Davos 2026, The Forum Where the West Bickered While the World Moved On

Davos 2026, The Forum Where the West Bickered While the World Moved On

The conclusion of the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos earlier this week was accompanied by its customary fanfare, a glittering parade of the world’s most recognizable political and corporate elites. The speaker roster read like a who’s who of contemporary power: U.S. President Donald Trump, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, alongside the leaders of France, Canada, Egypt, and Argentina. Yet, beneath the polished veneer of panels on artificial intelligence and green energy, this year’s gathering laid bare an uncomfortable and transformative truth. Davos is no longer the self-anointed cockpit of global problem-solving. It has devolved into a stage for the West’s fractious internal dialogue, a geopolitical theatre where transatlantic allies publicly bicker, while the broader world—particularly the ascendant powers and nations of the Global South—increasingly looks elsewhere for substantive engagement. The 2026 edition may well be remembered as the moment the forum’s universalist pretensions finally collapsed under the weight of its own Western-centric parochialism.

The Trumpian Vortex: A Forum Held Hostage

The meeting was utterly engulfed by the long, combative shadow of Donald Trump. His presence and provocations dictated the agenda, turning what is nominally an economic forum into a raw, public airing of strategic grievances. The discourse was monopolized not by climate finance or digital governance, but by Trump’s favorite cudgels: punitive tariffs, the stalled EU-US trade deal, NATO burden-sharing, and the surreal, persistent specter of Greenland. In doing so, he successfully reframed Davos from a “world” forum to a “Western family dispute,” with the rest of the planet cast as uneasy spectators to a bitter marital squabble.

The European response, while defiant, only reinforced this inward focus. Ursula von der Leyen’s speech was a landmark in the continent’s strategic evolution, framing Trump’s “geopolitical shocks” as the catalyst for forging “a new form of European independence.” Her warning—that a transatlantic downward spiral would aid their common adversaries—was a stark admission that the postwar order is in hospice care. Even more direct was French President Emmanuel Macron, who, without naming Trump, delivered a thundering rebuke of the new American statecraft: “We do prefer respect to bullies… And we do prefer rule of law to brutality.” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney issued a poignant call for middle powers to unite against economic coercion, coining the conference’s most resonant phrase: “if we are not at the table, we are on the menu.”

Trump, reveling in the role of disruptor-in-chief, met diplomacy with personal derision. He mocked Macron’s sunglasses and belittled Canada’s sovereignty, asserting, “Canada lives because of the United States.” His justification for claiming Greenland—that the U.S. was “stupid” to return it after defending it in World War II—was a perfect distillation of his transactional, zero-sum view of history and alliance. This wasn’t debate; it was a performative demolition of diplomatic norms, and it became the defining narrative of the week.

The Hollow Core: Irrelevance for the Global Majority

The consequence of this Western-centric psychodrama was a profound hollowness at the forum’s core. For leaders and delegates from Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and beyond, the takeaways were negligible. The panels, though themed on global challenges, were overwhelmingly populated by CEOs from Western multinationals and intellectuals from Western institutions. The pressing concerns of the developing world—debt distress, equitable climate financing, technology transfer, inclusive vaccine production—were sidelined by the overwhelming noise of the transatlantic rift.

This growing sense of irrelevance is not passive. It is catalyzing a deliberate and strategic pivot. As the article notes, China is “quietly stealing the show” by offering credible, focused alternatives. The Boao Forum for Asia is cementing its role as the “Asian Davos,” a platform where regional economic integration and development are prioritized without the baggage of Western political lectures. The Annual Meeting of the New Champions, or “Summer Davos,” provides a dedicated space for discussing innovation and emerging technologies in a less politically charged environment. These forums are gaining traction precisely because they are perceived as more practical, less theatrical, and more aligned with the economic imperatives of growth and infrastructure that resonate across the Global South.

