“THE G-20: ALL FOR ONE OR SOME FOR ALL?”

On the 11th day of November 2010, South Korea will be hosting the G-2o summit in Seoul. The G-20 summit was created by ministers of the departments of finance of several countries and and central bank governors from 20 major economies, with the intent to “stabilize the international economy after the financial crisis of 2008.” Presidents and finance ministers from all over the 20 countries are expected to join together and will be discussing global economic issues.

As the host of the G-20 summit, South Korean President Lee Myung Bak proposed three major agendas. The first, is to create longer-lasting policies that could bring about fundamental solutions to other financial crises that might happen in the future. The second, is to create a sustainable international financial regulatory system. Lastly, but not least of all, is the aim to modernize international financial institutions that can protect countries unrelated to future financial crises from being susceptible. In my opinion, the IMF has done a sub-par job in solving the 2008 financial crisis and South Korea believes that major institutional changes are needed to make the IMF do the greatest good for the greatest number.

Looking at the three agendas, they have an implied meaning of what South Korea really desires and wishes to say: “We didn’t cause the crisis, the U.S. did. But, why did we suffer? Why do we have to take measures to insure ourselves from such crises by buying foreign currency? Do we need create a global regulatory system that could suppress unrestricted expansion of credit markets?”

The G-20 is not about a meeting of representatives from the selected 20 countries to “collaborate together to devise policies and to stabilize global economy.” It is a Roman Colosseum of 20 different gladiators fighting each other for survival. Well, it is kind of different now. We fight with brains rather than with swords and shields, and for economic prosperity rather than survival. Countries with higher power have a greater voice in the meeting. Countries with lower economic power acquiesce to the agreements made by their stronger “peers.” The G20, then, falls into self-contradiction. Initially meant to “foster international collaboration,” and to “represent global needs,” the G20 is rather an arena of competition of persuasion skills, with a slight edge given to the relatively more powerful, representing no one but the member nations themselves.