Davos 2026: Crisis in Global Order amid Competing Visions of
Peace and Power
The Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum 2026, held in Davos from 19 to 23 January,
convened under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue” at a time marked by
intensifying geopolitical disorder. The formal agenda—fostering cooperation in
a divided world, unlocking new economic growth, investing in people,
responsible technological innovation, and sustainable development within
planetary boundaries—reflected an aspiration to restore confidence in
multilateral engagement. Yet the deliberations unfolded against a background of
geo-economic uncertainty, escalating trade and technology rivalries, cultural
and political polarization, and mounting climate anxiety. Rather than
reaffirming a coherent liberal order, Davos 2026 exposed its fragility. As
emphasized by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the contemporary
world order is in a state of rupture. Persistent geopolitical rivalries,
economic fragmentation, and declining trust in existing institutions to deliver
stability have shifted the international environment from consensus-based
globalization toward strategic competition. Cooperative frameworks that once
underpinned global integration are increasingly supplanted by rival industrial
policies, supply chain securitization, and assertions of strategic autonomy.
The meeting further highlighted the fraying transatlantic relationship,
particularly in light of tensions triggered by U.S. plans regarding Greenland
and renewed tariff threats against several European allies, including the
United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and
Finland. Simultaneously, Davos underscored the growing role of middle powers.
Carney’s intervention framed middle powers as potential stabilizers capable of
pragmatic diplomacy, coalition-building, and rules-based engagement in an era
of institutional paralysis. Another notable development was the open framing of
critical mineral cooperation as a matter of economic realism. Access to
critical minerals was treated not merely as a sustainability concern but as a
strategic imperative central to energy transitions, technological competitiveness,
and national security.
Two flagship reports of the WEF reinforced
this diagnosis of systemic strain of the global world order. The WEF’s Global Risks Report 2026 identified
geo-economic confrontation as the foremost global risk, signaling a world
increasingly prone to conflict and fragmentation. Meanwhile, the third edition
of the Global Cooperation Barometer, published since 2024, revealed a consistent decline in the pillar
related to peace and security. Together, these reports indicate that
cooperation is eroding precisely in domains where collective action is most
necessary. The intellectual architecture of Davos—long associated with
multilateral dialogue—thus coexisted with a growing normalization of skepticism
toward global institutions. This tension was dramatically illustrated by the
launch of U.S. President Donald
Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace” on the Davos
platform. Previously critical of the United Nations as ineffective and
overly bureaucratic, Trump’s initiative signaled a departure from strengthening
established multilateral peace and security frameworks in favor of a
leader-driven mechanism. Although linked in limited fashion to a UN Security
Council resolution concerning a Gaza ceasefire plan, the Board lacks
independent legal standing and broad-based democratic accountability. Its
structure—featuring a “Chairman for Life,” veto authority over membership and
agenda-setting, and a “pay-to-play” model requiring substantial financial
contributions for permanent membership—resembles a corporate boardroom more
than a diplomatic assembly. Legitimacy, in this conception, is not derived from
multilateral consent or adherence to international law, but from participation
incentivized by strategic calculation and alignment with U.S. power.
