At a moment when the international order appears to be cracking under the strain of wars, climate shocks, and rising geopolitical distrust, the 62nd Munich Security Conference (MSC) closed on 15 February 2026 with a stark diagnosis of the world’s condition: “Under Destruction.” Yet amid the pessimism, Africa’s growing voice stood out as a counter‑narrative of resilience and agency.
For the first time, African priorities moved from the margins to the centre of deliberations, as leaders linked the continent’s long‑term vision, Agenda 2063, to debates on conflict, multilateralism, and climate‑driven instability.
Held from 13–15 February at Munich’s historic Hotel Bayerischer Hof, the conference unfolded against a backdrop of overlapping crises: Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, escalating tensions in the Middle East, and intensifying climate impacts that are reshaping security thinking worldwide.
In his closing remarks, conference chair Wolfgang Ischinger captured the mood, warning that the world had entered an era of “wrecking‑ball politics” and insisting that rhetoric must give way to measurable action.
Against this turbulent backdrop, African delegations used Munich’s high‑profile platform to press a clear message: global stability is impossible if Africa’s security concerns are neglected or misrepresented.
The MSC coincided with the African Union (AU) Summit in Addis Ababa, raising concerns that African participation might be thin. Instead, ministers, heads of state, and senior officials from across the continent arrived in force, juggling schedules to ensure that their perspectives shaped debates in both venues.
Their interventions consistently pushed back against paternalistic aid narratives and short‑term crisis management, arguing for partnerships grounded in sovereignty, accountability, and shared interests.
African speakers tied security directly to Agenda 2063, which envisions “an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa” by mid‑century. They stressed that terrorism, coups, and resource‑driven conflicts cannot be tackled in isolation from job creation, infrastructure, and climate resilience.
Nowhere was this shift more evident than in Sudan’s engagement. Since April 2023, war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has displaced millions and left tens of millions in need of assistance, creating one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
Sudan’s delegation arrived in Munich determined to move the conversation beyond images of chaos and collapse.
Led by Prime Minister Professor Kamil Idris and senior security officials, the delegation presented a detailed peace initiative previously submitted to the United Nations, outlining steps for an immediate ceasefire, humanitarian corridors, demobilisation, and a phased political transition.
They took centre stage in a dedicated panel, “Three Years of Devastation: Ending the War in Sudan,” where Sudanese and international experts called for enforceable cessation of hostilities, unfettered aid access, and stronger measures against arms trafficking that continues to fuel the conflict.
Sudanese officials used the conference to counter what they described as “distorted narratives” about the war, insisting that solutions must be Sudanese‑led and anchored in local realities rather than imposed externally.
This stance reflected a wider continental trend: African governments are increasingly using global forums like the MSC to correct misperceptions about their conflicts and advocate for tailored responses that reinforce, rather than bypass, national institutions.
West Africa’s crisis of democratic backsliding and insecurity also featured prominently. As current chair of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Sierra Leone’s President Julius Maada Bio framed recent coups in the Sahel and coastal states as a dual threat to regional stability and democratic norms.
He argued that sanctions, mediation, and peacekeeping must be paired with credible efforts to address corruption, inequality, and youth unemployment if they are to restore public trust and legitimacy. In parallel, developments in North Africa drew the attention of defence planners.
Libyan figure Saddam Hafta, son of eastern commander Khalifa Haftar, held closed‑door meetings with senior officials from the United States Africa Command(AFRICOM), focusing on counter‑terrorism, intelligence cooperation, and the professionalisation of Libyan security forces, talks that underscored the enduring centrality of hard‑security partnerships in a region where extremist networks and arms flows still cross porous borders.
These discussions highlighted a tension running through the conference: how to balance military responses with longer‑term investments in governance, economic opportunity, and regional integration, particularly in contexts where public confidence in both national authorities and international actors has eroded.
For many African participants, this meant arguing that security assistance must support state‑building and civic inclusion, rather than entrenching narrow elites or short‑term counter‑terrorism gains.
A prominent theme in Munich was the need to rethink peace operations that have struggled to adapt to more complex, multipolar conflicts. A flagship panel, “Shifting Tides: Towards the Next Generation of African‑Led Peace Operations,” brought together AU officials, military planners, and researchers to examine the limitations of traditional UN‑style missions and explore regionally led alternatives.
Participants pointed to evolving African Union–mandated operations in the Horn of Africa as examples of how African‑commanded forces, backed by predictable international financing, can blend robust security operations with political engagement. They argued that regional forces possess critical advantages in local geopolitical awareness, cultural understanding, and political legitimacy.
Panelists also warned, however, that such missions will fail without sustainable funding, rigorous oversight, and investments in training and civilian protection. The debate mirrored conversations already underway in Addis Ababa about how to secure more reliable UN and EU support for AU‑mandated missions, and how to ensure that peace operations are designed around local conditions rather than imported templates.
The emerging consensus was that if the next generation of missions is to succeed, it must focus not only on “boots on the ground” but on building lasting institutions capable of managing conflict peacefully.
MSC 2026 likewise marked a turning point in how climate is discussed in hard‑security circles. Building on a growing body of analysis that links environmental shocks to conflict risks, several sessions treated climate change as a frontline security issue, not a secondary “soft” concern. African delegates played a leading role in these debates, drawing on experiences from drought‑stricken regions of the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, and Sudan.
They described how prolonged droughts, erratic rains, and desertification have driven pastoralist‑farmer clashes, undermined livelihoods, and contributed to displacement and recruitment by armed groups.
At the same time, they stressed Africa’s potential as a green‑energy powerhouse and supplier of minerals critical to the global energy transition, arguing that any fair security architecture must address climate finance, technology transfer, and just resource governance.
Speakers tied these themes back to Agenda 2063, insisting that sustainable development, climate resilience, and peace are inseparable.
For many in the room, this integration of environmental and security agendas signalled a maturing understanding: in an era of planetary stress, stability depends as much on protecting ecosystems and livelihoods as on deterring adversaries.
As the conference wrapped up, Ischinger used his closing address to press for a move “from dialogue to deliverables,” warning that the credibility of forums like Munich depends on their ability to drive real‑world change.
While MSC 2026 did not produce headline‑grabbing financial pledges, it crystallised several emerging priorities: more predictable financing for AU‑led peace operations, security frameworks that place youth employment and state‑building at their core, and partnerships with Africa that respect sovereignty and move beyond the paternalistic practices of the past.
For countries such as Sudan, and for regional bodies like ECOWAS and the African Union, Munich 2026 was more than another stop on the diplomatic circuit.
It was an arena to assert agency at a moment when the global system feels “under destruction,” and to argue that African resilience, political, social, and ecological, is not a side story but a cornerstone of any viable international order. The real test now lies ahead: whether governments and institutions will act on those insights and allow African leadership to shape the solutions to Africa’s, and the world’s, most pressing security threats.
