Letters: Is the Munich Security Conference to Blame for the Void in International Relations?

Witnessing the Collapse of the Global Elite

This year’s security conference in Munich, Eliot Cohen argued, was a stark reminder that this class has nothing of substance to offer a world in turmoil.

Eliot Cohen is one of my heroes. As a professor, he taught me the value of succinctness; as a friend, he taught me a lot more. I admire him for his historical knowledge and moral compass—and for his never-ending readiness to teach, guide, and mentor. So I hope he will forgive me if I join those who take issue with his recent analysis of the Munich Security Conference—an event that I run and that remains much closer to its roots than Eliot seems ready to admit. While it may seem petty to get into a quarrel about something as trivial as a policy conference, I believe six of Eliot’s arguments in particular warrant a written response to his piece in The Atlantic last month.

First, Eliot is right that our conference did little to fill the current void in international relations. But he is wrong in suggesting, even if only indirectly, that it ever could have or was ever designed to. has been meant “not as a desk and auditorium conference, but a discussion between equal and active participants on how to tackle common security challenges.” Nothing more, nothing less.