The invitation was sent. And then, two weeks later, revoked.
The World Economic Forum, which on Wednesday begins its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, brings together political and business leaders to discuss the world's most pressing problems. In years past, Vladimir V. Putin has attended. So has Bill Gates. This year, Vice President Joseph R Biden Jr. will attend.
And so it wasn't a complete surprise to see that the foreign minister of North Korea, Ri Su-Yong, had accepted an invitation to attend the meeting in the Swiss Alps.
But in early January, after North Korea's fourth nuclear test, which was broadly condemned, the World Economic Forum revoked Ri's invitation. North Korea said the forum had "unilaterally cancelled the participation" of its delegation "based on unjust political motivation, which clearly runs counter to the nature and position of WEF as an international forum for discussion of economic issues."
The World Economic Forum, through one of its board members, Philipp Rösler, explained its decision. "We decided after the nuclear test that at the moment there would be no opportunity for an international, global dialogue in the spirit of the World Economic Forum," he said.
But why? If the World Economic Forum isn't an opportunity to have an "international, global dialogue" about North Korea's nuclear ambitions, especially with its foreign minister in attendance, then what's the point? After all, the forum's stated purpose is to "improve the state of the world."
Even though Davos has sometimes been criticised as a boondoggle for the business elite, it has often been the stage for meaningful debate and compromise among policy makers. In 1994, for instance, the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, and the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, entered the stage holding hands. Six years before, in 1988, Greece and Turkey signed a no-war agreement called the "Davos Declaration."
At the same time, however, it seems as if much of the conversations in Davos are a form of sanitised debate. "To attract all these famous politicians, billionaires and celebrities," Bill Emmott, former editor of The Economist, once wrote, "they have made the event safe." "I don't mean safe from terrorism, though I hope that is true," he added. "I mean safe from surprises and controversy. Things are arranged to avoid argument, confrontation, provocation."
Two years ago, the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, who had flown to Davos and was scheduled to speak on a Friday afternoon, was disinvited from the conference after several protesters were shot in Kiev. He stayed in his hotel room, and criticised the snub in an interview with The Financial Times.
"The forum had a unique opportunity to listen to the head of government of Ukraine, to get a wider point of view - it's hard to tell who lost more in this affair," Azarov said in the interview.
For several years at Davos, WikiLeaks dominated talk among policy experts and business leaders. Was Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, ever asked to address the forum? No. Edward J Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked millions of documents about electronic surveillance by the United States government, has taken part in several events by video from Russia, where he is exiled. But he has never been invited, either.
Of course, the forum has to be vigilant in creating its guest list and programming, as it does not want to become a weeklong stage for world leaders to blast each other or promote dangerous ideas.
But some critics have long said that the conference is too carefully curated.
"The World Economic Forum is an intensely orchestrated event with nothing left to chance," Frank Vogl wrote in the Global Policy Forum in 2001. "Every topic for discussion is carefully considered and researched, every participant is thoroughly prescreened and every moment of every day is micromanaged. The Forum is programmed to tick like the best Swiss watch."
Certain subjects have been avoided. Until last year, for example, discussions that focused on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people were not on the agenda, in part, because certain delegations from the Middle East and Eastern Europe objected to the topic.
As for North Korea, the situation was perhaps untenable. The country's participation at Davos would have made it difficult for someone like Biden and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain to attend without being criticised.
Choe Myong-nam, deputy ambassador at North Korea's diplomatic mission in Geneva, said, "the decision by WEF is based on political motivation because the organiser has suddenly decided to cancel, taking sides with the belligerent United States and its allies that are pursuing hostile policies against" the country. "We are 100 percent sure there is pressure and even blackmail."
Ultimately, blaming the World Economic Forum itself for the lack of debate may be misplaced. It is the international community's responsibility to try to communicate with each other - especially those with divergent views. "The international community currently will not be the other party to any dialogue" with North Korea, said Adrian Monck, the forum's head of public engagement and foundations.
North Korea, of course, is just one challenge in a world that has become increasingly complex and dangerous. In today's environment, with escalating terrorist attacks and heightened economic and political instability, it is perhaps unfair to look to Davos as some sort of panacea for the world's problems. A conference of disparate voices works only if all parties attend. But in an increasingly divisive world, it may be harder to get them all in the same room.
