Forum organizers say city officials approached them several weeks ago, but the decision was not finalized until mid-October after discussions with members of the forum. “This is an important opportunity to demonstrate the resilience of our city,” says James Schiro, CEO of PricewaterhouseCoopers and head of the World Economic Forum’s business advisory group, of the site change. “It personifies the importance of New York.”
Critics say the move may put too much emphasis on the United States in the aftermath of the attacks, drawing attention away from other global issues, and they complain that the forum will put additional strain on the city’s already overworked police force. But New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani assures that the city is well prepared to handle the security requirements associated with hosting the more-than 2,000 dignitaries and business executives expected to attend the conference. “We’re very appreciative of this confidence in the city of New York,” he adds.
The decision to change the site for the meeting, which runs from Jan. 31 through Feb. 4, comes after weeks of wrangling with the Swiss government over the cost of security in Davos, Switzerland, the usual site of the forum. But forum president and founder Klaus Schwab says the move was not a matter of money, but a show of support and solidarity, and the meeting will return to Davos the following year. “We are paying tribute to this great city of New York,” says Schwab. “This is a contribution of Switzerland.”
NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Schwab about the unusual decision to move the forum, and the reasons behind it.
NEWSWEEK: When was the decision made to move the 2002 World Economic Forum to New York City?
Klaus Schwab: It grew up in our minds over several weeks but actually the decision to go ahead with this was made three weeks ago.
What kind of message do you think the decision to move the forum for the first time–and to move it to New York–sends to the world?
I think the message is that we have to stand up to terrorism. We should not be deterred by terrorists. Certainly today, when you travel, when you assemble–particularly if you are a powerful group–you are a target. But I think it’s important not to be deterred. And for New York, I think of what Mayor Giuliani says: “We are back in business and life should become normal again.” People should not consider having a meeting in New York as something that is special.
Did the growing security costs to host the forum in Switzerland play a part in the decision to move the site to New York?
After the 11th of September, security costs have gone up everywhere. It is evident that organizing such a meeting means we need to provide the necessary security for all the participants. But the cost mentioned [in press reports] of $5.9 million is misleading because in the Swiss system the canton [district], which is responsible for the security, and gets support from other cantons, has to pay the other cantons for the salary of their police. But the salary would have occurred anyway [though a different canton would have paid it]. The whole way of calculating those costs make sense in Switzerland but maybe not for an accountant.
What was the biggest factor behind the decision to move the forum to New York?
There is only one factor. That is that the program that was developed in late September was so much oriented towards the need to develop a kind of framework of thinking for the new world. It was so much centered around what has happened in New York that the idea came up to have it here, and we tested it with a number of people. Everyone felt it was a great idea, though usually people were stunned in the first moment because this was really an out-of-the-box idea. But after reflection, there was great support.
You were here on Sept 11.–how did it affect you personally?
I was here with my wife and son. I saw it from afar; I was in midtown. It was an experience of great sadness–sadness that human beings are capable of doing such a thing. For someone who experienced World War II directly and the atrocities–and then in the period after the war I was very active as a young person in the reconciliation efforts between France and Germany–I believed that such a thing would not occur again in this world. So there was shock and sadness, and out of that, there came a willingness to do something about it that led to a restructuring of the program and a decision to come here. When I got back, we at the World Economic Forum, revamped the program in such a way that it would be a response to the events of Sept. 11. When we were going through this process, the idea came up, why not have the meeting in New York, the place which would be the most appropriate to develop a kind of road map for the future. The world changed on the 11th of September, and we need to develop a new road map with new sign posts for the new world we are living in.
Were you considering alternative sites to Davos before Sept. 11?
We had some concrete alternatives but we felt that none of them matched our requirements, and really, in order to move out of Davos, we needed an extraordinary event. I think the tragedies, the attacks, of the 11th of September provided enough reason to consider New York–not only to consider it, but to feel that New York was the most appropriate site. We didn’t look at other sites before we decided on New York. We had other sites in mind because when you organize such a big conference, you always have to have alternatives just in case. There were a number of places that could match our criteria and where we know we have the support of the government.
In early October, forum organizers indicated that no alternate sites were being considered. What changed?
Let me clarify, we never considered actively any other site. But if you have the responsibility for such a meeting this large, you have to have contingency plans.
Why were invitations to the Davos forum sent out before the site was changed?
We are a members organization and we invite the members immediately after the annual meeting has taken place, so the letters went out in April or May, not recently. A few weeks ago, we reminded people that the event was coming up … but we just made this decision [to move the site] three weeks ago.
What kind of an impact did the events of Sept. 11 have on the agenda for the upcoming meeting?
I think all the issues related to security, related to the fight against terrorism, became top priorities. But, in addition, the issues we had dealt with in the past–bridging civil rights, eradicating poverty, encouraging a dialogue of cultures–all those issues became even more important in the new context.
What is your goal for the 2002 forum?
What we want to do is to create a visionary concept for the future. After the 11th of September, I think the American people, President George Bush and the coalition have acted fast to combat terrorism on a global level. But we need a long-term framework; we need a vision. My hope is that we’ll develop at least elements of such a vision through a collaborative process among all stakeholders in the forum. You could say in some way the fall of the [Berlin] Wall in 1989 created a new era. And now we have again a new era. There are new parameters for political decision-making and for business decision-making. We have to determine first what the parameters are and then decide what strategies we should develop.
You have said that you would welcome the contributions of nongovernmental organizations [NGOs] if they are “constructive.” How do you envision their role in the upcoming forum?
In the past, we always had relatively substantial participation from NGOs like Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, organizations that are constructive, that have shown in the past that they can provide another view on a certain issue. I think everyone would welcome NGOs who provide a different perspective. But it has to be done in the spirit of Davos, which is bridging, not trying to polarize, points of view.
Do you feel that the growing number of protesters at the World Economic Forum meetings have taken away from that process?
First, I would ask what they are protesting against because many issues they raise, like taking better care of the environment or looking more at continents like Africa, are all issues that are part of the program. Instead of protesting, I hope they would have more active involvement, engagement and contributions.
How have the roles of the participants in the World Economic Forum changed in the aftermath of the 11th?
If we speak of stakeholders of the World Economic Forum, we speak of governments and business and other organizations of civil society. In the ’80s, predominance was given to business, and politics and civil society were in the background. In the new world, politics is certainly again the determining factor and civil society is much more important than before–even independent of what happened on the 11th. If you look at it on a global level, I feel that somewhere in our mindset we were still attached to the very Old World view. Now there is a change of mindset. Take Russia. It has suddenly become a partner in the fight against terrorism. But it has also gone beyond that. People think now that Russia is a partner of the world community, not a power in the East; it is no longer a superpower, which we looked at still in terms of polarization. We will have now a realignment, not only in politics but in how we are thinking. People will feel that joining the fight against terrorism is a determining factor in whether you are in favor or whether you are against a human civilization. A human civilization is built on democracy and liberty and fundamental human values which we all should certainly be willing to fight for.
