Papering over the cracks or a 'violent agreement'?
Toronto
Toronto doesn't quite know what hit it over the weekend. This city prides itself on its diversity and laid-back charm. Tear gas, baton rounds and burning police cars are always upsetting if they happen in your city, but Toronto's natives were particularly hurt and angry that it happened here. It followed hard on the heels of an earthquake, another freakishly alien event for locals. Was Toronto's pain worth it for the world?
The seismic activity can't be blamed on the twin peaks of this summit, the G8 and G20, but the attempt at riot was a direct reaction to the presence of all these world leaders.
Not all of Canada is happy with the bill - $1.1bn (£732m) it cost, to talk about the need for greater austerity. This includes $57,000 for a fake lake in the media centre. The G8 meeting was held in a lakeside resort some 100 miles north of Toronto, so to bring some spirit of place inside this vast aircraft hanger of an exhibition centre, they've build a deck flanked by racks of canoes, with spacious wooden chairs, overlooking a cinema-sized screen playing scenes of boating or tracking shots across forests and lakes. Huge speakers twitter bird song which unfortunately competes with the coarse shrieks and roars of "homo footballus" watching another big screen nearby.
Despite this, it is still more relaxing to sit and ponder a script line here, rather than hunched at the trestle tables that serve as desks in the work space. But I can understand the Canadian taxpayer baulking at the bill to reduce my stress levels.
But is the bill worth it for the world? It is easy to see this meeting as an attempt to paper over the cracks. We came to Toronto talking about the split between Europe and the US. Whether to stimulate, whether to cut. We end up with President Barack Obama praising a "courageous" British budget, and a communique that within the same paragraph talks of both the "need to follow through on delivering existing stimulus plans" and stating that "those countries with serious fiscal challenges need to accelerate the pace of consolidation".
Facing two ways at once, or adopting a sensible, flexible approach? Perhaps a bit of both. President Obama's real worry is that countries that don't have a big deficit, like Germany, aren't doing enough to encourage spending. Particularly spending on US exports. Maybe I am not enough of an economist to understand this argument. But it is culture and quality that means Germans buy German hi-fis and cars, not some fiscal measure.
At their separate news conferences both David Cameron and President Obama dismissed the idea of a split. The president, in a nice phrase, talked of a "violent agreement".
The truth surely is that getting 19 economies (the 20th seat is for the EU) to agree even a rough-and-ready broad direction of travel is very difficult. Presuming that it is a worthwhile endeavour in the first place, it has to be slow. The details are not the stuff of headlines and the headlines are not the stuff of drama. But not that long ago it would have seemed like the purest fiction to get Russia, the US, China, France and the UK agreeing economic policy, let alone them welcoming a say from the likes of Brazil, South Africa and India. Talking may not be enough. But it is a start.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
£732m to host these freeloaders ... Well we can knock these little jollies on the head now can't we
Complain about this comment
Totally agreed with the extravgant spending on what will be a glorified photo op.
but these thugs are proffessional protests who enjoy engaging in violence and property damage. for once let them prosecuted to the full extent of Canadian law.
I doubt Obama will listen and learn from far wiswer leader, since he does not at home.
Complain about this comment
This cost is disgraceful and reveals that the austerity programme is a scam. As you can see from the news bulletins each leader returns with reports of agreement over their policies. There was no need to provide facilities for the press, who have simply copied material handed to them - this could have been emailed directly to their head offices.
For those who reject the austerity scam and want to do something about it, the warning is clear: don't demonstrate near these summits. These states, which have declared war on their citizens, are prepared to use disproportionate force. And this will be backed by the media who will not truthfully report the arguments of those who oppose this new world order.
Complain about this comment
Sadly ironic really. $1.1bn to discuss the amount of money each country has overspent and how they can reduce the debts...
Well for a start, use video conferencing! There's at least a $1.09bn saving right there, and no troubles with protesters!
Complain about this comment
Davidethics said "This cost is disgraceful and reveals that the austerity programme is a scam"
Absolutely right. The whole thing is a scam. While Barack is trying to encourage the growth in US Exports he is continuing the programme of lowering non-US imports.
One sided argument that could never achieve anything.
This whole G20 smells very like the Climate Change summit. No real workable agenda except self-promotion.
Complain about this comment
# 2 MagicKirin wrote:
"Totally agreed with the extravgant (sic) spending on what will be a glorified photo op."
You totally agreed with the extravagant spending? Strange
"but these thugs are proffessional (sic) protests (sic) who enjoy engaging in violence and property damage. for once let them (sic)prosecuted to the full extent of Canadian law.
I doubt Obama will listen and learn from far wiswer (sic) leader (sic), since he does not at home."
