Finding Common Ground in a Fragmented World
Global challenges require global solutions. That sounds clear and understandable. Yet in practice, it is often extremely difficult to meet, exchange views, and develop common approaches – not only at the institutional level, but also as humans, as citizens of the world, regardless of political systems, forms of government, democratic or authoritarian structures, or the size and power of a country. Open dialogue between people is always easier. Direct conversation can bring us closer to one another. Instead of focusing first on rivalries, differences, and divisions, we can begin by searching for a common basis: mutual understanding and what connects us.
In my view, this is also the deeper mission of the Global Solutions Summit. Its 10th edition took place in Berlin on 1–2 June 2026 under the theme “Finding Common Ground in a Fractured World.” Around 300 thinkers and leaders from politics, business, civil society, philanthropy, and academia came together for frank, informal, and solution-oriented dialogue at a time when global cooperation is under increasing pressure. Among the central topics were artificial intelligence, AI regulation, cognitive autonomy, and the increasingly disruptive role of technology across almost every part of public and economic life.
For me, as an international economic advisor and professional observer of geopolitical developments, the summit’s theme was more than just a conference headline. It described precisely the environment in which governments, businesses, and societies now have to operate. The world is not facing a single crisis, but a combination of interconnected structural challenges: geopolitical fragmentation, technological disruption, fiscal constraints, climate pressure, social polarization, and weakening trust in international cooperation. This is what makes the Global Solutions Summit valuable. It is not only a place to discuss global problems, but also a forum to test workable ideas, exchange perspectives, and identify areas where cooperation remains possible.
Artificial Intelligence and the Sovereignty of the Mind
Two sessions were particularly relevant to me. The first focused on artificial intelligence and the sovereignty of the mind. Artificial intelligence naturally occupied a prominent place in today’s world but this discussion approached AI from a different angle. It did not look only at productivity or competitiveness, even regulation. Instead, it examined AI through a psychological and democratic lens: how artificial intelligence affects the autonomy of the individual mind. The panel, moderated by Ronald Ivey, CEO of Noēsis Collaborative, featured Franziska Heine, Executive Director of Wikimedia Deutschland, and Stefano Quintarelli, Senior Advisor at the Centre for European Policy Studies and Copernicani.
The discussion addressed one of the most sensitive questions of the AI era: how can we protect human cognitive autonomy when generative AI increasingly becomes the interface through which people access knowledge, information, and even civic life? In this context, risks are more persuasive and increasingly anthropomorphic, and “sovereignty of the mind” can be understood as the right to remain free from industrial-scale manipulation that commodifies human cognition in order to influence beliefs and behavior.
A key concern is the growing capacity of AI systems to influence attention, emotion, and belief formation. As chatbots and AI assistants become more human-like in their interactions, they can create new forms of dependency, familiarity, and trust. These relationships may go far beyond the usual interaction between a person and a technical tool. This development reminded me of the 2013 film Her, starring Joaquin Phoenix. The movie describes, with striking precision, the emergence of emotional dependency between a human being and a personalized AI system. Its fictional plot once seemed far away in the future or just fictional, but today it feels close to our everyday reality.
Why Cognitive Autonomy Matters in the AI Age
The issue, therefore, is not only technological or economic, but also psychological, political, and democratic. AI systems are becoming more persuasive, personalized, and anthropomorphic. They can create a sense of familiarity and trust, influence attention and belief formation, shape behavior, and exploit emotional vulnerabilities. Protecting cognitive autonomy requires transparency, accountability, and enforceable rules. That is why regulation of these systems is indispensable. Voluntary commitments by technology providers are not sufficient.
At the same time, regulation alone is not enough. We also need alternatives to closed systems. Franziska Heine stressed that Europe should promote open models wherever possible. Open knowledge infrastructures, transparent technologies, and open models can strengthen democratic oversight, technological literacy, and public trust. They can also reduce dependence on a small number of closed commercial platforms. This issue is highly relevant in the B2B context as well. Companies adopting AI tools should consider not only efficiency gains and cost reduction. Businesses also need to understand the psychological and social effects of anthropomorphic chatbot services. Responsible practice should reduce manipulative design and avoid creating unnecessary emotional dependency between users and AI systems.
The panel also highlighted the importance of learning from regulatory and technological developments beyond Europe. Countries such as China, Brazil, and India are part of the global debate on AI governance and digital sovereignty. For Europe, engaging with these perspectives is important in order to understand different policy models and avoid a narrow, purely Western view of the AI challenge, as Mr. Quintarelli emphasized. Education remains a central part of resilience and sovereignty of the mind. Societies need critical thinking and digital literacy. In the AI age, people should not only learn how to use new tools; they should also learn how to question them. “We should teach children curiosity,” Mr. Quintarelli stressed with particular urgency as a closing point of the discussion.
Rethinking Development Cooperation Beyond Traditional Aid
The second outstanding discussion focused on a new approach to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. It reflected a shift that I consider highly important, especially in the context of countries often described as developing economies, including many African states. The session raised a fundamental question: how can the international community move beyond a traditional, sometimes paternalistic understanding of “aid” and toward a more comprehensive, equal, and development-oriented partnership?
This issue was of special interest to me in light of my recent trip to Namibia, a country in Southern Africa that was once a German colony before the First World War. It is also central to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Adopted by the United Nations in 2015, the SDGs form a universal agenda to end poverty, tackle climate change, and promote peace and prosperity for people and the planet by 2030. In the meantime, however, the financing assumptions behind the 2030 Agenda have changed significantly. Many governments in Western industrialized donor countries are facing debt pressure, limited fiscal space, and a more fragmented geopolitical environment. At the same time, traditional development assistance to countries of the Global South is under strain. A credible approach beyond classical aid must therefore focus more strongly on nationally anchored strategies, investment-led growth, and local value creation. Development cannot be reduced to externally designed projects. It must be connected to long-term economic perspectives in the countries concerned.
From Aid to Investment, Value Creation, and Economic Sovereignty
The discussion on the Global South, its awakening, its needs, and its challenges was therefore highly relevant. It also pointed toward a new understanding of development cooperation. In this context, I particularly appreciated the contribution of Professor Xiuli Xu, Dean of the College of International Development and Global Agriculture at China Agricultural University. Professor Xu presented key theses from current research by her team, offering innovative perspectives on collective self-reliance, especially in relation to African states. New development approaches are valuable only if they are connected to realities on the ground and lead to real value creation. The shift from aid to development must therefore be more than a change in terminology. It must become a practical strategy for economic sovereignty and sustainable growth.
Taken together, the Global Solutions Summit 2026 showed that global cooperation is becoming more complex, but also more necessary. The major challenges of our time – from artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure to sustainable development – cannot be addressed in isolation. They require trust, regulation, investment and continuous international dialogue.
My main conclusion from the summit is this: in a fractured world, common ground will not emerge automatically. This is even more true if the international order continues to divide into hostile, or at least increasingly separated, blocs. Common ground has to be built – through direct encounters, open dialogue, and forums such as the Global Solutions Summit, but also through responsible governance, practical cooperation, and a clear commitment to human autonomy.
Picture: Following the first Summit day, Evening Reception at the British Embassy Berlin.
