Davos

At the start of each year, close to 2,000 national leaders, corporate bosses, NGO activists, intellectuals and artists gather at the Swiss ski resort town of Davos. For about a week, they engage in panel discussions, roundtables and one-on-one meetings.

The event is organized by the World Economic Forum (WEF). Participation is by invitation only. The goal is to get the world’s political, business and opinion leaders focused on the leading issues of the day. This year, the deepening global recession no doubt consumes the proceedings.

While the meeting is underway, the air space around Davos is a no-fly zone. The area is heavily secured by the Swiss Army. That is all understandable: this is possibly the highest concentration of world leaders at any one time.

The Davos meeting does not aspire to achieve a consensus. There is no communiqué expressing the common stand of participants at the end of each year’s meetings. What is important is to get the leaders together to discuss some of the most urgent matters confronting humanity in a pleasant and informal setting, without the burden of having to represent the official positions of their countries.

While this event is going on, there are usually protests organized against it — either in Switzerland itself or elsewhere. In the past, violent clashes broke out when protestors attempted to get near the venue of the meetings. This year, the Swiss government banned all gatherings in the area in order to avert such confrontations. The most violent clashes in the past were initiated by anarchist and communist groups.

In Brazil, some sort of counter-meeting is organized yearly to coincide with the Davos event. It is initiated by non-government organizations, mainly those concerned with environmental issues. This year, the Brazil meeting was attended by some of the leftist Latin American leaders who boycotted the Davos meeting.

Being largely an unofficial gathering where no formal agreements are forged and where there is rarely any unanimity expressed, I do not see the reason behind the protests surrounding the Davos meeting. What could be so objectionable in world leaders meeting informally to exchange ideas and possibly gain insight from each other?

The Davos meetings, while non-binding, could open channels for the world’s leaders to agree on any number of issues. The could probe the inclinations of their peers and later follow through with formal diplomacy.

Top-level meetings such as this one are efficient means for consensus-building. With the least bureaucracy intervening, leaders could come together in a relaxed setting and chat. There is little need for posturing. That can only defeat the purpose of a unique gathering like this one.

The agenda set forth by the Davos meetings serves to focus the world’s attention on the most urgent problems of the day — whether this be climate change, AIDS, Darfur, the eradication of preventable plagues like malaria or, as this the case this year, rebuilding the global financial system.

The high profile of the people involved in these meetings ensures intense media coverage of the proceedings. That is educational for the rest of the world.

In a way, the WEF meetings are reaffirmations of the values and the visions that bind all of humanity. These are celebrations of our interdependence. They are ceremonies that underscore our common fate.

Those objecting to the occurrence of meetings like this one are being absurd. In our small world, there should be enough opportunities for dialogue and camaraderie. There should be constant insistence on the possibility of common understanding and, on that basis, common action.

Many of the groups loudly protesting the Davos meetings argue that the event advances “globalization.” They try to picture this meeting as some sort of sinister conspiracy to abet the interdependence of nations and somehow link that to the aggravation of our environment.

This characterization is pretty bizarre. It is a wonder that fairly significant number subscribe to this sort of oversimplification.

The term “globalization” itself is odd. Some ideological groups use this word as if it indicates something evil afflicting humanity.

If we take a longer view of the evolution of civilization, the absence of borders between communities is not something new. It is the more natural condition.

The political boundaries imposed by the emergence of nation-state is a fairly new phenomenon. These boundaries are artificial. They are also ultimately porous. They could not keep aspirations from being shared, ideas from converging and mutually beneficial commerce from happening.

Furthermore, the most urgent problems confronting humanity today — from global warming to the financial meltdown — are things far too large for any single nation-state to overcome. They require a synchronization of actions and goals by all communities around the world.

What, in fact, we must do is to multiply the avenues for civilization to converse. And converge, on the best ideas that stand the test of open debate.

The more the dialogues happen, the better the possibility that we could find the best ideas to deal with today’s challenges.

Let us not shut down, or shout down, channels of dialogue. That will be damaging to the progress of humanity.

On the contrary, let us have more Davoses. The better for us all.