Munich Insecurity Conference

But, the event organizers failed to invite all stakeholders of global security.

Spanning from February 16 to 18, the MSC 2024 purportedly is focusing on global issues like Iran, the Gaza war, and Ukraine. Adopting the motto of "Lose-Lose?", the conference is aimed to center around geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty, framing it as a consequence of world governments abandoning global cooperation.

However, beneath its veneer of addressing security concerns, the MSC, so far displayed a perplexing paradox, succumbing to a real loss when acknowledging pressing global issues, particularly about the Gaza war. Rather than contributing to stability, the conference seems to inadvertently exacerbate the situation by providing a stage for Israel to amplify its victim narrative and advocate for the continuation of the conflict.

 Israeli President Isaac Herzog, joined by freed captives Raz Ben Ami, Adi Shoham and Aviva Siegel, as well as families of captives — were among the participants of the conference in a dramatic move. This stands in contrast to the calls for a ceasefire, voiced even by leaders of Israel’s allied countries like U.S. President Joe Biden. The implications of this contradiction raise questions about the Munich Security Conference's commitment to fostering genuine security and stability in conflict-ridden regions. This happens while many protesters went to march towards the venue of the conference to plea for ceasefire in Gaza.

Iran, a significant player in West Asia, was conspicuously absent from the conference, a decision possibly influenced by Israel's lobbying and uncalculated moves by the conference founders. This exclusion left a substantial gap in the dialogue, considering Iran's involvement in crucial geopolitical matters. The Munich Security Conference's failure to include Iran casts doubts on its claims of inclusivity and willingness to engage with diverse viewpoints. 

This exclusion becomes more perplexing considering the surprising presence of infamous members of the Iranian diaspora as one-sided representatives who have shown, in multiple occasions, to be completely anti-Iran.

By not extending an invitation to Iran, the conference missed a crucial opportunity for constructive dialogue and understanding of Iran's stance on vital regional and global challenges. In an era where diplomatic engagement and collaboration are paramount, the decision to exclude a key regional actor raises questions about this conference's effectiveness in serving as a platform for meaningful discussions and solutions to complex security issues. As the conference unfolds, these dynamics will undoubtedly influence perceptions of its role and impact in shaping global security efforts.

Moreover, the conference's handling of the Ukraine situation not only raises concerns about its commitment to stability but also highlights the potential role it may play in perpetuating conflicts rather than resolving them. While the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, made a fresh appeal for more weapons during his speech at the conference, the doubts remain on whether the insistence on militarism in the region has any suitable outcome for the people directly involved in the war or not.

In light of these complexities, the Munich Security Conference should consider reassessing its selection criteria for participants, ensuring that key regional actors are included to provide a more holistic understanding of the geopolitical landscape. Furthermore, fostering an environment that encourages open and inclusive dialogue will be crucial in promoting genuine security and stability. As the conference unfolds, the global community will closely scrutinize its proceedings, hoping for a more concerted effort towards addressing security challenges with a comprehensive and inclusive approach.