The World Economic Forum (WEF) took place in Davos in January against the backdrop of impending global policy uncertainty on global warming, climate agreements, energy issues, geopolitical conflicts and massacres in Palestine. As in the previous years not much was obtained in terms of concrete decisions and Davos remained a platform for a lot of rhetoric and grandstanding.
This year’s WEF agenda included energy, geopolitics (mainly prospects for peace in the Middle East and Ukraine), the climate crisis and trade war issues. As expected, U.S. President Donald Trump did not participate in person. Instead, he delivered a speech remotely. The absence of Trump is a precursor of the growing multilateral divide in world politics as well as his isolationism and aggressiveness.
Trump’s speech laid out his vision for America’s growing role on the world stage, focusing on issues like energy independence, economic growth, and skepticism toward globalist initiatives. In between, the press reported that he had a fiery talk with the Danish prime minister on America’s intent to take over Greenland. Again as expected, Trump’s speech was full of criticism on international agreements and organizations that he claimed undermined U.S. interests. The former president also criticized other leaders for not taking a firmer stance on issues like the energy crisis and the Chinese “threat.” His speech drew sharp reactions from all political corners. He was accused of undermining multilateralism.
Transition to green energy was an important part of the talks as the global tendency to move away from fossil fuels accelerated. Of course, Trump being Trump is staging a complete reverse of this global position. While world leaders acknowledged that the transition is no longer a mere theoretical debate – rather it is an immediate, existential issue – the U.S. president wants to erase those “blowing things” (wind turbines).
On the other hand, Europe is facing a particularly difficult dilemma as it strives to reduce its dependence on Russian gas while staying true to its earlier climate commitments. While the European Union is still firmly committed to the Green Deal, the reality of energy shortages this winter exposed vulnerabilities in the transition. The talks indicated a growing divide between nations and regions on the issue. While the EU pushes ahead with its Green Deal, the U.S. and some other global powers have been slower to embrace such stringent climate goals. Moreover, emerging economies in Asia and Africa remain concerned about the cost of transition, which could disproportionately affect their growth prospects.
Leaders urged investment in infrastructure to support both the green economy and the workers whose livelihoods depend on the fossil fuel industry. Yet the challenge remains: how to do so without sparking political unrest or economic crises in regions that rely heavily on oil, gas and coal.
Another major topic of conversation in Davos was the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Israeli massacres, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank, the forum offered a platform for leaders to discuss potential pathways to peace. End result? Not much.
This year, the WEF saw increased representation from Middle Eastern countries, many of which are pushing for diplomatic breakthroughs between Israel and Palestine. Despite years of stalled negotiations and ongoing violence, there were calls from both regional leaders and Western diplomats for a return to peace talks and a two-state solution. However, skepticism abounds, as previous peace initiatives have failed to make significant headway.
Most notable was the speech from Jordan’s King Abdullah II, who stressed that the Palestinian cause remains central to the Arab world and must be addressed to secure long-term stability in the region. He also emphasized the importance of regional cooperation, pointing out that the recent normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states under the Abraham Accords could pave the way for a broader peace framework.
Yet, despite the high-level calls for peace, there was little in the way of actionable commitments. Many analysts have argued that unless there is a fundamental shift in Israeli policy – or a change in the Palestinian leadership – true peace remains elusive. The long-standing deadlock, exacerbated by political instability and violence, leaves many questioning whether discussions at Davos or similar fora can truly drive meaningful change on the ground.
Despite the grand speeches and lofty ideals put forth by political leaders and business moguls alike, the World Economic Forum is not just about solving the world’s most pressing problems. It’s also a highly profitable enterprise for its founder, Klaus Schwab, who in 1971 turned a small Swiss village into the epicenter of global power dynamics.
Schwab’s vision for Davos as a platform for public-private collaboration has, over time, become a highly lucrative business, with the WEF charging steep fees for participation. Attendees, who often include billionaires, corporate CEOs and heads of state, are required to pay significant sums to gain entry, making it clear that the event operates not just as a forum for change but as a money-making machine for Schwab and his organization.
Critics often point out the glaring contradiction between the forum’s rhetoric of global equity and the lavish lifestyle that surrounds the event. The luxury hotels, expensive dinners and elite networking opportunities paint a picture of a gathering that is less about creating solutions and more about reinforcing the status quo. In fact, the joke goes that failing to appear at Davos would risk a business mogul’s social status and perhaps even self-esteem. The sheer pressure to attend – the notion that a CEO could lose out on vital connections and influence by staying away –speaks to a deeply ingrained culture of prestige and exclusivity.
As with previous editions of the WEF, the jury is out on whether any concrete outcomes will materialize from this year’s discussions. In many ways, the forum served as a space for world leaders to voice their hopes and frustrations, but little in the way of actionable solutions seemed to come to the fore.
The forum did, however, at least emphasize the importance of ongoing dialogue and cooperation, particularly in an era of rising geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty. But for many, the lack of tangible agreements or commitments once again cast a shadow over the event. The notion remains: “Davos is great for networking, but not so great for actually solving the world’s most pressing problems.”
