Global Security

2021 was clearly not a year for geopolitical optimism. Almost every month, a new crisis dominated the news, contributing to a sense that this mounting tide of crises threatens to overwhelm us.
Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that in Europe and beyond, concern about a growing loss of control is prevalent. In fact, findings from the Munich Security Index 2022 not only reflect the high level of risk perceived by respondents in the G7 and BRICS countries; they also suggest the emergence of “collective helplessness” in the face of a plethora of crises that reinforce each other. Just like people can suffer from “learned helplessness” – a psychological term describing the feeling that nothing one does can effect positive change – societies, too, may come to believe that they are unable to get a grip on the challenges they are facing. Whether it is the seemingly endless pandemic, the increasingly tangible threat of climate change, the vexing vulnerabilities of an interconnected world, or increasing geopolitical tensions, all these challenges contribute to a feeling of a loss of control. Liberal democracies appear to feel particularly overwhelmed.
This perception is highly dangerous because it can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Societies that have concluded that they cannot solve humankind’s most challenging problems might no longer even try to turn the tide. Will our stressed and overburdened societies end up accepting what they see as their fate, although they have the tools and resources to change it?

The Global Risks Report 2016 features perspectives from nearly 750 experts on the perceived impact and likelihood of 29 prevalent global risks over a 10-year timeframe. The risks are divided into five categories: economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological.

The report also examines the interconnections among the risks, and through that analysis explores three areas where global risks have the greatest potential to impact society. These are the concept of the “(dis)empowered citizen”, the impact of climate change on food security, and the potential of pandemics to threaten social cohesion.

The report also takes an in-depth look at the how the global security landscape could evolve in the future; sharing the outcomes of a year-long study to examine current trends and possible driving forces for the future of international security.

Against the background of the ongoing consultation exercise on developing an EU global strategy, this book presents and contextualises the landmark documents that have successively codified the Union’s external action objectives.
The volume explores the evolution of the European Security Strategy (or Strategies, considering the two successive versions of June and December 2003). It then dwells upon the 2008 report on the implementation of the strategy and, finally, briefly illustrates the basis on which the current HR/VP released her report on the ‘The European Union in a changing global environment’ in June 2015 and is now preparing for the new strategy, due out next year.

Along with the relevant EU documents, the book also presents the two texts that are most likely to represent a key point of reference for the forthcoming ‘global’ strategy, namely NATO’s current Strategic Concept, dating back to 2010, and the latest US National Security Strategy, released earlier this year by the Obama administration.

During the last decades, global interest for the Arctic, an area of 25 million square km of which 14 million for the Arctic ocean, increased due to the climate change which led to the melting of the ice cap and the thawing of the permafrost. The attention of the global players is attracted not only by energy and natural resources but also by new maritime routes. This creates new environmental challenges and leads to potentially dramatic changes to international trade, which will contribute to the globalization of this area. This evolution is one of the reasons for the growing interest of the large global players for the governance of this area, in the first place of which the People’s Republic of China, India or Singapore.
These changes went not unnoticed by the EU, which, as early as 2002 under the Danish presidency of the Council, showed its intent to be a global actor by introducing the concept of “Arctic window” into its Nordic dimension. As reaffirmed in a resolution of the European parliament in March 2014, this concern was endorsed last May by the foreign affairs Council, which considered that Europe should reinforce its contribution to the Arctic cooperation. It pleads “for an active commitment of the EU with its Arctic partners in view of meeting the challenges of sustainable growth, in a prudent and reasonable way”.

The document is a contribution to a growing body of knowledge and is aimed at the defence community. It seeks to build on previous editions of Global Strategic Trends with a more accessible format. It has a greater focus on defence and security issues and expands on other subjects, including resources, and the resurgence of ideology. From a comprehensive review of trends, it draws out 3 key themes: how we will adapt to the reality of a shifting climate and breakneck technological innovation (see the Human Environment); the dominance of the West in international affairs will fade and global power will become more evenly distributed between the West and the rising powers in Asia (see the Dynamics of Global Power); and finally, as society and the distribution of global power changes, the challenges to defence and security will increase (see Evolving Defence and Security Challenges). It draws lessons from contemporary events to conclude that globalisation is a more volatile process than previously envisaged and that this volatility may leave globalised systems more vulnerable to strategic shock and systemic failure. It also draws out high level global defence and security implications.

At the onset of the Arab Spring, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that the foundations of the Middle East risked “sinking into the sand” of unrest and extremism. Three years later, the region is still in a period of prolonged tumult and uncertainty. A large youth bulge, poor economic prospects, and uneven development across the region presents significant challenges to a more stable Middle East, but, more positively, the next five to ten years could see a reintroduction of Iran to the international community and a new regional dynamic if the ongoing P5+1 talks reach a lasting nuclear agreement. What is certain is that the future of the Middle East will have profound effects globally and will continue to substantially influence the global political, economic, and security environment.

In his latest report, “Middle East 2020: Shaped By or Shaper of Global Trends,” Mathew Burrows, director of the Strategic Foresight Initiative in the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, addresses the possible medium- and long-term consequences of the ongoing developments in the region and the various factors driving the monumental changes. The report explores three alternative futures: one optimistic, in which relations among powerbrokers in the region turn a corner for the better, and two more pessimistic scenarios-fragmentation and decreasing state authority or the emergence of a new authoritarianism.