Professor Bernauer, what do you think this year's WEF motto "Partnering for Prosperity and Security" meant?

Thomas Bernauer: It is a variant of an equation from political science that denotes the well-known hypothesis "Safety + prosperity = peace". On the one hand, sustainable economic growth calls, at least medium or long-term, for a model of government that is based on a liberal-democratic constitutional state order. In its turn, economic growth can foster political stability and thus, ultimately, peace. Democratic states that are economically entwined rarely go to war against one another.

Who was the central focus this year? Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney or a Swiss Federal Councillor?

The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, without a doubt. Without masses of help from the United Nations, the US won't succeed in setting up a stable and democratic government in Iraq. Neither prosperity nor security nor democracy exists at the moment in Iraq, nor in many other regions of the world where conflict is rife. If the powers that be want to resolve this situation much more is needed than military muscle power. Only the UN has the know-how and is internationally legitimised to intervene effectively in such situations.

What exactly were all these managers and politicians looking for in Davos?

I think that what's primarily important to participants at the WEF is to make social and political contacts, as well as discuss issues with economic and political overlap. The WEF is a mixture of seeing and being seen, clapping shoulders, networking and exchanging views away from the hectic of the everyday world.

What influence does the WEF have on the global economy and international politics?

A very minute one. Concrete problems – whether economical, social or security political – are neither dealt with in any depth nor solved in Davos. The WEF is a private society that, via the meeting, tries to develop a global ideology and push forward the development of public opinion. To put a fine point on it, it has to do above all with global economic and political background music. The important economic decisions are taken by other bodies, for example at G-8 meetings, by the World Bank, the IMF, WTO, OECD, at UN conferences or by the EU, or by bilateral agreements. The importance of WEF is often exaggerated in the media.

Things seemed to have quietened on the side of the globalisation opponents...

... I don't agree. There is still a great range of activity from NGOs and suchlike. We saw this at the World Social Summit in Bombay. But it is true that the protest movement seems to have become less militant.

Is criticism of globalisation justified?

Not all of it. Accusations, for instance, that global markets and the international finance markets are responsible for making poor countries even poorer is demonstrably false, at least in this radical form. More often it's domestic political problems and wrong economic policies that hinder development, as for example, in some South American or African states. The most striking example of this in recent headlines is the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. Countries like South Korea or Taiwan have succeeded in becoming part of the global economy. And Switzerland managed to transform itself from the poor man of Europe to one of the richest countries in the world.

So what criticism do you consider justified?

Over a long period the World Bank financed the building of dams and energy projects that were highly questionable from both ecological and humanitarian points of view. Stronger international trade leads to more traffic. The economic and political policies dictated to governments by the World Bank or IMF proved to be counterproductive in some developing countries. But one has to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For example, empirical analyses show that economic growth, world trade and democratisation processes are actually beneficial for environmental protection in some areas. All in all globalisation brings more advantages than disadvantages – to both rich and poor.

Two opposing views on the WEF: Supporter and ETH student Urs Wäfler (left), and ETH Professor Thomas Bernauer. large

At the WEF as a student

Urs Wäfler, 24 and studying information technology and electro-engineering at ETH Zurich, says he didn't go to Davos to ski or improve his tan. As a member of the "external staff" at the WEF meeting that ended on Sunday, his days were filled to the brim, from 7.30 a.m. until late in the evening, sometimes until midnight. "We student helpers were able to attend some of the meetings, but we were mainly there to deal with administrative tasks," he says. Duty obliges, it seems, and not necessarily a duty that poses a real challenge to an ETH student, even when the ten-day stint was rewarded with 1,000 Swiss francs.

In search of new experience

Apart from the remuneration, what made Urs Wäfler apply for a WEF job? "My prime reason wasn't political. It was more important to me what I did in Davos, not to take any sort of position," explains Wäfler. But he says that in addition to his scientific studies at ETH it is important to him to keep his mind open to other cultures, economies or policies.

"One reason was also to encounter things and situations that I've never seen or done before and wouldn't have the chance of seeing or doing at ETH," he adds, and the WEF – with its impressive congregation of international opinion leaders – was an ideal occasion.

"I support the WEF in its mission"

So what does the ETH student make of the fact that lots of students' organisations are very critical of the WEF. "The WEF stands for high ideals and social engagement, " counters Wäfler. "The meeting puts basic problems facing humanity on the agenda and, in discussions, looks for solutions that take current economic conditions into account, as well as elements of cultural and religious diversity."

"It seems to me that the WEF is an ideal projection screen for many critics," says Wäfler. He considers this manifested by the fact that aspects of power and wealth dominate the WEF in the minds of its critics. What the WEF was really about was closing gaps and building bridges between the economy, religion and ethics, according to Wäfler. He says he feels that those people who reject the WEF are those who have not gone to the trouble of finding out about its goals and what lies behind it. The increase of protests and the swelling ranks of demonstrators, together with the increased presence of security forces, do their part toadd to the polarisation and to intensify the attention paid to the meeting. "Still," he concludes calmly, "somehow the demonstrations seem to have become part of the event."