I'm dubious about the G20 as a concept, and about the cost-benefit ratio of these meetings. But teleconferencing isn't really an adequate substitute for in-person meeting in a lot of cases. Even an introvert like me, who's generally happier if something can be dealt with by a phone call rather than a meeting, and better still an email rather than a phone call, has to grant that dealing with people in person forges a different kind of relationship, in ways that can be important. That's not all to the good (going out to the bar after a meeting can make it easier to get past future impasses, but it also offers opportunities for corruption and illegitimate favor-trading). But if there's any point to diplomatic meetings at all, then videoconferencing is going to be a poor second-best.
I'd also guess that the more separate from real cities and countries such meetings get (as moving to a special fortified venue would tend to move things), the more detached from their constituents' interests the people involved will become. (A problem already seen with Washington and Brussels, among other places.) But if there's no way of providing reasonable security at G20 meetings without turning the location into a police state (or worse, if that's done without even getting the security) then something will have to give on that point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 08:45 am (UTC)I'd also guess that the more separate from real cities and countries such meetings get (as moving to a special fortified venue would tend to move things), the more detached from their constituents' interests the people involved will become. (A problem already seen with Washington and Brussels, among other places.) But if there's no way of providing reasonable security at G20 meetings without turning the location into a police state (or worse, if that's done without even getting the security) then something will have to give on that point.