The World Economic Forum took place this past week.
Was quite the hollywood affair this time around..and decidedly more "liberal" or the token Blair quote from the event.." "it is based on enlightened self-interest".
But one glaringly obvious group was missing...the Bush administration.
The top member of the Bush team to attend was Robert Zoellick.. yeah right I know..who is he?...just some outgoing trade official. Meanwhile European nations had their top men clamouring for attention at the WEF podium. (the whole Blair vs Chirac nonsense that went on.)
Edited to add
Sorry I wanted to add what the agreed upon priorities for Davos were this year..
poverty, equitable globalisation, climate change, education, the Middle East and global governance.

Questions...

Do you feel America's lack of interest in the WEF is a sign of our discomfort with our strained relations with the world..or a lack of concern? Or something else?

Is it even an important thing currently for the Bush administration to be focusing on? Why or why not?

"World Economic..." who? Never heard of 'em. They must be as important as that Robert Zoellick guy you mentioned. You imply the administrations "lack of interest" and assert "America's" lack of interest. Before I attempt to answer your questions, I'd be interested to know when when this "WEF" became the universally accepted arbitor of "interest" and/or lack thereof?

You have never heard of the WEF? It is only a forum for the most richest and powerful people the world over.
It is commonly referred to as ...The ultimate shmooze fest

UK had Tony Blair there..Germany had Schröder..France had Chirac..Australia had Howard and the US had Robert Zoellick.

From the WEF FAQ: Why do people come?


I think we can be sure that Bush meets with who he wants to meet with.

Also, from this chart, we see that the US sent between 29 and 61 "delegates", the highest category.

Does Bush himself need to be present? Since the administration is currently in flux (with Don Evans and John Snow both leaving), who else would we send?

Bush doesn't need to "schmooze", does he?

According to wikipedia, critics call the WEF an "unelected, non-democratic, elitist, secretive world Senate." It is dominated by corporations. It is regularly protested by anti-globalists.

Do we really need Bush there (he probably isn't a member...).

I think any conference with attendees like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Vice-Prime Minister of Israel Shimon Peres, President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko, Egypt's Prime Minister Ahmed Mahmoud Nazif, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Pakistan Shaukat Aziz, French President Jacques Chirac, Vice-President of Iran Masoumeh Ebtekar - the list goes on and on- should have been much higher on the President Bush's list of priorities.

America was represented by Robert Zoellick, Senator Orrin Hatch, Congressman James Leach, Former President Clinton... The President, if unable to attend himself, should have sent at least a couple high-level government officials.

Most importantly, I think there was a missed opportunity to address foreign policy issues and peace in the Middle East with such a diverse group of world leaders. It couldn't be more obvious that an American presence needed to be felt after reading the summary entitled
'A view from Capitol Hill'

-Jessica

hmmmm, poverty. Free markets have consistently proven to be the surest path out of poverty. I'm sure that the WEF was advocating free markets, right?

Equitable globalisation - ah, yes, forget what I said about free markets. Equitable globalisation is another one of those nice sounding covers for socialism.

climate change The United States Senate has already made crystal clear the American position on the "world's" approach to climate change, so why spend any more time on it? Doing so would be a waste of the public treasury.

Education Given the consistent plunge in education quality and results the further up the governmental food chain education issues proceed, I'm very, very happy that the Administration didn't make a full fledged appearance at Davos.

Middle East and global governance Lump these two together, because the first illustrates why the US wants no part of the second. Gulliver constrained by the Lilliputians.

Incidentally, the Secretary of Labor was at Davos (hmmm, is she part of the Administration??).

For some sense of why Bush didn't make an appearance, read on...

Davos Journal, Part I

The writer of this article actually writes "...blah, blah, blah." He goes on to say Sharon Stone is a "...little butch - but really, really, really pretty". At the end of the article he tell us he will "continue these Davos scribbles..." Indeed. It's nothing more than a "really, really, really" bad editorial.

Despite the problems with the topics they were set to discuss - many of them admittedly silly - the Middle East and foreign relations are of vital importance. America has a huge stake in this area of the world. Even if it were a meeting over coffee and doughnuts, if there were important representatives of the Middle East, we should have made a presence. We thought enough of this conference to send the likes of Cheney and Powell in the past.

-Jessica

Let's see a nobody, a has-been (by the way Israel doesn't have a Vice-Prime Minister, he is one of two Deputy Prime Ministers), new guy, a puppet, etc.

My only question is why we sent anybody at all? Sounds like the meeting was a waste of time and money.

Do you feel America's lack of interest in the WEF is a sign of our discomfort with our strained relations with the world..or a lack of concern? Or something else?

With the Bush administration in charge of the government, there will always be strained relations. I think their actions speak for themselves. Their attitude is “we are so righteous and right about everything, who needs another set of opinions”. Its called arrogance.



Is it even an important thing currently for the Bush administration to be focusing on? Why or why not?

From a diplomatic standpoint it’s important. The key here is to understand by attending the forum, whether we are interested or not, it shows that America is willing to listen to the needs of other countries. Perception is important which is why we should at least show we are interested.






Amlord, if Bush is serious about building up relations then its crucial for him to attend this event regardless of interest. This isn’t about Bush personally, its about the President of the United States as a representative of our country showing we are willing to listen to other nations concerning the world’s economic problems.
Delegates doesn’t show that we are concern about the world problems even if you send 100, the leader of this nation should attend just like other world leaders are attending.

Also, I think Bush would be quite comfortable meeting with member of world corporations since he has such a loving relationship with US corporations. It would be the perfect romantic getaway.

My apologies for calling Shimon Peres the Vice-Prime Minister of Israel when he is in fact the Vice-Premier of Israel. The Vice-Prime Minister is Ehud Olmert, who was also in attendance.

