Cold War 2.0 and the future security architecture in Europe

Basically, when we build an architecture, we want to build something solid and sustainable that will last for a long time, where you can spend your own life and preferably still bequeath to children and grandchildren. An architecture must be based on a stable foundation! I think it is necessary to think about how we design a global peace and security architecture that should primarily serve to secure peace.

Global security

Today, a security architecture for only one region would no longer be a stable foundation. This is because regional conflicts no longer remain regional. They have global implications. The war in Ukraine, which has created a global energy and food crisis, shows us this very clearly. For this reason, the countries of the so-called Global South are now also getting involved in the search for a way out of this war. China and India in Asia, Brazil in Latin America and also several African countries have already launched peace or mediation initiatives. We cannot ignore the fact that the role of the Global South in international politics has changed and continues to grow. And it now accounts for nearly two-thirds of the member states of the United Nations, about 80% of the world's population, about 50% of the world's GDP, and about half of all international trade.

During his visit to Argentina, the German chancellor described this trend as follows: "The world is becoming multipolar, of that I am firmly convinced. In the future, there will not be two blocs, but a whole series of influential states - in Asia, Africa and also in Latin America. And this world should be multilateral, so that as many states as possible cooperate with each other."

What I mean by this is that instead of thinking predominantly in regional categories, we should focus our attention more on and ask how we want to shape security and cooperative international relations in a multipolar world in the future. Our ability to deal constructively with conflict situations and to defuse them will depend crucially on this.

Another question that in my view needs to be answered is: What do we actually mean by Europe in this context? Let us take, for example, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE, which was founded, by the way, at the height of the Cold War with the United States and Canada as founding members. Today, it includes 5 Central Asian states, with a predominantly Muslim population, a difficult border with Afghanistan, in the vicinity of China, and with a historical affinity to Russia.

Russia's war in Ukraine and antagonistic relations between Russia and the EU are changing the balance of power in the post-Soviet space. Russia is not ready to give up its position, while the European Union is still in the process of developing a strategy for this new situation. China is acting much faster in this regard. In this context, it is necessary to upgrade the EU's role as a peace actor in these regions, which would also mean working with difficult partners there. Working not against someone, but together, even if it is difficult, for something: promotion of peace. And that brings me to my second category:

Peace Promotion

In the context of the Ukraine war, we are witnessing a return of thinking in military categories, like deterrence and containment, combined with a revival and extensive strengthening of NATO as Russia is defined as the greatest security threat to the EU. However, as the U.S. increasingly prioritizes China and the Indo-Pacific region, the need for a reorientation of European security policy and a stronger role for Europe in conventional deterrence and defense is being discussed.

All in all, we are witnessing a securitization of policy and discourse: building our own defense capabilities and deterring the enemy. I wonder where we will and want to go with this approach.

By no means do I want to minimize the importance of security. Security is a fundamental need of people and of states. It promotes self-confidence. And self-confidence is a basis for the willingness to work toward a trust-based cooperation, which serves rapprochement rather than isolation. Expanding one's own security is undoubtedly important, but with what intention: to prepare for confrontation or to build a secure foundation for cooperation? At the moment, the first approach dominates, but it cannot and should not be forward-looking.

In addition, defining security in purely military terms does not go far enough. Security has also social and economic dimension, it is human security too. And in terms of foreign policy, we should take into account that each state defines its own ideas about its security foundations. We don't have to share these ideas, but we should know and consider them, in order to formulate a viable strategy for how to deal with this respective actor. I strongly advocate that such a strategy must serve the purpose of constructive and respectful interaction. It does not necessarily have to be a partnership or friendly cooperation, but certainly aim for a constructive and respectful interaction.

What else, besides security, can help us to promote trust and willingness to cooperate?

Respect and recognition - two basic human needs. Addressing them can make it easier to resolve conflicts before they turn into military confrontations. Or latter can be more queickly ended before they spiral out of control, as it currently happening in Ukraine.

Following tasks arise from the context described above in order to master upcoming security challenges: first, strengthening the country's own security, which has to be conceived broader than just in militarily terms; second, regional crisis management based on respect and dialogue; and third, cooperative management of multipolarity through diplomacy, recognition, and willingness to compromise. Ultimately, it is a matter of finding a viable balance between distancing and cooperation in the interests of regional and global peacebuilding.