Toronto-Most vindications of Canada’s ridiculous G-20 Summit spending rely on the presupposition of societal naivety. The nation, apparently, ought to build grand pavilions in order to woo the world’s masses to travel to “our home and native land.” Perhaps, the conference will teach a few foreigners that Canadians do not live in igloos and ride polar bears.
In reality, the exorbitant expense account is analogous to the lifestyle of Jay Gatsby, the title character of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s masterpiece The Great Gatsby. In an attempt to persuade his former lover, Daisy Buchanan, to re-fall for him, Gatsby maintains an aura of lavishness. He ensures that she sees his massive shirt collection, the lawn of their meeting place is pristine, and there is enough food to feed one hundred heads of state. The abundance of shirts causes Daisy to cry. Indeed, Gatsby’s elegance evokes strong emotions in her.
Toronto’s elegance will not have the same impact on the world. The $1.9 million media pavilion, for instance, that includes the infamous artificial lake, a fake Toronto Stock Exchange, and a spot to watch the World Cup will most certainly not change the global community’s travel arrangements.
Transformational demands like, “Honey, let’s cancel our trip to Venice. I really want to see the Toronto Stock Exchange,” will be as common as an Elizabethan speaker at a Jonas Brothers concert.
We must hence ask a fundamental question. Why should cities be subjected to hosting an event that requires billions of dollars worth of security to combat the inevitability of municipal damage? An appreciable future return is the only acceptable response. But, such a notion is a pipe dream, which rivals the likes of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The disturbing truth is that neither the host city nor country will gain significantly. A “thank you for your hospitality,” message from a world leader is worthless. It will not be an equitable return on the destruction of local shops and restaurants, inevitable violence, and Torontonians’ limited mobility.
In an age of incredible technological advancements, these upheavals are unnecessary. Put simply, summit diplomacy should be obsolete. Extravagant cocktail parties and world-class treatment are, frankly, relics of monarchial stains. Virtual summit diplomacy ought to replace this frivolousness.
Video conferencing would simplify the process of global political dialogue. This notion does not connote that leaders will sit at a computer and play Minesweeper, as a small window of talking heads distracts them from their games. Technology is not that primitive.
Critics may point to the need for physical conferences. One may note that varying time zones may complicate the process. This complaint represents oppositional nit picking, for the solution is simple. Choose the best possible time! Of course, some leaders may need to be awake late. But, if needed, they could sleep-in the next day! Pithily, a “late night” is better than turmoil and fatuous spending.
The international community does not care about Toronto’s pavilion.
