Tag: Davos

  • A word from Davos

    A word from Davos

    But for a quirk of fate, you would have been forgiven for having never heard of the existence of a small town in the Swiss Alps called Davos. After all, it is no more than a ski resort with less than ten thousand permanent inhabitants offering no interest for anyone in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world for that matter. But Davos, for all its previous obscurity, is now famous the world over. This is because since January 1971, at the invitation of Dr. Schwarb, a German academic, stakeholders in various aspects of the ordering of the global economy have descended on the otherwise sleepy village of Davos. For a few January days, Davos takes its place in the wintry sun as the most influential CEOs in the world hold discussions with each other, with heads of state, academics and other groups of people who have been recognised as contributors to the global economic order.

    According to Perplexity AI, the guest list at the last Davos meeting which occupied a good part of last week included about 3,000 participants from roughly 130 countries. This included around 400 senior political leaders and more than 60–65 heads of state or government. Roughly 800–850 CEOs, founders and chairpersons of major global companies. Dr. Okonjo-Iweala in her capacity as the Director General of the World Trade Organisation was also present but not representing Nigeria at that venue. This distinguished guest list is a far cry from the few CEOs of European companies who were invited to the first Davos forum in 1971. Now, private jets of every magnificent description annually turn all the airports around Davos into a massive jet parking lot for the world’s richest CEOs, heads of state and others with enough clout to operate expensive private jets, for a few days. They come on this yearly pilgrimage to meet and discuss what exactly?

    One would have thought that their major preoccupation would have been to jointly improve the flow of world trade with a view to decreasing poverty in those parts of the world where degrading poverty is making a mockery of human existence. These are places where people have no choice but to battle on, on less than $2 a day. Their attention should also be turned on people in the rich countries who are marginalised to the level of those wretches facing anonymity and extinction in the poorest parts of the world. What is the use of all those words poured out in Davos every year if a significant minority of the world is left staring into the abyss of extreme economic disadvantage whilst a miniscule minority swims in an ocean of unimaginable wealth?

    Read Also: Canada PM denies retracting Davos comments in talks with Trump

    I became interested in the World Economic Forum (WEF) about ten years ago when I came across an article on Davos by Oxfam, the British organisation which has dedicated itself to global charity and is currently active in more than seventy countries all around the world. Founded in 1942 at the height of WWII, Oxfam has dedicated itself to fighting poverty and injustice with the conviction that both have their root in inequality. The focus on the reduction of inequality will be followed by the reduction of both poverty and injustice and the world would become a better place for most of her inhabitants. Every year, in the leadup to the WEF meeting in Davos, Oxfam publishes the state of global inequality using one vital statistic, the number of the richest people in the world whose wealth is balanced by the number of the poorest people in the world. About a decade ago, Oxfam reported that eighty-seven of the world’s richest people held as much wealth as half of the number of the poorest people in the world. That number is put into some perspective if we imagine that those eighty-seven persons will fit comfortably into a London double decker bus without anyone having to stand. It is most instructive that that number has shrunk perceptively over the last ten years even as the number of the poorest half of the world has increased. The number released by Oxfam this year is twelve, only twelve,  just enough to fit into a minibus or perhaps more instructively, into a Lagos danfo with space left over for the driver and conductor. The global population today is 8.3 billion people, up from 8.2 billion in 2025. This means that the twelve richest people in the world today, have resources in excess of the poorest 4.15 billion poorest people in the world. This figure simply boggles the mind! Forbes has identified around 3000 billionaires in the world today, certainly an impressive figure which dwarfs by a considered distance, the figure of 140 billionaires reported in 1987 when to all intents and purposes, the world was a saner place. Latest figures show that in the United States alone, there are 924 billionaires with a total worth of $6.9 trillion or 31.7% of global total. But there are other figures coming out of the US which must arrest our interest. 800 of the richest Americans are in control of no less than 3.8% of the nation’s wealth with the poorest 50% of the population having to make do with only 2.5%. Bearing in mind that the USA is by far the largest economy in the world, this figure verges on the scary. And with recent policies put in place by the Trump government, this disparity is set to grow as soon as tax cuts for the rich kick in as they are bound to do soon enough. The USA runs by far the largest economy in the world but a very significant  number of her citizens are very poor, even when judged by third world standards. The Davos initiative has been alive since 1971 but in spite of it or is it because of it, global wealth inequalities have increased relentlessly year upon year. And it is clear that this trend will be accelerated in the coming years as the CEOs continue to hoover up more wealth at the expense of the rest of us.

