Quote:
Originally Posted by Bownesian
The G20 has to be held in a major resort area (think Cancun) or in the middle of a big city because the press/personal security/political delegations number upward of 20,000; you need a lot of hotel rooms for that many people. That's why the G20 was moved from Muskoka to Toronto and why it can't be held most army bases.
If it was moved to the UN Headquarters in New York the US would bear all the costs for security every year, which isn't fair either.
Rest assured that part of the projected 1 Billion dollar cost is earmarked to reimburse property damage (despite officials claiming otherwise). The government would not admit to such a fund because it would encourage property destruction.
Nobody asks Sweden's opinion on a bank tax or asks New Zealand what developed nations should be doing to help the third world, much less leading such a discussion, as Canada is doing now. Hosting this kind of event periodically is the cost of being a world player and one good thing about this is that we won't be due to host one of these for a good while.
|
This is a problem 20,000 people never have any reason to get together for a meeting. That is 1000 people per country. Low key meetings of a few hundred people could be held continuously until agreements are reached then fly everyone to the UN for the photo Ops and signings.
The original G5's, 6's and 7's weren't massive policy debates. They were discussions with relatively like minded finance ministers who held similar views on the economic future of the world (NO COMMUNISM) Now that interests are so divergent both politically and economically they have just created a slightly smaller dysfunctional body as the UN. We don't need a mini UN roving from country to country enabling protesters.
These meetings could be done silently without the heads of state present for far less and be far more effective. There is a reason why the UN headquarters is in one city and doesn't rove around from country to country like the olympics.