Davos: from jaw-jaw to war-war
The policy forum for billionaires has had a more sombre tone this year. Emily Hohler reports
The war in Ukraine has “fundamentally changed” the underlying rationale of the World Economic Forum, says Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. For decades, the informal motto of Davos has been “make money, not war”, and political leaders from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin have come to “pitch to the assembled billionaires”. Now, however, the politicians and generals are “back in charge” and the “business people are disorientated”.
The tone at this year’s Davos – from which all Russian nationals were banned – was set by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky (pictured), whose virtual address at the start of talks on Monday prompted a standing ovation, says Ishaan Tharoor in The Washington Post. The main theme for this year’s summit is ‘History at a Turning Point”, he told a packed auditorium, and that is more than mere rhetoric. This year “really is the year when it is decided whether brute force will rule the world”.
“Nothing has challenged the Davos worldview more directly than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,” says David Gelles in The New York Times. Yet all that Davos stands for – “globalisation, liberalism, free-market capitalism, representative democracy” – has been under attack for some years. The idealistic vision of WEF founder Klaus Schwab was of an “interconnected world in which the free flow of goods, services, people and ideas would lead to shared prosperity and peace”. But Covid sparked a “wave of isolationist policy moves, revealed the fragility of supply chains” and left China, with its zero-Covid policy, largely isolated. Now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is stoking fears of a global conflict. But even before that, autocratic rulers were “on the rise” and “internal divisions” were “straining” superpowers like the US. With no end to the war in sight and “global alliances shifting” (countries including China, India and Brazil have refused to rally behind Ukraine), there are “looming questions” about whether it marks the beginning of a “much broader realignment of world powers”. The risk is that, at the “very moment we need global solutions to our biggest common challenges”, from climate change to a food crisis that could lead to more social unrest and mass migration, the world is fragmenting and there are fewer truly global forums in which to solve these issues.
An alliance under strain
And though the US and its allies “have shown remarkable solidarity” so far, there are signs of tension, says Mark Landler in The New York Times. Finland and Sweden’s plan to join Nato is opposed by Turkey. Hungary is blocking the EU plan to embargo Russian oil. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, China and Russia held their first join military manoeuvres since the start of the conflict. Other countries are asking themselves whether they might one day be targeted by US sanctions, encouraging further political shifts. For now, the biggest immediate fears are hunger and political unrest. Ukraine and Russia ordinarily account for roughly 25% of internationally traded grain. Russia has seized some Black Sea ports and blockaded the rest, while Russian forces have taken control of some of Ukraine’s most productive agricultural land, destroyed infrastructure vital for moving grain and “littered farm fields with explosives”. Western economies could come under “politically intolerable strain” if food and energy prices rise again this autumn, adds Rachman. The economic consequences for the developing world “look even more disastrous”. David Beasley, executive director of the World Food Programme, said consequences were already manifesting in political unrest in countries from Sri Lanka to Peru and warned of famines “around the world”.