As taoiseach and as tanaiste I really enjoyed Davos. Most annual events you attend are much the same every year and feel formulaic once you have done them a few times. Davos is different. It’s held in January when thoughts are firmly focused on the year ahead. It’s hard to get to, high in the Swiss Alps, which means people stay overnight in a limited number of hotels and not just for a few hours.
Except for the really big fish, your entourage is limited to two or three other people, meaning it is more intimate. There are those “only in Davos” moments when you bump into people you’ve been trying to set up a meeting with for months — in the corridor or at one of the after-dinner night caps — or exchange ideas with people you might never have met otherwise. It is attended by key political and business leaders, celebrities and activists. It was the first place I ever heard anyone discussing the regulation of AI, how drones would transform warfare or modular nuclear as a new form of green and affordable energy. Geopolitics is always on top of the agenda.
It is elitist, for sure, but is not a world government or anything of the sort. If it were, I’d have stayed for the whole thing. I always arrived late as I did not want to miss the first leader’s questions after the Christmas break and was keen to be back in the constituency on Friday. No decisions are made in Davos. In some ways that’s the point. Without a compromise resolution or communique to negotiate, people are free to say what they really want to.
President Trump also likes Davos. He attended when we were both in our first terms. He took time to zoom in last year shortly after his inauguration. This year he attended with the biggest US delegation yet, including Marco Rubio and Susie Wiles, his chief of staff. She travels with him only for the really important stuff.
The US is pulling out of dozens of international organisations including the World Health Organisation. It is deepening its engagement with the World Economic Forum. Trump even used the event to launch his Board of Peace for Gaza instead of doing so at the UN, which endorsed it.
It’s funny that so many of Trump’s admirers see Davos and the World Economic Forum as the centre of a globalist conspiracy to push economic and social liberalism on the world and him as the man leading the charge against it. I guess when you are a conspiracy theorist, it’s not that hard to join the dots to draw whatever picture is already in your head.
Trump’s double climbdown on invading Greenland and using tariffs to coerce European states that oppose his ambitions was remarkable. It’s hard to know what was behind it. I’d like to believe the fact that a critical number of European leaders took off their knee pads and stood up to him for the first time was the catalyst. But I am really not sure. I also don’t think the issue has gone away. When Trump spoke about territorial expansion in his inauguration speech, he meant it.
• Trump’s Davos speech: eight bizarre moments you may have missed
For years Europe has talked about strategic autonomy — being less dependent on other parts of the world for our security and prosperity — and about “derisking but not decoupling” from China.
I still hope that the Atlantic alliance will survive and that America will rediscover the values we once (imperfectly) shared — democracy, the rule of law and equality before it, freedom of speech and expression, individual liberty, free trade and free enterprise — but I would not count on it. We’d be wise to de-risk our relationship with America as well. For Europe, it means being capable of our own defence, becoming more competitive economically, and doubling down on our economic and political relationships with other democracies, such as Canada, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and the countries of Latin America. Or as Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, put it, a coming together of the middle powers.
This presents real challenges for Ireland, not least when it comes to our responsibility to defend Europe’s western skies and seas.
Economically, for decades we have enjoyed a sweet spot between Europe and America, home to the European headquarters of so many US firms. We have been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the post-Cold War order founded on globalisation. American firms account for almost 15 per cent of all employment here, direct and indirect, and up to a third of all the revenue the government raises. Without them we would be living in a very different country.
It’s a challenge but not a catastrophe, any more than US tariffs on our exports have proven to be. They’ve largely been absorbed by companies or passed on to US consumers. We are fortunate that many of the US-owned plants in Ireland cost billions to build and it took years to recruit and train their staff. These include pharma and medical device plants and chip manufacturers. The demand for the products they produce will only increase and there will always be a market for them somewhere.
We might see fewer new plants being built but I don’t see many closing, no matter what the geopolitical situation is. Those that do, will find a buyer. Other industries such as food and drink, aviation and financial services are also well placed to weather a rupture with America and diversify into new markets.
Tech is different. It is much more footloose and can relocate or scale back more easily. Many of these companies have allied themselves with Maga and are fighting back aggressively against European laws and regulations, many of which will be enforced by Ireland.
When it comes to X, there is an obvious solution. The US decided that it could no longer tolerate TikTok being in Chinese ownership so TikTok in the US is now a different company and it’s 80 per cent American-owned. The White House brokered the deal. The social media site’s algorithms were alleged to have been feeding anti-American political content and misinformation to young minds, in particular. Also, it was alleged to be associated with the Chinese Communist Party amid fears of election interference.
• Who’s who in Trump’s tech bro club
With X, the case is even more clear-cut. It amplifies content that is illiberal and hostile to the EU. Such amplification is the antithesis to free speech in my view. Contrarian views, even majority opinion, are simply shouted down or diminished. Its owner has expressed a wish that the EU be abolished, has actively interfered in elections in Germany and addressed far-right political rallies in London, telling people that violence was their only option. I won’t even go into the nudification of images of people, including children.
Perhaps we should take a leaf from Trump and insist that an X Europe be created that would be majority-owned by Europeans. Like ByteDance when it comes to TikTok US, Musk could retain a 20 per cent stake if he wanted. It would send a clear message to the US that we can play hardball too and to the other tech companies about what might happen to them if they are unwilling to obey our laws and stay out of our politics.