    The elephant in the room at Davos this year was a small man in a large suit and wearing a red tie. As the President of the United States, he was expected to make what should have been the keynote speech at the Forum. He made a speech alright but it was so full of air and blather that its emptiness will still embarrass his great grandchildren far into the next century. That speech has been said to mark the end of an old global order, that order that was supposed to bring order to the chaos of the global market place.

    If the old order is said to be gone, then, it stands to reason that its place must be taken by a new one and indeed, it is safe to assume that there is a new world order as proclaimed by Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada. He identified the main problem of the old order as being blatantly predatory. Those people or countries, the super powers that had somehow acquired a place at the table of global dominance feasted on those, the wretched of the earth, who were rigorously excluded from the table. They were not even given the dubious privilege of feeding on scraps as they were on the menu. Given that Canada is one of the wealthiest nations on earth, one would have thought that her place on that table was secure but the implication of Carney’s speech was that Canada did not have a place on that famous table and consequently was a victim of the old order. What he proposes is a new order to be governed by a concert of what he called middle powers which would include  some countries in the European Union including France and Germany. Those of us on the outside looking in must be looking on with considerable bemusement because as far as we can see, some of those so-called middle powers had guaranteed places around the old table. Canada for one has been feeding on African flesh for centuries. Her first discernable industry was cod fishing off her North Atlantic coast. The best of their catch was sold in Europe for a very good price. The worst was salted and sold to the owners of sugar cane plantations in the West Indies. This formed the staple food of the slaves working on those plantations. Those slaves were of course excluded from the table and it is easy to see that they were the main course on the menu. Canada, France, Germany and other so-called middle powers of Carney’s imagination have been feasting on the rest of us for hundreds of years. And so, what is new about this much vaunted new order? Come next year, the number of those sitting in our pilot vehicle will fit comfortably in any self respecting SUV.

    We return to the highway next week.

  • Europe finds its balls in Davos

    Europe finds its balls in Davos

    • By Timothy Ash

    People are asking me for big takeaways of Davos this week, beyond Ukraine, so here goes.

    Actually, after years of Davos appearing to have exhausted its use and having been the “it” place to be for global executives and power players, it had become a bit naff, smeared with an aura of being an elitist party for intellectually bankrupt globalistas.

    Trump’s Commerce secretary, Lutnick, seemed to signal that his own appearance was to read an obituary for Davos and those same global elites, but the carpet was kind of taken from under him by Trump, who seemed to want to use the same stage of global elites to announce his Peace Board. Lutnick cannot quite see the wood from the trees, and that he has long been one of the global elites, that he seems now to be whinging about. And if anything, Trump is making the world even more elitist with his bunch of cronies, sycophants, and tech bros.

    Net net, Trump breathed new life into Davos, only it became even more elitist – who, amongst even the Davos elite, could get the invite for the Trump show?

    Look and an admission here, I have been twice to Davos, this year and last, invited to speak on Ukraine, immobilized CBR assets, and Ukraine recovery. Topics close to my heart, and I thought worthy of selling my soul and making the trek to Davos. But I did not get admission to any of the other events. It’s just too expensive to hang around, hotels and restaurants are overpriced, so I commuted from Zurich, which is still pretty expensive.

    Greenland, Trump, Carney, and Zelensky were however center stage in the side discussions I had.

    On Greenland, the MAGA guys are trying to sell the eventual deal done – if it was a deal – as some huge win for Trump. The line is that Trump again read the riot act to Europe, that they are not doing enough on the NATO front, and through his tantrum over Greenland, they are now focused on Arctic security.

    Actually, I don’t see it that way at all. From what I can make out, no concessions we made to Trump, and whatever deal was done is essentially just a restatement of the existing 1951 Treaty with Denmark.

    My take is that Trump’s ego made him want the win from stealing Greenland and he thought, that with the threat from the recent successful US military operation in Venezuela, the weak Europeans would roll over. This was not about Arctic security, albeit in seizing Greenland for the US, I think Trump likely thought there was big money to be made then on various minerals deals. But this was ego – Trump planting the US flag, perhaps renaming Greenland eventually to Trumpland. It was all about Trump, as it always is. Keeping Donald on the front pages, satiating his enormous ego, above all else.

    But Trump misread Europe. He could not quite get into his head that Europe, facing an existential threat from Russia, and with a torrid history from great powers changing borders by force, that sovereignty and territorial integrity matters for Europe. This idea of great powers taking what they can is existential for Europe.

    Mark Carney summed it up in his seminal speech this week as well, as it’s all as important for Canada as for Europe. Canada does fear that after Greenland, Canada would be the next target for its southern (and northern) neighbor. Europe, I think regretted rolling over to Trump in tariffs last July with the Turnberry agreement. Europe surrendered back then, accepting a wholly unfair trade deal as the price for buying off Trump, and for what they assumed would assure the US security backstop for Europe. How wrong they were then with Trump’s push then to try to grab Greenland.

