| The
wonderful thing about DAVOS is not so much what is planned
but what happens unexpectedly. This being my fourth
pilgrimage to the World Economic Forum I thought to
myself, "how is it going to top what the last three
years have been?" Davos reminds me of my days at
INSEAD where you had a snapshot of the world's citizens
in your class. In 5 days, you meet so many different
people with different backgrounds and agendas that it's
the sheer serendipity of the meetings within the meeting
which gives it its delight.
The Argentinean diplomat
who offered me a ride to the Zurich airport on the
last day informed me that the World Economic Forum
used to be called the European Management Forum in
the 1970's, and was much more focused on business
issues than geopolitics. Its current mission: "committed
to improving the state of the world" is a unifying
agenda. A couple of years ago the conference was quite
anti-American, but this year it was ok to be from
the US again, not only because Clinton is so appreciated
internationally and he was very present at DAVOS this
year.
Clinton and Blair
Tony Blair spoke early
in the meeting about Interdependence being the basis
of international politics, and how he hoped that the
meeting would drive a "Unity of Purpose".
"Can we find an Agenda that unifies us?"
His view is that it is our enlightened self-interest
which should lead the way; "the hard head leads
to a warm heart."
The highlight of Davos
for me was to hear Clinton speak although he looked
visibly frailer and much thinner. I was decidedly
not a fan of his during his Presidency, however, he
has grown on me, and I feel he's a phenomenal ambassador
for the US post-presidency. Both he and Tony Blair
were gracious in defending and supporting George Bush
both in their own way.
Overall the theme for
DAVOS is the interconnectedness of the world; we cannot
escape each other, so how will we live together?
Clinton put forth the
thought that every country's view of themselves is
the accumulation of their dreams and nightmares -
just like that of a person. He has an amazing grasp
of history quoting American presidents and being open
about the role that the US played in creating the
difficulties in Iraq and Iran over the past 4 decades
which won him big praise from the audience. One does
feel that with the rapprochement happening in the
Middle East now between the Palestinians and the Israelis
that Clinton feels that his role in making that peace
is perhaps going to be lost in history - that someone
else may get the credit. He stresses just a bit too
much how close he was to securing that peace in his
presidency, and how "Arafat knew the way"
to meetings with him in the US. I personally don't
feel that history will be kind to Arafat.
The contrast among Blair,
Clinton and Bush which underscored all other discussions
kept me thinking about how tied military and economic
might are.
The risk to Europe is
to be left out - not only because it doesn't have
a hope to achieve the Lisbon objectives but because
it doesn't have a defence policy to speak of and is
unwilling to pay for its own defence. When one is
not intimately in charge of or well aware of how's
one's security is being assured, then one lives ultimately
in a false reality.
Europe and its Growth
Story: Out of Business?
I have long been intrigued
by Angela Merkel who is leading the party of the Right
in Germany. She was a panellist on the European Competitiveness
panel - "What's the problem?" - along with
Patricia Hewitt, the UK Secretary and Minister, and
Henry McKinnell, the CEO of Pfizer and Klaus Zumwinkel,
the Chairman of the Board of Management of Deutsche
Post World Net. The Lisbon Accords of 2000 which promised
to render Europe the most competitive region in the
world within a decade were derided as being fantasy.
Then McKinnell put it well by saying, "when a
strategy is not working, more of the same is not the
answer."
Digby Jones, the head
of the CBI in Great Britain, was quite eloquent in
putting the panellists on the spot by responding that
the "problem" was:
European [political] leaders don't have the backbone
to take on the causes of the slow growth
Trade Unions should be training their members for
tomorrow's jobs not trying to protect workers' jobs
of today
We suffer from the "broken leg" syndrome
in Europe; if one country has a "broken leg",
the thinking is to break everybody else's leg to be
the same rather than to be best in class
Globalisation is happening, and the political leadership
doesn't want to accept it.
As Digby put it, "India will have your lunch
and China your dinner". Another friend of mine
from Holland put it aptly that he felt that the trade
unions should be held liable for the bad advice that
they are giving their members.
A couple of points of
view were aired which are worth repeating:
Dogs bark, regulators regulate. The countries with
the highest level of regulation have the lowest levels
of innovation.
Europe talks too much in terms of Directives; Innovation
occurs at night while the Government sleeps.
"High Risk and Low Reward" doesn't work.
It's still not culturally acceptable to want to get
rich.
The transactions cost of doing business in Europe
are still very high, and a former Dean of INSEAD noted
that 12 years ago people mentioned that the cultural
attitudes towards wealth creation were unhelpful in
Europe, and 12 years on, there's not that much progress.
Henry McKinnell gave very detailed evidence of how
socialised [or government run] healthcare was destroying
medicine in Europe. The effect on R&D has been
devastating. Europe has a much weakened healthcare
ecosystem because the markets are not driving the
agenda; decreased innovation is the case.