Furthermore, other non-Western poles are building their own discursive ecosystems. The expanded BRICS summits, the Saudi-hosted Future Investment Initiative, and India’s leadership of the G20 and its own vibrant Raisina Dialogue offer platforms where the grammar of engagement is different—less about defending a fading liberal order, more about negotiating a fragmented, multipolar one. For many nations, the value proposition of traveling to the Swiss Alps to witness transatlantic mudslinging is diminishing rapidly when they can engage in substantive, deal-focused dialogue closer to home.

A Stage for Cynicism and Realignment

The Davos drama also provided a gift to the West’s strategic rivals. Russian President Vladimir Putin, as noted, could only be pleased to see NATO allies trading insults over Greenland, a distraction he likely hopes will dilute European focus on Ukraine. The spectacle of Western disunity is a potent weapon for Moscow and Beijing, validating their narratives of Western decline and hypocritical leadership.

Most damningly, the forum failed in its most basic function: to foster dialogue that bridges divides. Instead, it amplified them. The “Davos Consensus”—that gauzy notion of a shared commitment to globalization, multilateralism, and stakeholder capitalism—lies in tatters, shattered by Trumpian nationalism, European defensive realism, and the quiet exodus of the Global South. What remains is a fractured landscape: a West arguing over the ruins of its own project, a resurgent East building parallel institutions, and a Global Majority pragmatically shopping for the best forum to advance its interests.

Conclusion: The Imperative for Reinvention or Obsolescence

The verdict on Davos 2026 is stark. It has revealed itself not as the World Economic Forum, but as a “Western Geopolitical Forum,” and a particularly acrimonious one at that. Its crisis is one of identity and utility. To reclaim relevance, it must undergo a radical reinvention.

First, it must consciously de-center the West. This means not just inviting more leaders from the Global South, but fundamentally redesigning its agenda to reflect their priorities. It must create space where the dominant conversation is about South-South cooperation, debt architecture, and just energy transitions, not merely as side-events, but as mainstage plenaries.

Second, it must choose between being a platform for genuine, solutions-oriented dialogue or a glitzy media stage for geopolitical confrontation. It cannot be both. If it is to be the former, it must establish and enforce norms of engagement that prioritize substance over spectacle, a challenging task when the spectacle draws headlines.

Finally, it must accept that the era of a single, Western-led forum setting the global agenda is over. The future is plurilateral. Davos could reimagine itself as a true connector—a neutral “switchboard” that facilitates dialogue between these emerging forums and power centers, rather than pretending to supersede them.

If the forum’s leadership, as the writer hopes, fails to take note, Davos will continue its journey into irrelevance. It will become an annual snapshot of Western anxiety, a lavish retreat where the powerful lament a world they no longer control, while the real work of shaping the 21st century happens elsewhere—in Boao, in Riyadh, in New Delhi, and in the capital cities of a world that has moved on.

Q&A: Davos and the Crisis of Global Dialogue

Q1: The article argues Davos has become a “Western Geopolitical Forum.” What specific evidence from the event supports this claim?
A1: The evidence is overwhelming in both the participants’ focus and the content of the discourse:

• Dominant Discourse: The agenda was hijacked by intra-Western disputes—Trump’s tariffs, the U.S.-EU trade deal, NATO funding, and Greenland. These are specific geopolitical tensions within the transatlantic alliance, not universal global economic issues.

• Cast of Characters: The most headline-grabbing exchanges were exclusively between Western leaders: Trump vs. von der Leyen, Trump vs. Macron, Trump vs. Carney. Their conflict became the central narrative.

• Language of Division: The speeches were framed in terms of “European independence” from the U.S., warnings against “bullies,” and the “breakdown of the world order”—all reflecting a crisis within the Western-led system.

• Marginalization of Other Voices: While leaders like Egypt’s President el-Sisi were present, their perspectives were drowned out. The panels were dominated by Western corporate executives and intellectuals, making the conversation parochial. The concerns of the Global South were sidelined by this inward-looking Western family feud.

Q2: Why is China’s promotion of forums like the Boao Forum seen as a direct challenge to Davos’s relevance?
A2: China’s forums present a focused, pragmatic, and alternative model that directly addresses the perceived shortcomings of Davos:

• Regional & Developmental Focus: The Boao Forum for Asia is explicitly dedicated to Asian economic integration and development issues, which are immediate priorities for attending nations. It’s seen as more substantive and less diluted by unrelated geopolitical theater.