Ministers and Senior Officials of the 30th Government of Israel

-Jessica

I stand corrected until last month they did not have such a position and it is still under debate whether it is legal or not since it violates the Israeli Basic Laws. But in the mean time I will retract that portion of my comments. Still a has-been.

I don't believe this hurts our reputation very much, if at all. Our reputation is already really bad, due to the war in Iraq.

America is a major capitalist country, I don't think the Bush administration really cares much about the world economy, as long as it doesn't include the word "terrorism."



I agree with this. Condolezza Rice isn't a very good diplomat, so her becoming Secretary of State may hurt our diplomatic relations even more. Wait until I get into office.

Amlord...


Yes right and I didn't say Bush himself had to go..I was just wondering why the Bush admin didn't chose this forum to make the all important diplomatic outreach they keep claiming they are interested in. Bush himself in his SOTU address told Americans..told the world even that bringing peace between Palestine and Israel was one of his top priorities. At the WEF this year it was the highest-level public meeting between Israeli and Palestinian governments that has taken place in years. Some claim the WEF was the venue to launch the new peace process...hence the before mentioned priority of the forum..the Middle East... which is probably very much true as this is an historical venue for such meetings between these two nations because Peres and Arafat had their own in 1994 to make the final agreements of the Oslo peace plan. The WEF has always played a very important and integral role in the economic needs for the peace process between Palestine and Israel so I find Bush's lack of interests in this role, the significance of this meeting and his missed opportunity of having the world's attention on this matter and not being a part of it...significant. How can we take his word that he believes this is an important issue when he shows so little interest in it even when it is being highlighted..positively mind you..on the world stage.


Bikerdad...


Yes and I already stated that another member of the Bush admin was in attendance too Mr. Zoellick..still that is the best Bush has to offer the world? I do believe last year in 2004 Attorney General John Ashcroft did attend.
Also Bikerdad most of your comments that this was some kind of socialist agenda in drag are absurd...as the WEF has always been mired in controversy because of anti-globalist protests that always coincide with it's occurance. This has been something I have never heard anyone seriously complain about the WEF for..socialism..the more common complaint is the WEF is..the "temple of capitalist narcissism"
This is why I did mention in my first posting that the forum this year was more liberal in appearance and why I chose to quote Mr. Tony Blair and his summation that ..."it is based on enlightened self-interest" Perhaps even the most narcissist of capitalists are realizing that they need to soften their image for the masses..or that climate change will be bad for business..or war in the middle east hurts the bottom line. Not really understanding why you feel "equitable globalisation" is a cover for socialism? How do globalisation and socialism somehow represent one another? Globalisation is the ultimate triumph of capital over labor. Also why do you believe concepts like fair, just and equitable are exclusive of capitalism's global spread?

yes. I think that about sums it up. Why would America be interested in a discussion on climate change. Its not as though America is one of the worlds major polluters is it?

its not as though, as one of the more powerful countries in the world, it should be expected to have any sense of conscience about how its behaviour affects others, is it.

its not as though Climate change is probably one of the single most important concerns for the world. I mean, we can just make a new Earth, right? If the final shove knocks the world into an ice age, its not as though America will be affected.

On the one hand, your president will probably trigger world war before we have to worry too much about killing our planet.

However, that the rest of the world has appreciated the importance of these discussions is no reason for a country as insular and ignorant with regards World Issues as America should feel it necessary to take part, nor to take it seriously. That the rest of the world has just started an agreement to cut air pollution, should be no reason for America to have a look at its own record and seek to improve it.

And the world wonders why you voted Bush back in...

Wrong. In fact, "the rest of the world" (presumably excluding the U.S.) has not accepted Kyoto.

The world population is ~ 6.4 billion. China (~1.3 billion) and India (~1.0 billion) have rejected Kyoto. Together they make up ~ one third of "the rest of the world".

"Greenhouse gases" produced in China alone are expected to surpass those produced in the U.S. in the near future. Interesting article

Supposedly then, the US doesn't pollute the air at all, and thus has no reason to feel morally obliged to the rest of the world. But wait; examine your quote again.

"are expected to surpass those produced in the U.S. in the near future"

So at present, the US is still a bigger polluter than China then.

That China and India are even more insular than the US isn't a good reason to follow their line. I thought the US was a world leader, not a world follower.

Regardless of whether other parties are also too narrow minded to take part in the agreement, doesn't detract from the FACT that if current pollution levels aren't tackled, our world will change irrevocably, and for the worse. If nothing else, the US has a duty to its own people to ensure that they have a world worth living in. It is rare that the US ever pays the price for its own actions in the world, but on this subject, the price will be paid by all.

Using facts in a debate lends credibility to one's argument. Sometimes in the course of debate, people make sweeping (and false) assertions in an emotional appeal to persuade us to their position:



Some people believe these assertions without question, and some seek out the facts. The assertion in question quoted above did not ring true to me so I checked it out and discovered that the "rest of the world" had not "started an agreement to cut air pollution". That at least two other governments (China and India) representing ~ one third of earth's population have rejected Kyoto is just a tad different than the U.S. versus "the rest of the world". I of course could not know if Genesisblade's false assertion was intentional or not so I merely pointed out the truth. The fact that Genesisblade did not acknowledge nor refute the correction speaks for itself.

Genesis then writes:



Who said that? Is that what you think? I certainly made no such assertion or implication in my response. You are not trying to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head are you? Feel free to re-read my post. You will also find that I myself took no position on pollution or the pro's and cons of Kyoto. I merely refered to an article that offers a possible explaination of why some may (rightly or wrongly) believe that Kyoto is not the best solution. Read the article at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.htm