Bearing in mind, of course, than MK's idea of 'far wiser leaders' includes Bush, Cheney and Palin.
Clearly 'wise' in MK means 'extremely right wing' in English
Complain about this comment
Violent agreement sounds like an oxymoron to me. But then what can you expect from a man who tries to run US foreign and domestic policy by consensus when there is none? That's not leadership, it's the antithesis of leadership, it's followership. And that is what you'd expect from a community organizer, someone who finds out what the community wants and then tries to get it for them...except the term community is usually a pure fiction fabricated out of whole cloth. How can there be a community when there is so much diversity of needs, views, situations, prospects, perspectives, cultures? President Obama can't seem to stick to being an advocate for the United States. Perhaps he got confused and thought all of those cheers for him in Berlin two years ago were votes. Perhaps he thinks he's President of the World. Now he's an economics expert, at least with his bean counter in cheif Tim Geitner at his side. You remember Tim, the many who helped us get out of the depression he and his think alike colleagues got us into in the first place. All the President's men.
"Talking may not be enough. But it is a start."
Talk is cheap. Perhaps if there were less of it, we wouldn't have global warming...oops, I meant climate change so rapidly. Hard to talk about global warming anymore when some places actually seem to be cooling...like Europe's economy. Perhaps if everyone would just shut up for say an hour or two we could get a respite from noise pollution. What a novelty that would be, peace and quiet. No news to report.
I guess the New Spartans had to stand in for the old Spartans (that was the the title of the last blog entry on Gavin Hewitt's blog site.) The old Spartans couldn't make it. That's because the Greek government was too broke to afford the plane tickets. Besides the only G group they are members of is countries starting with the letter "G."
Complain about this comment
All: I've visited Toronto a couple of times. The folks are pretty pleasant, the climate's nice for the most part, and it's just a nice place.
I'm very sorry that they had to deal with tear gas and the like, at a cost of $1.1B. They'll get over it, but will be sadder, and maybe just a little less welcoming. That will be tragic.
The protests remind me of Seattle back a number of years ago. A good friend of mine was at the time the head of the radio communications division for the Seattle public safety folks (police, fire, etc.). He briefed an APCO Convention about the high level of coordination of the "spontaneous" protests (e.g. a clandestine FM broadcaster on one of the relatively high points outside of town directing where the crowds should go next; coaching of the perpetrators to wear multiple layers of clothing so they could commit an act of vandalism, shed a jacket, and escape without being recognized, etc.). It frankly made my blood boil to realize that the disruption and property damage was that well-planned and well-equipped in advance; the perpetrators thoroughly abused our First Amendment protections of "free speech" to carry out acts of vandalism with no hint of personal responsibility.
Freedom of speech is one of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution, and one that I cherish the most. I may disagree with someone's position, but I think they should be free to hold it and voice it. "Freedom of speech", however, doesn't include a brick, rock, or stick breaking a plate-glass window; or paint slopped or sprayed on a wall. That kind of conduct is an abrogation of moral responsibility unacceptable for anyone older than toddlerhood. It profits nothing and helps nobody.
If any of that kind of stupidity went on in Toronto, then the city and the nation have the right to extract justice from the perpetrators. I don't know what the Canadian Constitution allows, but if this were the United States, our 13th Amendment would apply ("Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States..."). A little sweat equity (in the form of forcing the perps to clean up the mess and repairing the damage) would go a long way towards tempering the lack of emotional control the perps demonstrated. I hope the Canadians have the good sense to demand it.
If they are like us, however, the perps and their defense attorneys will cite their inherent goodness and moral superiority, or claim "temporary insanity", or point to the presence of Twinkies, or the phase of the moon, or similar nonsense, and expect that the rest of us will fall all over ourselves insisting that they not be held firmly accountable for their actions. That's how "sophisticated" the United States is with regards to justice nowadays.
@3 (De): What are you referring to by "austerity scam"?
Regards to all this HOT Monday morning from Quantico, VA!
Arclight
Complain about this comment
"We end up with President Barack Obama praising a "courageous" British budget"
Is that a Sir Humphrey courageous? ^^
Complain about this comment
John_From_Dublin wrote:
# 2 MagicKirin wrote:
"Totally agreed with the extravgant (sic) spending on what will be a glorified photo op."
You totally agreed with the extravagant spending? Strange
"but these thugs are proffessional (sic) protests (sic) who enjoy engaging in violence and property damage. for once let them (sic)prosecuted to the full extent of Canadian law.
I doubt Obama will listen and learn from far wiswer (sic) leader (sic), since he does not at home."
Bearing in mind, of course, than MK's idea of 'far wiser leaders' includes Bush, Cheney and Palin.
