Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Being a moderator on a conference panel is a thankless task. By implication, you're the least important person on the dais (otherwise you'd be on the panel rather than moerating it). If you're good and you're lucky, no one notices you. For every other scenario, however, you get noticed for bad reasons.

Reading this New York Times account by Katrin Bennhold, I feel some small measure of sympathy for Washington Post columnist David Ignatius:

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on Thursday, and vowed never to return to the annual gathering.

Mr. Erdogan apparently became incensed after he was prevented by the moderator from responding to remarks by Mr. Peres on the recent Israeli attack. The panel was running late and Mr. Peres was to have had the last word, participants said....

In a news conference immediately following the panel discussion, Mr. Erdogan said that he was particularly upset with Mr. Ignatius, who he said had failed to direct a balanced and impartial panel.

By all accounts, the discussion of the Gaza incursion was a lively one, with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, joining Mr. Peres and Mr. Erdogan. For the most part, participants said, Mr. Peres was alone in defending the Israeli role in Gaza, which is why he was given the final 25 minutes to speak. Earlier, Mr. Erdogan had spoken for 12 minutes about the sufferings of the Palestinians.

In an ideal world, as a moderator you always want each panelist to have two minutes apiece for closing remarks. In that same ideal world, politicians are capable of limiting their remarks to 120 seconds. In the real world, Ignatius was between a rock and a hard place.

Posted By Daniel W. Drezner

Davos -- a.k.a., the World Economic Forum -- is upon us, and there are conflicting reports about the overall attendance at the conference.  There is a general consensus, however, that politicians will be overshadowing businessmen at this year's conclave. 

This is all to the good.  World trade is shrinking for the first time since the early eighties.  Perhaps getting the best political telent on the planet together in Switzerland will shake the policy gridlock loose. 

Consider, for example, New York governor David Paterson.  Fresh from his meticuluous, classy, and error-free selection of Hillary Clinton's replacement for the Senate, Paterson is headed for Davos.  Here are his deep thoughts on why he is going

[The] question involved Mr. Paterson’s trip to Davos, Switzerland, which his office announced on Saturday. Much of the five-day forum will focus on how countries and central banks can address the global downturn, and Mr. Paterson said the United States stood to gain by lending money to other countries.

“There’s an immense opportunity if we use some of those resources to try and make loans available to other countries,” he said. “It would give us bigger resources for the taxpayers.”

“There’s a desire to have leaders from around the country be in Davos to talk about the interests of a lot of countries right now whose exports are limited,” he said, before leaving the hotel.

A contest for readers:  convert Paterson's answer into coherent prose.  Bonus points if you can convert it into prose that justifies Paterson's trip.

UPDATE:  Apparently Paterson couldn't convert this answer into plain English either -- he's changed his mind about going to Davos

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More