davos07

ABRICE COFFRINI/AFP

Last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the hottest tech gadget in the room wasn't Steve Jobs' iPhone. It was Nicholas Negroponte's $100 laptop. Everyone from Michael Dell to Vint Cerf was seen playing with the small green and white computer that Negroponte, the former head of MIT's Media Lab, wants to distribute to poor kids in the developing world. Negroponte, who has developed a cult of personality nearly as powerful as that of his bargain basement laptop, has a simple theory. Get kids "making music and playing and communicating," he says, and development will follow.

Simple, yes. But also controversial. A point that came to a head at a Davos session on bridging the digital divide, where Negroponte found himself in a heated row with Intel Chairman Craig Barrett. Intel has developed an inexpensive laptop of its own. And Negroponte has charged that Barrett, who also happens to be the United Nations' point man on this issue, "has to look at this as a market, and I look at this as a mission."

Now, in an interview with FP released today, Barrett is firing back:

[I]f you listen to Nick [Negroponte] and the constructionist approach to life, they take the attitude that most teachers in the emerging economies have a fourth- or sixth-grade education, that they’re only competent to lead students in song and dance. And if you give kids computers, they will set up their own communities, their own content; they’ll learn collectively. That is what drives Negroponte and the One Laptop per Child approach. That is not the unanimous position of educators around the world. It has not been the position of companies like Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco, who recognize that technology is just a tool....

Check it out.

JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty Images

One of the more interesting stories to come out of the Davos gnosh-fest this year was the charm offensive put on by Russia—and the fawning reception it met with from the world's business leaders. In years past, Putin's capos have avoided the cold mountain retreat, perhaps because the weather wasn't sufficiently different from that in Moscow.  This year, however, a high-powered delegation attended, headed by a man whose name you'll be hearing more and more from now on: Dmitri Medvedev.

By most accounts, the suave young first deputy prime minister and Gazprom chairman did a fine job of defending Russia's economic record. He pledged his country's support for democracy (albeit "without unnecessary supplemental definitions") and argued that the ex-superpower is behaving responsibly on the world stage. Medvedev's remarks were filled with characteristic Russian warmth; as he put it, "we are not trying to push anyone to love Russia, but we will not allow anyone to hurt Russia." The charismatic Medvedev seemed successful in deflecting media attention, at least for now, from the dominant story lines of growing authoritarianism in the country and its use of energy supplies as a diplomatic weapon.

Medvedev's appearance was interesting for another reason: Many have him pegged as Putin's likely successor in 2008. To see who his competition is, and what the stakes are for Russia and the world, take a look at this week's List. In a web exclusive for FP, Moscow-based journalist Julian Evans gives a run-down of the leading candidates.

On the Chinese calendar we are entering the Year of the Boar—which does not bode well for long conferences in general. But this year's Davos seemed flatter than usual, at least to most of the observers with whom I spoke. Perhaps it was the deliberate and publicized decision not to have as many movie stars. Perhaps it was the strong attendance from business leaders (900 CEOs, according to one senior forum executive with whom I spoke). Perhaps it was the fact that, at over three decades and with a finely-tuned formula designed to provide something for everyone, it is now very hard for the event to surprise. Or perhaps old hands just grow blasé at the familiar sight of Bill Gates, Tony Blair, and John McCain, or at former Iranian presidents debating with perennial American candidates like John Kerry (there's a debate certain to have no clear winner). Yes, of course, they're all here, think the inured. And no, I don't expect the politicians to tell the truth. And yes, I do expect CEOs to justify their amazingly high salaries and to blame performance problems on external factors.

Still, despite its rustic village setting, Davos is clearly not my great-grandmother's shtetl. Maybe Brangelina were not there, but Claudia Schiffer made a showing, as did the ubiquitous Bono. Most of the politicians present did not surprise, but 25 trade ministers grappling with how to save the Doha Round is no small affair. And the contrast between Brazil's Luiz Inácio da Silva ("Lula"), as he outlines a $250 billion spending plan, and Mexico's new president Felipe Calderón, who embodies the modern Latin American pro-business technocrat, offered a useful glimpse into the choices being weighed by the emerging nations of Latin America. Quirky exercises, like sessions in which a blind person led delegates around in a darkened room, were a fun diversion even if they opened the conference to the inevitable blind-leading-the-blind jokes. (more after the jump)

Last night, the party scene in Davos was at a fever pitch. Smallish rooms crowded with delgates doing the Davos Dip, that slight bend in the knee and downward tilt of the head designed to enable them to read your name badge and determine whether you are worth their time. After that, they move into the "over-the-shoulder bob," which involves periodically scanning the room over your shoulder to see who has walked in that might be more important.