Clearly 'wise' in MK means 'extremely right wing' in English
_______________-
For once read the post in context. And yes Bush, cheney and Palin with all their faults are far wiser than the teleprompter shake down artist
Complain about this comment
The benefits may be intangible. There may be no substitute for "face time", despite its cost.
Complain about this comment
The article is misleading. It quotes $732M it cost Toronto to stage the G20 but there is no substantiation or further explanation. Then it merely mentions $57K spent on a lake feature which seems low. Mark Mardell should provide more information or not make the comment altogether as it devalues journalism. It is a bit like the reporting during the Vietnam war; the North Vietnamese at one point had to say that if all the deaths the Americans were reporting were true then there would be none of them left. We know who won that war.
Complain about this comment
Thank you for acknowledging how hurt and angry I was (as a Torontonian) during this week-end. Most of my anger came from the fact that so little was accomplished by our world leaders.
As for the cost, well, it is what it is, and we Canadians will have to absorb it. Most of my anger came from the fact that so little was accomplished by our world leaders.
If this meeting was an attempt to paper over the cracks, it failed.
Anyone with half a political brain and a little economic brain (the remaining brain being for free thought), could easily see that Obama was twisting in pretzels for stimulus while the the EU was standing tall for deficit cutting. Poor Stephen Harper was balancing between both, though I know that Jim Falherty will straighten him out.
President Barack Obama is wrong. Stimulus is the last objective, or should be the last objective. Obama's new stimulus-package was not and is not courageous; it's a knee-jerk reaction to Wall-Street and the financial elite. Who benefitted from the last American stimulus, and who got hurt? And while we're at it, where exactly did all that money go?
I’m sure that Angela Merkel is really upset that President Obama is worried that countries that don't have a big deficit, like Germany, aren't doing enough to encourage spending. Angela Merkel is a Team Player and her team happens to be the EU. I'm enough of an economist to know that Angela Merkel was the first to turn off the spiggot on American CDOs because she saw how damaging these offspring of tangled derivatives could be to the Germany economy and therefore the economy of the EU. The entire EU should courageously follow her lead. When the US has limited financial partners to mess up, it will have to clean its financial house.
I truly loved your ststement: “At their separate news conferences both David Cameron and President Obama dismissed the idea of a split.” Nice, really nice!
From my point of view, Canada is a lot closer to the point-of-view of the EU than the United States, much closer to the point-of-view of Brazil and BRIC than the United States.
I think the next few months (That’s months, not years.) will show that the United States is weakening, weakening quickly as a country of power, & domination.
Complain about this comment
Any time all these folks get into the same building and can discuss things peaceably is a victory, y'all. We need more of it...not less.
Complain about this comment
"President Obama's real worry is that countries that don't have a big deficit, like Germany, aren't doing enough to encourage spending. Particularly spending on US exports. Maybe I am not enough of an economist to understand this argument. But it is culture and quality that means Germans buy German hi-fis and cars, not some fiscal measure."
This IS Obama's real worry. Can it be that without other nations' being willing to go further into debt, we really can't recover from our own difficulties, or can only do so over a long period of time?
This is the second "jobless recovery" we have been through, and there's already discussion here about a permanent enlargement of the unemployable population. On top of that it doesn't appear to me at least that there's been much progress on really unwinding the messed-up mortgages so banks really know what their balance sheets look like (if anyone knows differently, I'd be more than happy to be wrong on that one).
I don't blame the Obama administration for trying to persuade other nations to do this, but I also don't blame them for not agreeing. If I were a citizen, say, of Germany, I'd be telling my government to stick to their guns and not take on additional debt.
Correcting our financial course isn't going to rest ultimately on greater exports. It's going to ultimately rest on the American people being honest with themselves about what they can afford, and being willing to save more, work harder, and learn new skills so they can be more employable.
Complain about this comment
Every time world leaders attend these summits there is widespread violence and disorder. That alone makes them too expensive. The amount of travel with all the resultant costs, both financial and environmental, make them even worse. If the leaders really can't use modern technology to hold secure video conferencing, then at the very least they should not be held in cities, but remote, secure locations. The photo opportunities may not have the same romantic backdrops, but it would save the populations of host nations a lot of wasted taxes, disruption and disorder. Nothing much seems to be achieved at these gatherings anyway.
Complain about this comment
# 10 MK
"For once read the post in context. And yes Bush, cheney and Palin with all their faults are far wiser than the teleprompter shake down artist"
For once write the post in English
I repeat, to you, words mean what you want them to mean. [I think it was the Red Queen in Wonderland who took the same view.] In MK-speak, 'wise' means 'is extremely and blindly rightwing - like MK'. Hence you’re calling someone wise is merely your saying you agree with them, and of extremely little interest.
