Is Seoul better G20 host than Toronto?

By Kim Tong-hyung

After a big event such as the G20 Seoul Summit, it is important to check on what went well. This process is pivotal for Korea, a country that is aspiring to join the ranks of advanced countries.

First, it is worth reflecting on the government’s preparation for the G20 meetings as if they were the Olympics or World Cup finals.

This eagerness to be a perfect host was shown in extensive coverage in the mass media. Virtually all advertisements carried sponsors’ seal of support for the summits.

This Korean approach contrasts with the attitude of Canada, the previous host. Although Toronto suffered from budgetary overruns, it aimed to be a small and secure summit.

It depends which model is better.

Canada, one of the few who successfully dealt with the financial crisis, also has been vocal in promoting its agenda through opposing a bank tax.

In contrast, Korea has been trying its best to create a consensus to coordinate conflicting interests of the participating nations but it remains a moot point whether its actions have served its best interests.

Overall, it is hard to deny the importance of the Seoul summit, a point that has defied some critics who cast doubts about the usefulness of the forum.

It has been a time of urgency for the G20 in getting down to business as a multilateral platform stepping up to the world’s key economic challenges, such as the growing friction over currency valuation and the conflicting ideas over achieving a broad rebalancing of global growth.

A failure to produce a coherent approach among its member states over the issues could cost the G20 its utility as the premier global forum for economic policy.

Korea’s role as the G20 chair was crucial ― there were expectations that it could effectively represent the voice of emerging economies that are caught in the crossfire between floods of capital challenged by the policies of rich countries and the distortion created by China’s refusal to allow its currency to rise.

Korea was also given an opportunity to leave a permanent mark on the global approach to development, using its own experience to promote models based on effective partnerships between governments and the private sector rather than just a blind faith in the open market.

One lesson for Korea was learned by Korean reporters at the summit venue.

Among the most interesting interviews at the Seoul Business Summit, the supersized accessory to the G20 meetings came from a session held by Anglo American chief executive officer Cynthia Carroll and Takeda Pharmaceutical CEO Yasuchika Hasegawa on the issue of increasing medical access in developing economies.

Carroll, in particular, passionately described how the U.S. mining giant, the biggest private employer in South Africa, is staying on the frontline in the fight against HIV and AIDs, providing counseling, testing and therapy for its 130,000-strong workforce there.

With more and more companies relying on emerging economies to support their business, combating health access in those countries will emerge as a crucial business interest, she said.

However, the interview session ended rather awkwardly when Hasegawa had to spend much of his time answering questions from a local journalist on his company’s business plans for Korea.

There were also some organizational glitches.

The most glaring mistake was the organizers failure to provide consistent translation services in English ― let alone French, Spanish, German and Russian ― despite the event involving more than 120 business executives and a dozen G20 heads of state.

G20의장국한국의 성적표는?

이제 G20라는 거대한 행사가 끝났다. G20 의장국으로서의 경험을 바탕으로 선진국으로서의 위용을 갖추려 했던 한국의 입장에선 잘한 것은 무엇이고 미흡한 점은 무엇이었는지 냉정하게 생각해볼 필요가 있을 것이다.

한국 정부는 이번 G20정상회의를 준비함에 있어서 올림픽이나 월드컵을 개최했을 때만큼이나 많은 노력을 기울였다. 이러한 노력들은 모든 언론매체에 깔렸던 G20홍보 광고들을 통해서도 드러난다.

이는 G20정상회담을 한국 전에 개최했던 캐나다 정부와는 다른 태도다. 과도한 예산 집행 논란이 있긴 했지만 캐나다가 작은 규모의 행사를 지향했던 점은 분명하다.