Ian Bremmer (53) is a very sought after man. The political scientist has been dealing with political, economic, social and climatic risks in the world for a quarter of a century. Bremmer’s “Biggest Risk Report”, published every January together with the Eurasia Group, reaches millions of viewers around the world. Blick is talking to him via video call in New York. After 20 minutes the call should be cut off, an urgent appointment cannot wait. Hours later, it’s still possible to end the call. Bremmer has been a regular guest at the World Economic Forum (WEF) held at Davos GR for years.
Blick: How often did you go to DEF?
Ian Bremer: I didn’t count exactly. Probably a good dozen times.
How has the forum changed since you first joined?
It has become more global, the participants are more diverse. Emerging markets gained importance. When I first came to Davos it was all about the global economy and finance. I was an outsider with my geopolitical issues.
Isn’t that the case anymore?
Davos is more political today. Climate change is also at the center of the event. In the past this was different, mainly when it comes to economic issues, capitalism has more or less regressed. I’m surprised that so many contributors have been closely associated with DEF, some for decades.
What do you expect from the 2023 edition?
This year’s WEF 2023 will likely be packed with overbooking. Everyone wants to be there and network with everyone again. This is going to be an extremely busy and productive week. It’s unbelievable that so many business meetings can be held in such a short time in Davos.
In 1998, political scientist Ian Bremmer founded the think tank Eurasia Group in New York (USA). Business idea: to inform companies and investors about the political risks in foreign markets, especially in former Eastern bloc countries. Today he is the president of a company with offices on four continents. Bremmer also teaches and researches at New York University, and is a regular columnist for the “Time” news magazine, the Reuters news agency, and the “Foreign Policy” magazine. Her books regularly top non-fiction bestseller lists.
In 1998, political scientist Ian Bremmer founded the think tank Eurasia Group in New York (USA). Business idea: to inform companies and investors about the political risks in foreign markets, especially in former Eastern bloc countries. Today he is the president of a company with offices on four continents. Bremmer also teaches and researches at New York University, and is a regular columnist for the “Time” news magazine, the Reuters news agency, and the “Foreign Policy” magazine. His books regularly top non-fiction bestseller lists.
So, are things as usual, so to speak?
Not really. Technology companies will dominate the meeting much less than before the pandemic. The crypto industry is going through a major crisis. But Facebook, Twitter and others also face big challenges. These companies will no longer spend a lot of money on parties and their appearance in Davos, they will no longer cover the entire promenade with their banners.
A more humble Davos?
No, the participants packed their big suitcases and they definitely want to be in Davos. Traveling hasn’t been a thing for the past three years, now it’s finally a chance to meet all the coworkers from all over the world who haven’t seen it for the past few years.
Davos is considered the meeting place of the rich and powerful – what do ordinary people get from here?
In terms of media attention, the WEF plays in the same league as the G20 summit, UN General Assembly or climate summits. The question should be: How satisfied are people with the elite of politics, business, and science? Answer: They are dissatisfied with bosses and managers. People have lost a lot of trust in decision makers. There is a big difference between the issues and discussions at these summits and the issues that really concern society.
With what results?
Although global inequality is regularly discussed, this problem cannot be solved overnight. The world has evolved backwards in the last three years. Poverty is rising, the gap between the rich north and the poor south is widening. Women are pushed into the informal economy, forced prostitution and marriage are widespread. The number of refugees is increasing worldwide.
How long will this setback last?
A global recession is imminent this year and supply chain problems will continue. The war between Russia and Ukraine, the close war between Russia and NATO – all this is very dangerous. The poorest feel first.
No trend reversal in sight?
The next three to five years will be a huge challenge for the world. Globalization is receding. On the other hand, protectionism and populism are on the rise, global markets are becoming less efficient and goods are getting more expensive. There is also the danger of climate change, there will be more droughts and floods. Humanity is feeling the wind of this change much more than in the last 50 years.
DEF embraced the desire to “improve the state of the world”. Can this work?
Decision makers at Davos can help increase efficiency, accelerate growth and implement solutions faster. Everyone would benefit from it. Even if more and more people are dissatisfied with globalization, it remains the best way to increase productivity and well-being. Seen this way, DEF has never been more important. Davos is the most important meeting place for all stakeholders from politics, business, foundations and NGOs – such meetings should be held more often.
But in Davos there are rarely tangible results.
In addition to network functionality, DEF can raise important issues. The Forum can help set the right priorities, as the UN does on climate change. But of course there are many attendees at Davos who have their own agenda. This shows the limits of the forum. Bringing together all the different interests is much more difficult for a small organization like the DEF than it is for the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Where do you see the biggest danger this year?
The greatest risk comes from individuals who have insufficient control over their powers and are surrounded by yes-only men. They can make terrible mistakes for the world and no one can stop them. I primarily think of Vladimir Putin (70) or Xi Jinping (69) in China, but I also think of some of the bosses of the tech giants. All these people have great power, but they do not think about the consequences of their actions.
Like Elon Musk (51) for example?
Musk or Mark Zuckerberg (38). These are not bad people, but they have tremendous destructive power and can turn the world upside down.
What role can a small country like Switzerland play in this challenging world?
More importantly, neutral Switzerland, which supported sanctions against Russia, blocked the oligarchs’ assets. As much as Switzerland wishes to be neutral, it is openly in favor of democracy and the rule of law. This is the most important sign: bandits cannot have safe havens to hide in or gain unhindered access to their assets.
What about the peace mediator role?
You don’t need Switzerland for that. For this, the UN Secretary General or the President of Turkey is more suitable. They carry geopolitical weight and are more likely to be accepted as negotiating partners by both parties. Switzerland lacks this influence.