So Obama shakes down teleprompters? News to me
Again, as I have pointed out more than once, shake down means to extort money. You have no proof that Obama has extorted money from anyone, so you're just indulging in typical RNC/FNC anonymous smears. Do feel free for once to provide some evidence, but I would not advise anyone to hold their breath while waiting…
You and Fox also seem obsessed with teleprompters. All politicians use them - even your heroes Bush, Cheney and Palin. [Except of course when Palin writes crib notes on her hand.] However Obama beat McCain in 3 debates with not a teleprompter in sight.
But as ever, let not the facts divert you from the prejudice...
Complain about this comment
A billion dollars? Exactly how was that spent? I'd like to see a line by line breakdown.
Freakin' outrageous if you ask me.
Complain about this comment
After the LA Lakers beat the Boston Celtics this year, there were various riots in LA in which people rocked vehicles, broke windows, stole from stores, so on. You would think that if a team won, the fans would all be happy. Wrong. Some people just are naturally destructive and like to break stuff. They will use any excuse to do so. When LA won last year, there were riots after the game, then, as well. So this year, we already knew from the past that there would likely be riots regardless of the outcome. There are some things to be expected.
Instead of looking to Germany and other countries, USA needs to look within itself. One such example to help would be to legalize medical marijuana. If the federal govt. legalized medical marijuana, they would not only raise money by taxing it, they would also be helping ill and suffering people. How can we deny Americans who are suffering and dying the right to smoke medical marijuana?
Complain about this comment
In all honesty, the leaders could have used a few brownies to chill out.
Complain about this comment
These summits certainly do seem expensive, although I suppose some of the spending goes into the local economy. It looks from this site like the 1.1b number may be aggregate cost of summits to date, not the cost for the Toronto meeting.
http://www.torontog20summit.com/
Complain about this comment
Bill said he did not inhale. Obama admitted he did inhale.
Complain about this comment
To start with, I agree with Andrea's comment at 11. that there is no substitute for actual face time between these leaders.
Whether anything useful was achieved, or not, the world is likely to be a safer place when these folks meet face to face from time to time.
And that, alone, makes these meetings worth doing.
And, cheeringly, the substantive meetings seem to have gone as well as could have been expected.
------------
On the other hand ...
Organisationally, this particular conference was a shambles in some respects, and a brilliant success in others.
Almost all of the problems with the meetings arose from the initial decision to hold it in Huntsville, the eighteen month period of blissful denial, and then the subsequent realization, very late in the day, that Huntsville simply couldn't hold the G20 meeting.
And so there was the kind of last-minute scramble that simply should not ever happen in any country that thinks it belongs in the G8.
------------
It was this last-minute scramble that led to the, er, um, "unfortunate", decision to hold it in the center of Toronto's financial district. This was a costly mistake.
There was a huge exercise in security overkill, largely paid for by the business community in downtown Toronto whose business were effectively shut down from Wednesday evening onward.
Who is going to compensate us for those lost revenues? Our costs didn't go on vacation. We still had to pay our staff, pay rent, pay for heating and lighting.
If security was going to be such an all-consuming issue, then why didn't they hold the thing at a Canadian Armed Forces base, and truck in the five star chefs, lodgings, and all the trimmings? Wouldn't that have been a lot cheaper, and a lot less disruptive? There are plenty of huge bases in Canada, some of them with breath-taking scenery, all of them with big airfields and fully secured perimeters.
But instead, they held it in the most expensive, most disruptive, and most difficult to secure location in the entire country.
Very, very poor decision.
------------
The blanket attack on civil liberties - the purported change in the law, not even by statute but by subordinate regulation under the "Protection of Public Monuments" - without public debate, without appropriate public notice (announced Friday morning), was a disgrace.
Here's the contrast:
The last time there was an arbitrary suspension of civil rights in this country was in October 1970 when the government of Canada invoked the War Measures Act in response to the FLQ kidnappings and bombings.
This time it was so world leaders camp have a campfire sing-along-and-photo-op.
------------
There is simply no excuse for what happened there - the government purporting to give the police the right to demand ID, and to arrest people without cause; the suspension of basic civil liberties under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms including the following rights which most of us consider basic in a democracy:
The right to be free from arbitrary arrest and seizure;
The right to a trial based on evidence;
The presumption of innocence;
The right to Freedom of Speech;
The right to freedom of peaceful assembly;
All of this was inexcusable in a democracy.
And, as if to make it worse, it was completely unnecessary:
the existing laws, in particular the Criminal Code, provided more than ample tools for dealing with the non-peaceful protesters and the relatively small number of people who came here not to protest but to engage in anarchy as an adventure, as one of those thrill-seeking extreme sports.
Somebody got into the security-paranoia-overkill mentality, and decided that the safest thing to do was to suspend the Constitution and the historical development of civil liberties in Anglo-Canadian law for the weekend, as a convenience to the security services.