    Read Also: Davos Forum: Local capital key to energy transition – Okunbo

    So the thought processes in Europe moved to what’s the point rolling over to Trump, when he screws you anyway. And if we cannot rely on the US security backstop, then why be nice to Trump and the US on tariffs et al? So the Turnberry deal was stalled, and threats then of the €93 billion tariff hit, plus the much worse ACI. I think Rutte et al also confronted Trump with the stark reality that if he took Greenland by force or coercion, NATO would be dead, and would Trump want to be the US president to take down the most successful defensive alliance in history?

    I think markets also did their thing – the Danish pension fund threatening to sell, and a German bank amplifying the risks of dollar selling ensured TACO. Trump blinked, backed down, and moved on to his next big shiny thing, the Peace Board, to shift the narrative from a humiliating defeat for Trump at the hands of the weak and feckless Europeans, even then signaled in his speech by Zelensky.

    Iran also looks set to be the next big Trump distraction, as he moves US forces from the Caribbean to the Gulf – expect another decapitation exercise which might be a little more challenging than Maduro when it comes to Khamenei. No one is focusing on the huge Trump strategic blunder in moving those forces away from the Gulf in the first place, which meant that when opposition demonstrations kicked off in Iran, US forces lacked the critical mass to respond, and thousands of demonstrators died in vain answering Trump’s call to the street and that he would protect them.

    But going back to Greenland and Davos, is NATO stronger because of all this?

    Absolutely not.

    As if Trump’s threats to steal Greenland were not enough, Trump could not help himself, his ego and mouth know no bounds. He went on then to denigrate NATO allies for never having come to the US defense, and doubting whether they would in the future.

    This was a total insult for the thousands of Europeans, and Canadians, who died answering the US call, after the triggering of NATO’s Article 5 defense after 9/11, and who died or were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Forty-odd Danes dies, over four hundred Brits, and the list goes on. What an absolute insult from bone spur Donald, pissing on their graves. If anything has damaged the core integrity of NATO, it is this.

    Imagine what the answer of European service families will be on the next 911 like event, and another US call for support? What does Trump think their answer would be? Not only did Trump not acknowledge their sacrifice, but he did not even seem to know that the only time NATO’s Article 5 response was triggered was in defense of the US. And I would argue that Russia’s attack on Ukraine, and its malign actions against Europe are a similar event, and what has the US under Trump done? He has sided with Russia, if anything, cut arms supplies and financing to Ukraine, which is the front line for Europe’s defense. And to add insult to injury, he has invited Putin to his own peace board, and now seems willing to let Putin draw down on CBR immobilized assets, which were supposed to be earmarked for Ukraine, for Putin’s membership in the Peace Board country club of autocratic leaders.

    So my take on all the above is that NATO is now fundamentally weakened by events over the past couple of weeks. And European leaders might not say it out loud, but they are looking for alternatives to the US backstop – actually, they continue to be nice, and call Trump “daddy” as they are buying time, to keep the supply of US weapons going until a time when they can break free from the US. And in the interim, they will work overtime to build an autonomous defense capability.

    Actually, on this autonomous European defense capability, Europe probably has enough capability now to defend against the one big existential threat – Russia. Imagine the combined military capabilities of the UK, France, Germany, Finland, Türkiye, Poland, the Balt, plus the Ukrainians. That is surely enough to hold off the

    Russians, without the US. And that is the future. But Europe does need to fast track arms production and the deployment of its military industrial complex to be independent of the US. It also needs to do much more to bind both Türkiye and Ukraine into the European security architecture, and that will mean concessions on EU accession – interests outweigh values at this stage, when Europe is in an existential battle for its survival.

    Notable this week the number of mainstream UK, and European military, political, and opinion leaders – even the right-wing Andrew Neil, ex-editor of the Times, questioning the US as an ally, even suggesting it as an enemy of Europe. Quite extraordinary, but a reflection of the hugely damaging actions of the Trump presidency, which has ruptured the international order and the Western alliance.

    So I think from Davos I read that Europe finally got the message – the US is no longer a reliable partner, it’s even an “enemy” if Neil is to be believed, and it needs to fast track the development of its autonomous defense capability, diversify strategic defense relationships, with Ukraine, Türkiye, the Gulf, and perhaps even with China. That was the message this week from Carney. Imagine that the US is so frustrated with what it sees as Europe’s free-riding on it for defense, that it’s bull in a China approach actually encourages a depending in ties between Europe and its own hegemonic rival, China. So, the one big winner from the week in Davos was Beijing.

    Great result, Donald Trump, see you next year!

    •             This article was originally published in www.kyivpost.com