In Europe when an entrepreneur makes money, he or
she might get investigated by the authorities and
it's assumed that they've done something illegal or
wrong.
The Rise of India
At the same time that
Europe has been floundering, India has been flourishing.
What few people stop
to consider is how vast the implications of the fall
of the Soviet Union are. It meant much more than just
Eastern Europe having an opportunity to join the West.
The entire non-aligned world has embraced the West.
My Ethiopian taxi driver in London dreamt of going
to America but he was forced to learn Russian at school
as a child. My Indian business partner grew up in
India where he waited years for telephones to be installed
etc, but dreamt of going to America. That the West
won the Cold War and Market-based Capitalism has been
established as the winning philosophy has led to hundreds
of millions around the world knowing freedom today
and learning how to be fully accountable in their
lives.
Two of India's leading
entrepreneurs were very present, the founders of Infosys,
Nandan Nilekani and NR Murthy. Murthy had some wonderful
one-liners that he peppered his speech with including:
Trust in God; Everybody
else brings data to the table
The softest pillow
is a clean conscience
Currency Matters
I attended a series of
sessions on the Weak Currency - "Whose Fault
was it?" and on European Competitiveness - again
"Whose Fault was it?" Some of the ideas
that were put forth included:
The weak US dollar is not so much the fault of the
US, but the fault of Western European Governments
who have failed to generate enough domestic demand
for their goods and services and so are too focused
on exports.
Ten mega currency blocs are emerging as the larger
currencies aren't affected as much by the sways in
the exchange rates; it's the small fry who are hurt.
Iraq and the War
Not insignificantly,
DAVOS ended on the day that Iraqis were voting for
their own representatives at the polls. How many of
us understood the direct correlation with the joy
at watching these people claim their freedom through
the vote, and understanding that it took force and
the toppling of Saddam Hussein to achieve this great
goal? Yes, people died in the war, but thousands of
people died under Hussein. Is Iraqi life worth less
than an American soldier's life? I don't think so.
You cannot possibly get out of a situation as bad
as it was in Iraq without blood being spilt.
Tony Perkins' Always
On Party
The best party at DAVOS
- the most coveted invitation is always the Always
On Party [Tony Perkins new gig - http://www.alwayson-network.com/].
This year I attended with George Colony, the founder
of Forrester Research, and the usual "A- list"
crowd was there: Kevin Comolli of Accel; Geoff Moore,
author of "Crossing the Chasm"; Sergey Brin,
founder of Google; Joe Schoendorff; Jennifer Schenker,
the International Editor of the Red Herring; Shimon
Peres, and even the cool, new mayor of San Francisco
Gavin Newsome to name a few.
Ken Roth of Human
Rights Watch and the International Criminal Court
I see Ken every year
at DAVOS, and he has steadily built his Human Rights
Watch organization into one of the leading entities
which monitors human rights. He has been promoting
the International Criminal Court and specifically
trying to get the US to adhere to their rulings for
several years.
His question at one panel had to do with the proposal
soon to be before the UN Security Council that it
refer the situation in Darfur to the International
Criminal Court [ICC]. The ICC has obviously been a
major source of trans-Atlantic friction, and the case
of Darfur provides a good opportunity to achieve common
ground. The Bush administration has been very good
on Darfur and would clearly like to see the killers
in Khartoum brought to justice. It has proposed setting
up a special international tribunal for Darfur, but
that would take a lot of time while people are being
killed everyday. By contrast, the ICC is up, running,
and ready to pursue a case immediately.
This should be a case in which the US administration
can accept the ICC. The traditional US objection to
the ICC focused on an independent prosecutor who on
his or her own could select targets for prosecution.
The US preferred to have the ICC docket set by the
UN Security Council, so that Washington could use
its veto to block prosecutions it didn't like. Because
Sudan hasn't ratified the ICC treaty, the only way
it can be brought before the ICC is through a Security
Council referral. It thus should be possible for the
Bush administration to endorse (or at least abstain
on) a Security Council referral, since that wouldn't
contradict its primary objection to the court which
is around the issue of sovereignty.
Jim Leach, a Republican Congressman from Iowa, responded
to Ken's question at Davos by seeming to accept this
logic, as have other senior Republicans. The Bush
administration has yet to opine formally, although
it has been careful not to preclude this compromise
and instead is talking about exploring "all available
options". Some Bush officials are still worried
about "legitimizing" the court, but that
concern should give way to the imperative of deterring
further killing in Darfur.
Concluding Thoughts
As the founder of one network to the founder of another,
I applaud what Klaus Schawb has done with the World
Economic Forum. I would alter its mission slightly
to "building leadership in the world in each
of its citizens" as leaders create the conditions
of trust for life and work to happen. The world surely
would be a better place if we all became leaders who
were passionate about creating a better world. This
would change the outcome of the World Economic Forum
from a lovely networking experience to a forum poised
for global action and change.
|
Ariadne
Capital Journal - Through the Maze Volume
5, Edition 1
