“The president would have done better by not coming to Davos”

The 46th International Economic Forum started in Davos on January 20, with its theme being “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” The discussion, involving over 40 heads of state and government, will be centered on perspectives of innovative development, which, according to organizers, are linked to the most pressing world crises, from the influx of refugees to Europe to the economic downturn in China.

However, this time – and in contrast to Davos-2015 – the topic of Ukraine and Russian aggression is completely absent from the forum’s agenda. Let us recall that past year, Ukraine had a separate panel devoted to it, and President Petro Poroshenko gave a speech there entitled “The Future of Ukraine.” This time, the Ukrainian president is not a speaker at the forum, and according to his press service, Poroshenko will participate in two closed panels entitled “Imperatives for 2016” and “Fighting Hybrid Threats.” Furthermore, it will take place only on the third and last day of the forum.

It begs the question, then: what is the president of Ukraine going to bring to Davos this year, and what ideas can he offer the world except to talk about increasing financial assistance to Ukraine, like he said during past week’s press conference? This effectively means to ask IMF head Christine Lagarde, with whom he has a meeting scheduled, to disburse the third tranche promptly.

COMMENTARY

Vasyl FILIPCHUK, president of the International Center for Policy Studies (ICPS):

“It is not surprising at all that Poroshenko will spend his time at the forum in the shadows this year. One can tell people just once about one’s plans, promises and blame Vladimir Putin for everything. However, when coming to such a forum for the second or third time, one has to talk about things done, progress made in reforms, improvements of the business climate, and one’s own contributions to the world entering a new era. In addition, with regard to innovation and improvement of social standards, which will be the main topics in this forum, there is nothing we can say. To show passports of Russian soldiers or other evidence of Russian aggression once again is unlikely to prompt the international community’s response which could be expected before.

“It is obvious that in the absence of systemic reforms, changes in anti-corruption fight, and improving business climate, international voyages will only grow more awkward by the month. Considering that we are actually very closely monitored at the moment in terms of compliance with the Minsk Agreements and the coming vote on constitutional amendments, without solving this issue, while accusations rain that we have not complied with the agreed-on and clearly scheduled plan for constitutional change in Ukraine provided in the Minsk Agreements, it would be our side that would face endless questions in Davos about changes in the Constitution, and it would be certainly inappropriate for the president to offer any clear commitment that we would do it.

“I think that in this situation, the president would have done better by not coming to Davos. As for Natalie Jaresko’s long stay in Davos, I have no issue with it. She has a very positive international image and all questions she will be asked will be very narrowly specialized, if any at all.

“As for getting the third tranche of the IMF loan disbursed, it being the actual reason of the president and Jaresko’s stay in Davos, it depends on the situation with the adoption of the constitutional amendments. Although the IMF tranche is an economic issue by itself, we nonetheless know who decides on the allocation of tranches of this organization, as it is the US that plays the leading role there. Depending on that nation’s political will, we will get the tranche disbursed or not. I think that this will not be an issue, since it is clear to everyone what risks any delay of this tranche entails, because in that case, the coming payment of 500 million dollars, to be made on March 1, will be impossible for us to make given the current economic situation of our country.”