There should be a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into this matter. I would appoint Robert Sharpe, JA, OCA; Louise Arbour (JSCC retired); and Frank Iaccabouci (JSCC, retired) as the Commissioners.
Somebody, somewhere thought is was acceptable to suspend our civil rights for the weekend, without public debate, without the opportunity for judicial oversight, and without proper statutory basis, on a whim, because it was convenient, because they thought nobody could stop them, and because nobody would notice.
Horribly, horribly wrong.
Civil rights do not exist at the pleasure and convenience of civil servants.
People should be fired over this decision.
------------
Although I do not agree with the substance of the various protests, I have a fair amount of sympathy for those who organized a large and peaceful rally at the Queen's Park (the Provincial Legislature of Ontario), on Saturday, only to have their protest derailed by a small number of people bent on violence.
Their lawful, peaceful protest was simply lost, and the news cycle was monopolized by a bunch of selfish, self-indulgent idiots who decided to burn three police cars and smash store windows on Yonge Street.
------------
As for the Police themselves, present in overwhelming numbers, overall they seem to have done a good job. As one reporter said on the news this morning, their main strategy seemed to be to inflict boredom on the protesters until they eventually decided to go home.
Chief Blair remarked this morning that the boredom-as-crowd-control strategy worked pretty well, and was aided by rain throughout the day and a heavy downpour in the late afternoon on Sunday.
There are some incidents involving the mistreatment of reporters, for which the Police will no doubt have to answer in court.
All things considered, though, they seem to have kept the city largely peaceful. Nobody was seriously hurt or killed. They arrested some 900 people - unheard of in this city - and they used tear gas for the first time. There do not appear to have been any incidents of reckless use of Tasers.
They caught the people who tried to invade the downtown core by working their way through the sewer system. (Since when does lawful, peaceful protest involve crawling through sewers?) They seem to have caught the people who were responsible for most of the violence.
All in all, I would say that the Police, and the Mayor, behaved with much more level headed patience and perspective than the Federal (and some Provincial) folks whose errors caused all the problems in the first place.
Thank heavens it's over.
Complain about this comment
Being a British resident of Toronto I was dismayed at the approach of the Canadian authorities in turning the downtown core into an exclusion zone. I can't help but feel that there is an inevitability to the violence when peaceful protest is stifled and dissenting voices are marginalised. Let's not forget Mr Harper decided to prorogue parliament rather than face a vote of no confidence as well as to avoid debates he finds uncomfortable. The saddest outcome of the disgusting violence from both the police and mindless factions of some groups, is that the urgent issues the protesters want to raise are not being covered in the media at all. Harper wins.
Complain about this comment
All: I've visited Toronto a couple of times. The folks are pretty pleasant, the climate's nice for the most part, and it's just a nice place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me, too, and the folks are pretty robotic which you interpret as pleasant...the climate is like many other parts of the world..and lots of other places like it..And the only nativeness that is to be found is in the souverneer shops...
Complain about this comment
The bankers pit the countries against one another to draw attention away from the fact that the banks caused it all. Bailout banks, banks charge interest on loans to governments for bad debt assumed from the banks, banks warn about debt. Governments own substantial share in banks but cannot influence banks and banking regulations. If it all wasn't so Alice in Wonderland one might conclude that governments simply have no power over banks. The one concensus is that the taxpayers should pay off the bad debts of the banks and do so with higher taxes and cuts in services...we wouldn't want the banks to suffer. It is nice that they all agree on that as it prevents anyone from telling the truth.
Greatest robbery and shift of wealth to the rich in the history of the world and in what are euphemistically call representative governments the elected have assumed the bad debts of private banks and investors in the name of the people. The accent of mankind toward a more just world has taken a major step backwards....again.
Complain about this comment
Other than giving a bunch of national leaders a chance to meet in person at a luxury resort in Canada (nice work if you can get it) nothing was achieved except the riot in Toronto. Just like most other G20 summits, a luxury getaway for the leaders, a busy foreign junket for the staffs and an excuse to run amok for the anarchists.
The idea of Barak Obama giving budget advice to leaders of other nations seems like sheer hubris.
Complain about this comment
re. #17. At 2:31pm on 28 Jun 2010, John_From_Dublin wrote:
"However Obama beat McCain in 3 debates with not a teleprompter in sight."
Anyone running against George Bush's record would have won by 10 points. The debates only proved that Obama was more photogenic than McCain and his staff did a better job preparing him.
Complain about this comment
Mark: '"Tear gas, baton rounds and burning police cars are always upsetting if they happen in your city, but Toronto's natives were particularly hurt and angry that it happened here."