From brief visits to the NASDAQ, Merrill Lynch and Canadian parties, I can report that the canapés were uninspiring, but the crowds and the talks were considerably great. You have to give the Davoisie credit. After listening to speeches all day (except for the real heavy hitters, who come only to deliver their addresses, and then spend the rest of the time in their suites at the Steigenberger Belvedere Hotel, meeting with other power-brokers one on one) they were willing to accept the notion that a party involved even more speeches, albeit with wine.

JUSTIN SULLIVAN/Getty Images

At the Merrill Lynch soirée, Merrill senior executives hobnobbed with the likes of Dell Computer founder Michael Dell, former U.S. presidential candidate Mark Warner, and a number of enterprising journalists who had discovered that the food was much better than at chez NASDAQ. (Whatever may be said about their nose for news, there is no denying the fourth estate's nose for free food.)

There were dozens of other parties in Davos last night, as there will be tonight, plus the Forum's various official theme dinners (including the inevitable Jazz Dinner, which is just too charming for words. Jazz hasn't been cool for fifty years. Even this crowd couldn't possibly be so old that jazz is what they crave after a day of grappling with the planet's biggest problems. Heavy metal and bowls full of OxyContin seem more appropriate.)

The Times caught Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi making a dubious distinction yesterday in Davos:

At the session, Mr. Mahdi dismissed the notion that his country is in a civil war, saying instead that it is facing “a war against civilians” that “targets the whole society.”

And here's the video clip:

Having spent another refreshing night in the flesh-eating bacteria wing of the Davos Dermatological and Allergy Clinic, I have arrived at the Congress Hall refreshed if a little bit worried about the first signs of a strange rash. (Not really. And I am sure the place has not been a clinic for months.  There are signs all over announcing that it is not only a hotel, but a Grand Hotel. I harbor a bit of a sense that were I to peel the signs away it would say "biohazard" underneath, but why tempt fate?)

Even more frightening, one of the themes that came up several times yesterday was nuclear terrorism. A very senior Wall Street banker with whom I spoke said the session he attended on the subject made him want to run screaming into the night. One panelist on that session was the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz, who had early in the day been on the terrorism panel I chaired. In both sessions, he displayed both articulate aplomb and a deft ability to sidestep any question that he felt was uncomfortable.

JOEL SAGET/AFP

"Everything is fine with Pakistan's nuclear facilities, everything is safe," he assured unconvinced observers. One such man, a former foreign minister who now heads a well-respected NGO, noted to me (in the men's room of the Congress Hall, where polite urinal chit-chat inevitably turns to WMD proliferation) that he emphatically disagreed, asserting that "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world." It's a refrain I have heard several times in the past few days, as the precariousness of the broader Middle East situation reminds observers that Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is only a coup away from falling into the hands of radical elements who might well be allied with al Qaeda. (more after the jump)

Panelist Scott Friedheim

A kind of popular uprising took place yesterday during the first set of sessions here in Davos around the Forum's theme of global power shifts. Working groups were to meet to discuss different drivers in the global power structure (geopolitics, technology, etc.) and then they were to gather in a plenary to share results and formulate final conclusions. The plenary was to be augmented by wireless polling technology to add a democratic flair to this forum of the world's elites. But as the tables in the plenary stood up to review the findings, several "insurgents" said that they rejected the conclusions being offered to them. Clearly, they said, the world's greatest power-shifting force is global warming.

This left some of the people that I spoke to somewhat baffled, because while all acknowledged the importance of the issue, none felt it would reshape global power any time soon. No matter. Perhaps the insurgents own considerable waterfront property, but whatever the reason for their revolt, they succeeded in placing global warming high atop the list of drivers of change. (more after the jump)

While the world's elite gather in Davos, the great unwashed masses have their own concurrent confab, the World Social Forum (WSF), wrapping up today in Nairobi. Dreamed up in 2001 as a lefty alternative to the capitalist plotting now going on in the Alps, the gathering's charter has a distinct Marxist tone.

TONY KARUMBA/AFP

The WSF drew more attention back when its participants would forcibly disrupt meetings of the WTO, World Bank, IMF, and other organizations deemed part of the vast neoliberal conspiracy. Now, the forum's participants seem mostly concerned with disrupting their own events. The highlight so far this year has been a march on Nairobi's vast slums to remind their residents that—well, evidently, that they should really hate President Bush.

More than 60,000 people have converged on Nairobi for the festivities; most represent NGOs, civil society groups, or churches. A sprinkling of Nobel laureates lend gravitas. The WSF has no agenda or formal schedule, so attendees are free to structure their time opposing the man in whatever way they see fit.