The World Economic Forum (WEF) convenes its annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland, for an estimated 2,500 mighty and powerful VIPs from industry, government and media circles.
Organisers expect to welcome two dozen heads of state or government, over a hundred cabinet ministers, several hundred chief executives and countless media acolytes who struggle for the privilege of sharing a platform or just to ask a question or two.
While erudite men and women - representing elites from no less than 88 countries - congregate in the picturesque Swiss alpine village for "serious" discussions, is Davos relevant? What do Gulf attendees gain by hobnobbing with prejudiced officials?
At the outset, it is critical to note that the world's rich and powerful, mean well. They desire to right the world's wrongs even if year after year poverty expands everywhere.
Nevertheless, and beyond the opportunity to relax on the slopes, most attendees do so primarily to network. Not surprisingly, politics and economics remain favourite topics, although urgent environmental and health concerns were discussed in the past.
This year, leading bankers will seek to discover how to avert a serious global recession, even if one may be inevitable. Yet, for all the good intentions one can think of, what is the importance of Tony Blair, now of J. P. Morgan, chatting with K. V. Kamath, CEO of India's ICICI Bank?
Or of Henry Kissinger, chairman of Kissinger Associates, sharing a meal with Wang Jianzhou, CEO of China Mobile Communications Corporation? Can these men make any difference in the lives of ordinary folks?
Year after year, the likes of Bill Gates show up at Davos, as does Bono, Rupert Murdoch, and successive American Secretaries of State to promote ideas or various plans. This year, it will be Condoleezza Rice who will speak, but one wonders what can be said in Switzerland that was not already uttered elsewhere?
Observers of Davos will recall that Arab elites fared well at past conferences even if their pronouncements were routinely dismissed.
As in previous editions, Gulf leaders will be well represented in 2008, perhaps reflecting a small shift in the balance of world economic power, although no Western capitalist will take his Arab counterpart seriously.
To be sure, Western bankers will try to ingratiate themselves with the Kuwaiti Investment Authority's Bader Al Saad, for example, but they all know that Al Saad's $3 trillion disposable portfolio is a third of what the Citigroup lost in a single day last week.
Simply stated, Gulf economies are too small to matter in the larger scheme, save for well-publicised bailouts that will never be fully appreciated.
Nevertheless, because of current stock-market meltdowns, investment bankers will go out of their ways to bump into potentially munificent Qatari or Emirati sovereign fund managers to coral a few billion dollars.
Lest the reader conclude that I am being excessively critical - just being realistic - I assure you that attitudes will be similar on key geopolitical discussions.
Secretary Rice and Tony Blair, the "Quartet" representative when he is not promoting J. P. Morgan's interests, will probably concentrate on the bloodshed in Palestine. Neither will have the courage nor the moral conviction to admonish unacceptable Israeli behaviour, preferring to look for elusive solutions in the clean air of the Alps.
WEF organisers are free to believe that groundbreaking moves could come out of such gatherings, but their slogan -"Committed to Improving the State of the World" - is just that: a slogan.
For in the end, participants gather to have a good time, knowing that real concessions and accords are never made or reached in public.
Actors like Sharon Stone, Brad Pitt, Richard Gere or Bono, who frequently go to Davos, have little or no influence on serious economic questions, wishful intentions notwithstanding.
Interludes
Still, mighty CEOs are human too, and they like to be surrounded by celebrities as pleasant interludes to what otherwise passes for "solemn" deliberations.
To its credit, the WEF, in collaboration with Georgetown University, prepared a momentous report on the state of dialogue between Islam and the West for discussion by its 2008 delegates.
While the account concluded that the perception of both societies of each other was bad and getting worse, which part of this is new to the World's elites, and were most attendees ready to put prejudices aside?
In 2008, there is a widespread conviction that violent conflicts between these two poles can be avoided, although everyone is pessimistic.
Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, "believes that, like all other global challenges, it will take the collaborative effort of all stakeholders from government, business, religion, media, academia and civil society to pre-empt any crisis, create alliances and find solutions," to mitigate a Western clash with the Muslim World.
Who can disagree with this? As several polls confirm, a majority of Muslims respect the West, while a majority of Westerners do not share similar sentiments.
Given this gap, and rather than engage in yet another futile conversation among isolated elites, shouldn't the WEF enhance its relevance by extending invitations to those who count more on the ground?
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is a commentator and author of several books on Gulf affairs.