Did anyone read Interested Foreigner's post at #64 on the '"Cameron Raises Awkward Questions for Obama" thread? Utterly terrifying!! If canada can't faithfully adhere to the rule of law, there sure as hell isn't any hope for the rest of us; especially the US!
"Facing two ways at once, or adopting a sensible, flexible approach? Perhaps a bit of both. President Obama's real worry is that countries that don't have a big deficit, like Germany, aren't doing enough to encourage spending, particularly spending on US exports. Maybe I am not enough of an economist to understand this argument, but it is culture and quality that means Germans buy German hi-fis and cars, not some fiscal measure."
Exactly. He is naive to think that he - or anyone else - can force them (or any other citizenry) to buy American goods. Although I understand his concerns. After all, if noone buys our exports, we'll be in deep, deep trouble.
"At their separate news conferences both David Cameron and President Obama dismissed the idea of a split. The president, in a nice phrase, talked of a "violent agreement"."
They also did so at their joint press conference. Nice virbiage by Obama, though. I don't know if Lincoln and Churchill would have been able to think up such a spontaneous elloquent description.
"The truth surely is that getting 19 economies (the 20th seat is for the EU) to agree even a rough-and-ready broad direction of travel is very difficult. Presuming that it is a worthwhile endeavour in the first place, it has to be slow."
And one, whether world leader or journalist, cannot expect it to be achieved, much less near achieved in two, sometimes three days of rapid talks- unless they are completely naive, that is.
"The details are not the stuff of headlines and the headlines are not the stuff of drama. But not that long ago it would have seemed like the purest fiction to get Russia, the US, China, France and the UK agreeing economic policy, let alone them welcoming a say from the likes of Brazil, South Africa and India. Talking may not be enough. But it is a start."
All action begins with talking. So perhaps world leaders don't have to hold quite so many expensive summits a year; perhaps they can, as others have already suggested, hold vidio confrences/E-mail one another etc. But talking occuring between two or more parties who really want and seak a palpable outcome never did anyone any harm. It is when parties desire aposing ends and refuse to compromise when it becomes a waste of time.
And one more thing, Mark. While its certainly great that the US, UK, France, Russia and China seem to have arrived upon a mutually agreed upon view on economic strategy, I wouldn't put too much faith in that if I were you, nor much in any other deals they may strike. The only reason why the G 20 (why do we still have theG 8, speaking of unnecessary expenditures) has agreed on as much as they have is because they must in order to move the world out of recession, and doing so is in everyone's interests. Due to globalisation, the nations of the world become tethered to one another by the hip more with each passing day. No longer can just the west (and China) chart a course and expect others to follow. New powers are on the rise, and as a result everyone wants and is demanding their say. So inevitably alotting it to them will make the whole process more difficult, and at the end of the day, everyone fights their own coarner. Which is why it is so crucial (and getting more so) for countries to have friends with common interests.
Complain about this comment
The amount of summit is just another show of Corporations/Banks/Government spending taxpayers money.Why not just have Political leaders there why not all the heads of Multinational Corporations come too.So they can better explain how taxpayer money from every corner of the earth will trickle into their Accounts while they avoid taxes themselves and try and get workers and nations to compete for less while they take it all for themselves.Surely the heads of Nations can't explain as well as lobbyist and CEO's how well they take our money and resources for themselves leaving the rest of us with lower standards of living for the middle class each decade.No one wants to bring up that their governments are trying to make loopholes for Corporations and avoid using their own taxpayers money but some other nations instead to funnel the cash to these Thieves.
Complain about this comment
@25 (CA): "...and the folks are pretty robotic which you interpret as pleasant..."
Nothing of the kind. At one of the times I visited (1992), they were very concerned about the state of their economy, and about the unity of their nation. That concern, however, didn't diminish their capability to be hospitable to a Yank from far away. It was a treat then, and still a good memory today.
@23 (IF): Good comments, as usual.
"If security was going to be such an all-consuming issue, then why didn't they hold the thing at a Canadian Armed Forces base, and truck in the five star chefs, lodgings, and all the trimmings? Wouldn't that have been a lot cheaper, and a lot less disruptive? There are plenty of huge bases in Canada, some of them with breath-taking scenery, all of them with big airfields and fully secured perimeters."
That's far too logical. It also doesn't allow the protestors to get close enough for them to feel like they've made their point with the fences as they normally are. It could have been possible, however, to rearrange some fences to allow protesters to get closer, while not jeopardizing air-traffic control or similar.
With the costs (including the losses to businesses you referred to) well exceeding $1.1B, though, perhaps the next time there's a meeting like this someone will have the Bright Idea to hold it someplace more easily secured. Like a military facility...
@24 (w):"The saddest outcome of the disgusting violence from both the police and mindless factions of some groups, is that the urgent issues the protesters want to raise are not being covered in the media at all."