The World Economic Forum, which on Wednesday begins its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, brings together political and business leaders to discuss the world's most pressing problems. In years past, Vladimir V. Putin has attended. So has Bill Gates. This year, Vice President Joseph R Biden Jr. will attend.
And so it wasn't a complete surprise to see that the foreign minister of North Korea, Ri Su-Yong, had accepted an invitation to attend the meeting in the Swiss Alps.
But in early January, after North Korea's fourth nuclear test, which was broadly condemned, the World Economic Forum revoked Ri's invitation. North Korea said the forum had "unilaterally cancelled the participation" of its delegation "based on unjust political motivation, which clearly runs counter to the nature and position of WEF as an international forum for discussion of economic issues."
The World Economic Forum, through one of its board members, Philipp Rösler, explained its decision. "We decided after the nuclear test that at the moment there would be no opportunity for an international, global dialogue in the spirit of the World Economic Forum," he said.
But why? If the World Economic Forum isn't an opportunity to have an "international, global dialogue" about North Korea's nuclear ambitions, especially with its foreign minister in attendance, then what's the point? After all, the forum's stated purpose is to "improve the state of the world."
Even though Davos has sometimes been criticised as a boondoggle for the business elite, it has often been the stage for meaningful debate and compromise among policy makers. In 1994, for instance, the Palestinian leader, Yasir Arafat, and the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, entered the stage holding hands. Six years before, in 1988, Greece and Turkey signed a no-war agreement called the "Davos Declaration."
At the same time, however, it seems as if much of the conversations in Davos are a form of sanitised debate. "To attract all these famous politicians, billionaires and celebrities," Bill Emmott, former editor of The Economist, once wrote, "they have made the event safe." "I don't mean safe from terrorism, though I hope that is true," he added. "I mean safe from surprises and controversy. Things are arranged to avoid argument, confrontation, provocation."
Two years ago, the Ukrainian Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, who had flown to Davos and was scheduled to speak on a Friday afternoon, was disinvited from the conference after several protesters were shot in Kiev. He stayed in his hotel room, and criticised the snub in an interview with The Financial Times.
"The forum had a unique opportunity to listen to the head of government of Ukraine, to get a wider point of view - it's hard to tell who lost more in this affair," Azarov said in the interview.
For several years at Davos, WikiLeaks dominated talk among policy experts and business leaders. Was Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, ever asked to address the forum? No. Edward J Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked millions of documents about electronic surveillance by the United States government, has taken part in several events by video from Russia, where he is exiled. But he has never been invited, either.
Of course, the forum has to be vigilant in creating its guest list and programming, as it does not want to become a weeklong stage for world leaders to blast each other or promote dangerous ideas.
But some critics have long said that the conference is too carefully curated.
"The World Economic Forum is an intensely orchestrated event with nothing left to chance," Frank Vogl wrote in the Global Policy Forum in 2001. "Every topic for discussion is carefully considered and researched, every participant is thoroughly prescreened and every moment of every day is micromanaged. The Forum is programmed to tick like the best Swiss watch."
Certain subjects have been avoided. Until last year, for example, discussions that focused on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people were not on the agenda, in part, because certain delegations from the Middle East and Eastern Europe objected to the topic.
As for North Korea, the situation was perhaps untenable. The country's participation at Davos would have made it difficult for someone like Biden and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain to attend without being criticised.
Choe Myong-nam, deputy ambassador at North Korea's diplomatic mission in Geneva, said, "the decision by WEF is based on political motivation because the organiser has suddenly decided to cancel, taking sides with the belligerent United States and its allies that are pursuing hostile policies against" the country. "We are 100 percent sure there is pressure and even blackmail."
Ultimately, blaming the World Economic Forum itself for the lack of debate may be misplaced. It is the international community's responsibility to try to communicate with each other - especially those with divergent views. "The international community currently will not be the other party to any dialogue" with North Korea, said Adrian Monck, the forum's head of public engagement and foundations.
North Korea, of course, is just one challenge in a world that has become increasingly complex and dangerous. In today's environment, with escalating terrorist attacks and heightened economic and political instability, it is perhaps unfair to look to Davos as some sort of panacea for the world's problems. A conference of disparate voices works only if all parties attend. But in an increasingly divisive world, it may be harder to get them all in the same room.
©2016 The New York Times News Service