02 February 2004	Monday	10 Zilhaj 1424

The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) was held this year in Davos, Switzerland from January 21 to 25. The theme for this year's meeting was "Partnering for security and prosperity" and the meeting was guarded by some 4,700 Swiss troops.

As some 2,100 business and government leaders met from around the world at this Forum whose members are the world's 1,000 leading companies along with 200 smaller businesses from the less developed countries (LDCs), it is important to ascertain whose security and prosperity were they primarily concerned about? Were they concerned about those well-integrated in a global community or that of all including those awaiting integration with the prosperous parts of the world?

Had the case been the latter, the issues of the poor and the LDCs would have acquired centre-stage and not expressed mainly by the former US President Clinton in his well-received speech. Since prosperity concerns focused only around the economic growth, recovery, sustainability, and the revival of world trade talks; it appears that the target beneficiary group comprised those already in the global market system. And, since the security concerns revolved mainly around the 'war on terror', it appears that the target group in mind comprised those targeted by the terror attacks, that is, mainly the prosperous developed countries (DCs) as the war on those who keep the Palestinians, the Kashmiris, and the Chechens terrorized is yet to be waged by the "civilized" prosperous parts of the world.

The theme of this year's WEF meeting, therefore, appeared to be wishing for the good old "peaceful" days when prosperity for the prosperous could be pursued single-mindedly without fear of any kind of terror attacks. While this wish appears to be wishful thinking for as long as the causes behind terror attacks are wished away, it needs to be determined how useful this year's WEF meeting was in envisaging security and prosperity for all the inhabitants of this globe they wish globalized.

For, globalization actually means true integration of all into a global system rather than greater integration of only the already integrated economically in the world. Is the WEF set up to ensure only the latter or the former? The question requires closer examination.

The WEF's founder-president Klaus Schwab stated, "some parts of the world cannot enjoy prosperity because of security concerns, while other parts of the world cannot have security because they don't have prosperity." The latter part of the statement is an over simplification of the tensions that grip the hot spots of the world. While prosperity is required to arrest the supply to extremist organizations, the demand for extremism is driven more by an absence of the resolution of contentious disputes in Palestine and Kashmir, disagreements over "extremist" strategy notwithstanding. So, even if most of the human power supply to such outfits is curtailed by bringing prosperity to the LDCs, it will not choke off all of the supply due to the demand for extremist action for as long as the disputes remain unresolved. Even a handful of extremist members will have the potential to keep the world unstable and insecure.

Lack of security has, therefore, been globalized a lot more than prosperity has been which is concentrated only in the cores of the world- regions and countries. What can the WEF possibly contribute towards ensuring prosperity for all of the globe's inhabitants? A review of some of the WEF's intent would be in order.

In its statement of purpose, the WEF asserts that there is "interdependence' in a globalized society when actually globalization calls for "integration" and not mere "interdependence" which was required even when the world was believed to be less "globalized." The statement goes on to say, "if the developed world is to continue to enjoy sustained economic and social progress, the developing world must be integrated into the global community." This obviously indicates that the goal is sustainable development of the developed countries (DCs) with the integration of the LDCs as a means to the end of sustained development of the first world. Third world's integration is, therefore, secondary to the sustainable development of the first world which is given primary importance as in the above statement.

The WEF statement goes on, "to remain prosperous, the industrialized world must make a serious commitment to addressing poverty-of both resources and opportunity-throughout society." Again, the primary goal comes out as the prosperity of the industrialized world for which purpose poverty issues must be addressed in a world made insecure by the disenchanted and the disadvantaged.

Poverty alleviation, therefore, comes across as a means to the end of first world's continued prosperity for which purpose security must be brought on to the WEF's agenda although in the style of the North American perspective. The Seattle Initiative for Global Development, therefore, recommends massive outflow of the financial US aid for poverty alleviation to the LDCs (Dawn, 28-1-04). This again is a simplistic solution given the historical ineffectiveness of aid in ameliorating the third world's socio-economic lot. They have not only demonstrated low absorptive capacity for aid but have thus far failed to get to the root cause of poverty which is churned out routinely mainly due to gross imbalances in their socio-economic power structures that none in the world forums address.

In Davos, even President Khatami of Iran blamed the plight of the poor on to the big economic and political powers of the world when a lot of third world poverty is either due to a paucity of resources or their misallocation due to the misplaced priorities in the LDCs. As President Khatami called for a dialogue amongst the civilizations and greater interaction between the scholars and the "wise" of the two parts of the world, he probably meant that the resolution of disputes would free up resources otherwise consumed in defending and launching offensives decided upon by their public policy formulators who cannot free up policy space for domestic issues due to a cluttered external agenda.

While agenda setting is a national responsibility, the security-obsessed first world ought to address the obsessions of third world policy makers if world peace is their major goal. No third world leader in Davos traded security for prosperity. They all focused single-mindedly on the causes of global insecurity which the WEF ought to have helped the first world see.

The WEF claims to be at the heart of the global business community for over 30 years and have championed the concept of not only the impact of micro business performance on macro economies but have also promoted the view of business as a core constituent of the society. Consequently, if business is a part of the society, it must influence the same so as to continue to achieve business goals.

While the WEF's promotion of the above two linkages of business ought to be welcomed widely, the role of the prosperous parts of the world ought to take a broader sweep than merely ensuring prosperity of the cores as their major goal and that of the peripheries as the means thereof.

And, to ensure security for the prosperity of some instead of ensuring security for the humankind is a further indication of the narrow horizon that the WEF remains gripped with. So, even in the WEF 2004, the prosperity of the developing countries and their security remained peripheral to the core issues of the prosperity and security of the first world that they remain preoccupied with.

As the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan found a platform in Davos to promote his Global Compact, the Swiss President and Economics Minister Joseph Deiss opened this year's WEF meeting with an appeal to resume the stalled trade talks. He exhorted for the continuation of the Doha round that got stuck in the 2003 trade meeting in Cancun, Mexico. The WTO Director-General and trade ministers were particularly invited for the purpose. The Swiss cabinet ministers used the opportunity to mobilize the support from some European countries for a successful conclusion of their bilateral negotiations with the European Union.

The Swiss ministers remained engaged in other bilateral meetings also. As the US Vice President Dick Cheney promoted "war on terror" at Davos, the Swiss President used the opportunity to lobby for Swiss firms competing for re-construction contracts for Iraq.

This year's summit also aimed at bridging the transatlantic differences over Iraq. While the Palestinian issue was discussed against the backdrop of the Swiss-brokered Israeli-Palestinian agreement called the Geneva Accord, it was more an exchange of views amongst those whose outlook may not help the situation much on the ground.

And, as wealthy Indian business group focused mainly on the economic growth concept thus viewing business success as all there is to success in India and with the anti-globalization groups protesting on the sidelines, former US President Clinton came out forcefully in support of integrating all of human kind to have true globalization. He demanded "concrete solutions" to world problems. He called for bridging the rich-poor gap and expected the ".....energy, the brainpower,...the generosity of spirit..." in Davos to "...tell us how to organize the world of our dreams."

This will, however, be possible only if the World Economic Forum enlarges its view of the world above and beyond the already prosperous parts to include those whom they currently view as a means rather than the end of truly globalized development. The Forum needs to graduate to seeing the whole forest and not just the security and prosperity of the few currently prosperous trees.

Unless they target the wider picture as their mission and goal, the WEF will not be able to help the world realize its dream of security and prosperity for all alike. And, unless that is done, the prosperity and security of the hitherto prosperous and secure will remain at risk irrespective of the forums organized for this exclusive purpose.