Which issues are you referring to?
Arclight
Complain about this comment
It is up to the people of Canada to decide whether or not they spent their money wisely to host this event. While the expenditures do appear extravagant and excessive, it is important to remember that expenditures in infrastructure are not limited to hosting a specific event and often improve the ability of a country or city to attract tourism and improve their quality of life.
The German government operates with a surplus because, unlike us, they live within their means. While we have been encouraging deficit spending and outsourcing for decades they have been saving and investing. The results of these economic variances are evident and should be a lesson for everyone to consider.
Unfortunately, the economic mess we - and several other countries - are in requires investment to recover. Reductions in spending are appropiate and, indeed, indispensable, when an economy is booming, it is lethal when an economy is in the dumps and barely showing signs of recovery.
Complain about this comment
Nothing of the kind. At one of the times I visited (1992), they were very concerned about the state of their economy, and about the unity of their nation. That concern, however, didn't diminish their capability to be hospitable to a Yank from far away. It was a treat then, and still a good memory today.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And did I say that yanks are not robotic? You go there and it feels as you have entered a well, where one says something and the rest echo it..There is no one who says something different or refreshing..
Complain about this comment
@24 (w):"The saddest outcome of the disgusting violence from both the police and mindless factions of some groups, is that the urgent issues the protesters want to raise are not being covered in the media at all."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have been hearing this now for so many years that I have lost the count..Media should by now realised that these protests are not worth reporting and focus on the urgent issues...However, since when did G-8 start dealing with urgent issues? The media shows the leaders in a couple of situations, making speech, making small talks , walking or sightseeing. And then it shows protests...thats the coverage of these money consuming meetings for the last so many years...You dont have to actually see the next meeting...now that I have given you the gist of it.
Complain about this comment
Re:31 Arclight - The fact that you need to ask what protesters were raising kind of proves the point that the mainstream media has mentioned little to none of the issues.
I'm sure a clearly educated person such as yourself can research what you need to know. For the rest of us a trawl through some of the photographs of the peaceful protests and a reading of the banners and placards should suffice to show the range of concerns being raised.
Complain about this comment
27. At 4:20pm on 28 Jun 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"Other than giving a bunch of national leaders a chance to meet in person at a luxury resort in Canada (nice work if you can get it) nothing was achieved except the riot in Toronto. Just like most other G20 summits, a luxury getaway for the leaders, a busy foreign junket for the staffs and an excuse to run amok for the anarchists."
____________
Face-to-face meetings between these leaders are a good idea, even if they appear to achieve nothing concrete. The actual meetings themselves, in person, go a long way toward avoiding international misunderstandings and toward breaking down barriers to communication. For people operating at this level, whose decisions can have broad and enduring consequences, stuff like that matters.
It is, however, ridiculous to spend $1B to do it.
It actually might be better for them to meet in some non-descript place out in the boondocks with no distractions, because then there wouldn't be anything else to do except get down to business.
------------
There was no "riot" in Toronto.
There were a few relatively minor violent, highly localized incidents, caused by people seeking to provoke the Police. By and large the Police took it all in stride.
------------
It seems to me that the very visible, over-the-top, aggressive security presence seems to incite and attract, almost provoke, people who look upon violent protest as some kind of extreme sport for thrill-seekers. Like surfers seeking the biggest wave, these people are looking for the biggest possible Police presence to confront.
They aren't really there to "protest" anything in particular, they don't have a coherent (or sometimes even any) political message. They are often termed "anarchists", but I'm not sure that's right. They just get some kind of thrill out of confronting heavily armed police - almost like British football hooligans from the 1960's and 1970's.
If the preparations had been a bit less visible, and a lot more low-key, I suspect we wouldn't have had as much (or perhaps any?) violence.
Complain about this comment
"If security was going to be such an all-consuming issue, then why didn't they hold the thing at a Canadian Armed Forces base, and truck in the five star chefs, lodgings, and all the trimmings? Wouldn't that have been a lot cheaper, and a lot less disruptive? There are plenty of huge bases in Canada, some of them with breath-taking scenery, all of them with big airfields and fully secured perimeters."
That's far too logical.
***
I agree. You can tell you are not a politician IF. ^^
Complain about this comment
Since when has security not been big thing in those meetings? The media present the same old over-used security problem every year..It should be by now be in your DNA.
Complain about this comment
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/07/13/brussels.security/index.html
Senior European Union ministers are meeting to discuss ways to curb riots that have disrupted international conferences recently.
Friday's special session of interior ministers from the 15 member states was called in the wake of last month's rioting at the EU summit in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Street battles between police and anti-globalisation protesters marred the summit, sparking calls for better security coordination between the bloc's member states.
