, https://icct.nl/wp
-content/uploads/2019/02/Koehler-Violence-and-Terrorism-from-the-Far-Right-February-2019.pdf, pp. 4ff.
18. Sophie Gaston, “Far-Right Extremism in the Populist Age,” Demos, June 2017, https://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017
/06/Demos-Briefing-Paper-Far-Right-Extremism-2017.pdf. See also Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, “Narratives of Hate. The
Spectrum of Far-right Worldviews in the UK,” September 2019, https://institute.global/sites/default/files/inline-files/Far%20Right%20
report%20V10_final_0.pdf.
19. United Nations Secretary-General, “Secretary-General’s remarks at the launch of the United Nations Strategy and Plan of
Action on Hate Speech [as delivered],” 18 June 2019, https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2019-06-18/secretary
-generals-remarks-the-launch-of-the-united-nations-strategy-and-plan-of-action-hate-speech-delivered.
20. New Zealand Parliament, “Ministerial Statement on the Mosque Terror Attacks in Christchurch,” 19 March 2019, https://www
.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20190319_20190319_08.
21. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the United States Extremist Crime Database
(ECDB), which covers the US for the years 2002 to 2019 (see endnote 4), the RTV dataset created by Jacob Aasland Ravndal,
Center for Research on Extremism (C-REX) at the University of Oslo, which covers data on Western Europe between 2002
and 2018, and data collected by the Munich Security Conference on Australia, Canada and New Zealand as well as on the
2019 figures for Western Europe. Note that the figures for 2019 are current as of November, and may change as fatal events
are still being vetted.
22. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on data provided by the United States Extremist Crime Database (ECDB).
See endnote 4.
23. Illustration by the Munich Security Conference based on Anti-Defamation League (A.D.L.), “Hate Beyond Borders: The
Internationalization of White Supremacy,” September 2019, https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/hate-beyond-borders-the
-internationalization-of-white-supremacy#executive-summary and The Soufan Center, “White Supremacy Extremism: The
Transnational Rise of the Violent White Supremacist Movement,” September 2019, https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content
/uploads/2019/09/Report-by-The-Soufan-Center-White-Supremacy-Extremism-The-Transnational-Rise-of-The-Violent-White

100
-Supremacist-Movement.pdf. On online networks, see also endnote 12. On meetings at conferences, marches and concerts,
also see Rob May, “Is Poland the New Hub for the Radical Right?” Fair Observer, 16 May 2018, https://www.fairobserver
.com/region/europe/poland-radical-right-alt-right-nationalism-europe-news-13241/; Michael Colborne, “Kyiv, Ukraine: A New
Hub for International Neo-Nazi Concerts,” Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right (CARR), 3 October 2019, https://www
.radicalrightanalysis.com/2019/10/03/kyiv-ukraine-a-new-hub-for-international-neo-nazi-concerts/. On joint combat trainings in
Ukraine, see Tim Hume, “Far-Right Extremists Have Been Using Ukraine’s War as a Training Ground. They’re Returning Home,”
Vice News, 31 July 2019, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb95ma/far-right-extremists-have-been-using-ukraines-civil-war
-as-a-training-ground-theyre-returning-home.
Technology and Innovation: It’s all about Politechs
1. Silvia Amaro, “Europe’s Dream to Claim Its ‘Digital Sovereignty’ Could Be the Next Big Challenge for US Tech Giants,” CNBC, 20
November 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-tech-could-face-new-hurdles-as-europe-considers-digital-sovereignty.html.
2. Rfi, “Macron Throws €5 Billion at Digital Start-ups,” 18 September 2019, http://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20190918-macron
-throws-5-billion-digitl-startups.
3. Alan Beattie, “Technology: How the US, EU and China Compete to Set Industry Standards,” Financial Times, 24 July 2019,
https://www.ft.com/content/0c91b884-92bb-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271; Daniel Voelsen, Tim Rühlig, and John Seaman, “5G
and the US-China Tech Rivalry – a Test for Europe’s Future in the Digital Age,” German Institute for International and Security
Affairs, 29 June 2018, https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019C29/.
4. Jacques Bughin, Eckart Windhagen, Sven Smit, Jan Mischke, Pal Erik Sjatil, and Bernhard Gürich, “Reviving Innovation in
Europe,” McKinsey Global Institute, October 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/innovation-and-growth
/reviving-innovation-in-europe.
5. McKinsey & Company, based on European Commission, “The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard,” 2012 and 2019,
https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard.
6. Dave Keating, “Why the EU Leads in Digital Regulation, but Lags in Digital Innovation,” Euractiv, 23 October 2019, https://www
.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/why-the-eu-leads-in-digital-regulation-but-lags-in-digital-innovation/.
7. Pal Erik Sjatil, Ilan Rozenkopf, and Sebastian Stern, “How Purpose-led Missions Can Help Europe Innovate at Scale,” McKinsey &
Company, December 2019, https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/europe/how-purpose-led-missions-can-help-europe-
innovate-at-scale. Note that superstar companies are defined as top decile firms in terms of economic profit among global
companies with more than USD 1 billion in revenue.
8. See endnote 4.
9. European Commission, “The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2012,” 1 January 2012, https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu
/scoreboard/2012-eu-industrial-rd-investment-scoreboard; “The EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard 2019,” 18 December
2019, https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard/2019-eu-industrial-rd-investment-scoreboard.
10. See endnote 4.
11. World Economic Forum in collaboration with McKinsey & Company, “Innovate Europe Competing for Global Innovation
Leadership,” January 2019, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Innovate_Europe_Report_2019.pdf.
12. See endnote 7.
13. See endnotes 7 and 11.
14. See endnote 7.
15. Illustration provided to the Munich Security Conference by McKinsey & Company, based on European Commission, “The EU
Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard,” 2012 and 2019, https://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/scoreboard. Note that every company of
the top global 250 R&D spenders in the European Commission’s Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard is mapped into one
sector only although many companies are active in various sectors; geographical company mapping is based on registered
headquarters although R&D activities are in most cases distributed across various countries/regions. Note that for 2012
headquarters of two companies were manually corrected by the authors from “Bermuda” to “USA.”
16. Illustration provided to the Munich Security Conference by McKinsey Global Institute, building on “Notes from the AI Frontier:
Modeling the Impact of AI on the World Economy” and “Notes From the AI Frontier: Tackling Europe’s Gap in Digital and AI.” Note
that beyond enablers, the market and demand side determine actual technology leadership. China benefits from the size and
attractiveness of its domestic market, while in the EU, progress on the digital single market is continuing but still incomplete. This
is not incorporated in this illustration.

