The second issue, and one that’s not receiving nearly as much attention (but to my mind is equally important), is the state of U.S. -China relations.

It was widely anticipated that Google’s recent threat to pull out of China over cyber attacks and aggressive Chinese censorship would take center stage this year. This is especially true given what many consider to be China’s pronounced swagger at the recent conference on global warming in Copenhagen.

In fact, the Google issue, which by any estimate is an enormously important topic, has barely surfaced in a formal WEF setting. Various reports say that the Chinese insisted to WEF officials that they would not discuss Google at Davos.

As of now, it appears that the chest-thumping has succeeded in tamping down the issue almost entirely. There was apparently no mention of Google at several forums where it would be an obvious topic. Panelists of “Rise of Asia” and “Redesigning the Global Dimensions of China’s Growth” said nothing about Google. Even Eric Schmidt, Google’s chairman and CEO, has tread lightly (and politely) on the subject.

“We like what China is doing in terms of growth,” Schmidt said during a WEF press conference on Friday. “We just don’t like censorship. We hope that will change and we can apply some pressure to make things better for the Chinese people.”

One would think that the man who, as his own bio proclaims, invented the World Wide Web, might have strong feelings about China’s censorship. I caught up with Tim Berners-Lee during a break in the proceedings. Berners-Lee expressed regret “that China jailed a blogger and that it is still censoring the Internet,” and said that he “hopes that China realizes that openness is necessary. And that they become progressively more open before big pressure for change builds.”

Yet when asked about Google and whether it should remain in China, Berners-Lee said, “I can’t comment on that.” He then turned on his heels and departed.

It’s easy to interpret the official silence on Google as a symbol of China’s growing power. But, according to some long-time Davos Men, it says more about the culture of Davos itself than it does about any desire to appease the Chinese. It is, by WEF standards, better to avoid flash points than to alienate any shareholders in a growing global community. Even issues that should be considered sacrosanct, including freedom of speech, are taken off the table for the sake of a healthy dialogue. Following an edict of Winston Churchill, Davos believes that it’s “better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.”

But the bedrock issues remain: will China’s growing prosperity move it toward a more democratized society, or simply bolster its power to repress free speech?