• Alternative Narrative & Control: These forums allow China and participating nations to set the agenda without Western frames dominating. Discussions on trade, infrastructure, and technology happen without the constant backdrop of Western-led debates on democracy or human rights, which many Global South nations view as hypocritical or secondary to development.

• Strategic Pivot: As Davos appears consumed by Western problems, China offers a platform that is “for the rest,” cultivating influence and presenting itself as the champion of a different, more economically focused world order. For many nations, attending Boao is a strategic choice to engage with the rising center of economic gravity in a less politically charged environment.

Q3: What did Mark Carney mean by saying, “if we are not at the table, we are on the menu,” and why is this sentiment significant in the current context?
A3: Carney’s metaphor is a powerful warning about the perils of passive inaction in an era of aggressive, transactional geopolitics. “The table” represents where the rules are written, deals are struck, and power is exercised. “The menu” signifies becoming an object of those deals—a target for economic coercion (like tariffs), political pressure, or having one’s interests sacrificed in great power bargains.
Its significance is twofold:

1. A Critique of Trump’s Coercion: It directly responds to Trump’s use of tariffs and threats (like over Greenland) as tools against allies. Carney is arguing that middle powers (like Canada, EU nations) cannot be passive; they must actively unite and push back to avoid being partitioned or exploited in deals between larger powers (the U.S., China, Russia).

2. A Call for Agency: It underscores the forum’s failure. Davos should be the “table” for collaborative global problem-solving. Instead, it has become a table where some powers (the U.S. under Trump) try to decide who is on the menu. The sentiment captures the anxiety of traditional multilateralists witnessing the erosion of rules-based systems into a raw contest of power.

Q4: How does the spectacle at Davos benefit countries like Russia and China?
A4: The public disunity of the West is a strategic windfall for its rivals:

• For Russia: Seeing NATO allies—the U.S. and key European states—trade vicious personal insults and threaten each other with tariffs over issues like Greenland validates the Kremlin’s narrative of a decadent, divided West. It diverts Western media and political attention from Ukraine, potentially weakening the resolve and unity of the sanctions coalition. Putin’s reported support for Trump on Greenland is a classic tactic to deepen these wedges.

• For China: The discord presents a golden opportunity to position itself as the stable, reliable alternative. While the West bickers, China can host forums like Boao that project an image of consensus, forward-looking economic planning, and respect for sovereignty (as it defines it). The Davos chaos makes China’s state-led, disciplined model appear more efficient and attractive to leaders seeking development partnerships without political lectures. It accelerates the shift of economic and diplomatic gravity eastward.

Q5: Can the World Economic Forum reclaim its role as a truly “world” forum? If so, how?
A5: It is possible, but only through a profound and honest transformation, not merely cosmetic changes. Key steps would include:

• Agenda Inversion: Deliberately building the core agenda from the priorities of the Global South upward. Mainstage time must be dedicated to sovereign debt, climate loss-and-damage financing, food security in vulnerable regions, and technology access—with solutions led by voices from those regions.

• Structural Rebalancing: Implementing quotas or guaranteed representation on high-level panels for non-Western corporations, think tanks, and civil society. The CEO cohort cannot remain overwhelmingly North American and European.

• Neutral Convening Power: The WEF must discipline itself and its participants. It could position itself as the neutral facilitator of dialogue between competing blocs (the West, China, the Global South, etc.), enforcing Chatham House rules to foster genuine negotiation rather than allowing itself to be a platform for political grandstanding.

• Embrace Plurilateralism: Accept it is no longer the singular forum. It could innovate by creating dedicated, year-round tracks that connect insights from Davos with those from Boao, the AU summits, and other regional forums, acting as a synthesizer rather than a sole source of wisdom.
  Without such deep changes, Davos will remain a picturesque relic—a window into the anxieties of a fading West, rather than a workshop for the world’s future.