101
Food for Thought
Books
1. Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson, The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty, Penguin Random
House (New York), 2019.
2. Hal Brands and Charles Edel, The Lessons of Tragedy: Statecraft and World Order, Yale University Press (New Haven), 2019.
3. William J. Burns, The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal, Penguin Random House
(New York), 2019.
4. Kimberly Clausing, The Progressive Case for Free Trade, Immigration, and Global Capital, Harvard University Press (Cambridge),
2019.
5. Joana Cook, A Woman’s Place: US Counterterrorism Since 9/11, Hurst Publishers (London), 2019.
6. Jessica Trisko Darden, Aiding and Abetting: U.S. Foreign Assistance and State Violence, Stanford University Press (Stanford), 2019.
7. Michael E. O’Hanlon, The Senkaku Paradox. Risking Great Power War Over Small Stakes, The Brookings Institution Press
(Washington, D.C.), 2019.
8. Alice C. Hill and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, Building a Resilient Tomorrow: How to Prepare for the Coming Climate Disruption,
Oxford University Press (Oxford), 2019.
9. Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes, The Light That Failed: Why the West Is Losing the Fight for Democracy, Pegasus Books (New
York), 2020.
10. Luuk van Middelaar, Alarums & Excursions: Improvising Politics on the European Stage, Columbia University Press (New York), 2019.
11. Peter R. Neumann, Bluster: Donald Trump’s War on Terror, Hurst Publishers (London), 2019.
12. Andrei P. Tsygankov, Russia and America: The Asymmetric Rivalry, Polity (Cambridge), 2019.
Reports
1. Thomas de Waal (ed.), “Think Peace: Essays for an Age of Disorder,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 2019,
https://carnegieeurope.eu/2019/10/14/think-peace-essays-for-age-of-disorder-pub-79969.
2. Richard Fontaine et al., “New Voices in Grand Strategy,” Center for a New American Security, April 2019, https://
www.cnas.org/publications/reports/new-voices-in-grand-strategy.
3. Cecile Neumeister and Stella Cooper, “Money Tree: Teak and Conflict in South Sudan,” Center for Advanced Defense Studies,
2019, https://c4ads.org/money-tree.
4. Erol K. Yayboke and Carmen Garcia Gallego, “Out of the Shadows: Shining a Light on Irregular Migration,” Center for Strategic
and International Studies, August 2019, https://www.csis.org/analysis/out-shadows-shining-light-irregular-migration.
5. Zaki Laïdi, “Can Europe Learn to Play Power Politics?” Centre for European Reform, November 2019, https://
www.cer.eu/publications/archive/essay/2019/can-europe-learn-play-power-politics.
6. Florence Gaub (ed.), “What if...? Scanning the Horizon: 12 Scenarios for 2021,” European Union Institute for Security Studies,
February 2019, https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/what-if-scanning-horizon-12-scenarios-2021.
7. Rachel Tausendfreund (ed.), “Reassessing 1989,” The German Marshall Fund of the United States, September 2019, http://
www.gmfus.org/publications/reassessing-1989.
8. Douglas Barrie et al., “Defending Europe: Scenario-based Capability Requirements for NATO’s European Members,” The
International Institute for Strategic Studies, May 2019, https://www.iiss.org/blogs/research-paper/2019/05/defending-europe.
9. Kristin Shi-Kupfer and Mareike Ohlberg, “China’s Digital Rise: Challenges for Europe,” Mercator Institute for China Studies, April
2019, https://www.merics.org/en/papers-on-china/chinas-digital-rise.
10. Samuel Charap et al. (eds.), “A Consensus Proposal for a Revised Regional Order in Post-Soviet Europe and Eurasia,” RAND
Corporation, 2019, https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF410.html.
11. Camilla Born, Karolina Eklöw, and Malin Mobjörk, “Advancing United Nations Responses to Climate-related Security Risks,”
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, September 2019, https://www.sipri.org/publications/2019/sipri-policy-
briefs/advancing-united-nations-responses-climate-related-security-risks.
12. Abraham Denmark, Nobumasa Akiyama, Patrick M. Cronin, and Yoshihide Soeya, “Geopolitical Implications of a
New Era on the Korean Peninsula,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2 May 2019, https://www
.wilsoncenter.org/publication/geopolitical-implications-new-era-the-korean-peninsula.

Visit our website, app, and social
media channels:
www.linktr.ee/MunSecConf
www.securityconference.org/en
ISSN (Print) 2365-2179
ISSN (Internet) 2365-2187
DOWNLOAD THIS REPORT
STAY IN TOUCH
Follow this link:
www.securityconference.org/en/
publications/munich-security-report/

Munich Security Report 2020

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Munich Security Report 2020 (20)

More from Energy for One World (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Munich Security Report 2020