This was 9 years ago.
And this 7 yrs ago
Calm has returned to the streets of Geneva after police used teargas to disperse anti-globalisation protesters who smashed shop windows, looted luxury stores and wrecked a petrol station.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200306/s870007.htm
Riots break out at G-8 meeting,
http://www.thecambodianews.net/story/253798
Two yrs ago.
Tell us something which is new.
Complain about this comment
Maybe the leaders should meet in space.
Or a secret underground lair.
Complain about this comment
"violent agreement" ==>
"Say U-N-C-L-E"
"OK, you give up?!"
"When you have them by the ba!!s, their hearts will follow" (LBJ, 1965)
"Your brains or your signature will be on that contract in a minute" (Godfather, 1968)
Thank goodness this was not held in the United States. The U.S. would have borrowed money to host the event.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
They should have used, "Go to Meeting".
Complain about this comment
15. At 2:00pm on 28 Jun 2010, arclightt wrote:
"...It's going to ultimately rest on the American people being honest with themselves about what they can afford, and being willing to save more, work harder, and learn new skills so they can be more employable."
As to the first proposition, yes, and give up the SUVs and other extravagant and wasteful practices. Also, stop letting the big businesses control the issues. Stop buying their propaganda, too.
As to the second proposition, when any American has a skill that he/she has studied or trained for, the companies will try to outsource that too. This must be stopped, or at least made more reasonable and socially sensitive to the needs of the US population.
Complain about this comment
40. At 10:54pm on 28 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"Maybe the leaders should meet in space."
____________
You may have said this in jest, but, aside from the danger, maybe it isn't a bad idea. Apparently almost everybody who has ever been in space, from whatever nation, has comes back to Earth forever changed, feeling a permanent duty to take care of our fragile little sphere.
There are worse things that could happen to our world leaders.
Complain about this comment
"competes with the coarse shrieks and roars of "homo footballus" watching another big screen nearby"
What football team do Canadians support?
Complain about this comment
22. LucyJ:
"Bill said he did not inhale. Obama admitted he did inhale."
Bill also said he did not have relations with that woman...
Complain about this comment
Let the G20 leaders meet in some third world country next time. The local economy could use the billion dollar boost and I bet there would be a lot fewer protestors willing to travel to someplace where the local security forces throw malcontents into the equivalent of a "turkish prison". The leaders would get a chance to see how their decisions affect the rest of the world, not a bad thing surely. I'll bet there are any number of emerging nations who would be willing to play host and showcase their country to the media.
Complain about this comment
46. At 01:14am on 29 Jun 2010, HabitualHero wrote:
"What football team do Canadians support?"
____________
Depends.
If you're from Saskatchewan, likely the Green 'Riders.
From Vancouver, the Lions.
From Calgary, the Stamps.
From Edmonton, the Eskimos.
From Winnipeg, the Blue Bombers.
From Hamilton, the Ti-Cats.
From Montreal, the Alouettes.
From Toronto?
Well, lots of people watch the Bills.
There's a good following of Packers fans.
Patriots, Steelers, Cowboys, all have their supporters.
... and a few long-suffering die-hards still watch the Argos.
(Keep in mind that this is a town where people will pay the highest ticket prices in the entire world - C$ 210/seat - to watch a hockey team that hasn't won in 43 years, hasn't made the playoffs in five years, and last year and this year came last in the conference. Can you spell "NHL anti-trust investigation overdue"?)
It will be interesting to see if the Argos' total season attendance this year is greater than Toronto FC. Might not be.
Complain about this comment
Could this be a stimulus package, burn, destroy, give the police and fire overtime, and construction workers jobs to rebuild after its over. One question, who pays the tab. Sounds like thugs to me.
Complain about this comment
48. At 01:41am on 29 Jun 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"Let the G20 leaders meet in some third world country next time."
I know! I know!
Kyrgyzstan. That's the place.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
48. At 01:41am on 29 Jun 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"Let the G20 leaders meet in some third world country next time."
I know! I know!
Kyrgyzstan
KScurmdugeon
Complain about this comment
Oops - sorry
The first one disappeared - it was there, then it wasn't...it just wasn't...
Complain about this comment
I asked a friend of mine who fled the day G20 officially began, about the protesting and police. Apparently many (young) downtown dwellers felt the excess of security was like a quasi-police state, which served to rile them all up (especially about the 1.1B). Toronto is a lovely place, no more likely to be riotous than any other large city. I don't understand why they didn't just have it in Iqaluit...
Complain about this comment
54. At 7:31pm on 29 Jun 2010, Maura Anastasia wrote:
"I don't understand why they didn't just have it in Iqaluit..."
____________
Have we not already committed enough wrongs against our aboriginal peoples?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS