-Caveat Lector-
From
}}>Begin
August 2001
Contents
Latin America: the 30 years' dirty war *
Presidents under pressure
Malls aren't us *
France: his master's voice *
Benin: a free press does not come cheap *
The Kurds: a fragile spring *
Who will be the next pope? *
Immigrant Islam *
The watchers and the watched *
End of the beginning for the internet
Argentina: hello again *
Berlin: walking the wall *
Being really there
Goodbye to human identity
search the site: to receive our free monthly summaries, please fill in your e-
mail address
(*) Star-marked articles are restricted to subscribers only. See subscription
information.
THE GENOA PROTESTS
Democracy at the barricades
Heads of state were besieged in July in Genoa. They talked trade and money
inside a guarded, if luxurious, compound, while outside the Italian carabinieri
confronted demonstrators, only a few of whom were violent. Results: news
footage of handshakes and governmental agreements, their details already
forgotten - and of an unwarranted death, 600 injuries, beatings and
frustration. The next talks will be in the safe enclave of Qatar.
by SUSAN GEORGE *
After the disgrace of Genoa, multinationals and European and international
institutions targeted by "anti-globalisers" have a recurrent problem: how to
discredit, weaken, manipulate and, if possible, annihilate the international
citizens' movement which has disturbed the gatherings of the masters of the
universe since Seattle. Police retaliation and direct repression are the most
obvious weapons in the anti-anti-globaliser armoury. This April spring in
Quebec smelled of tear gas: the official figure for the number of canisters
fired against anti-FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) [1]demonstrators
was 4,707 - "excessive" according to a committee set up by the government
of Quebec [2]. Asked by doctors about chemical components and propulsion
agents, the authorities professed ignorance: "We only do testing in terms of
how effective the gas is on people" [3].
In Europe, too, the use of force and manipulation has reached new extremes.
In Gothenburg, during the demonstrations at the summit meeting of heads of
state and government of the European Union in June, the Swedish police
used live ammunition. In Barcelona, on 22 June, where forums and
demonstrations went ahead although the World Bank had retreated from
holding its new economics conference, plain clothes police infiltrated the end
of the march, vandalised property and attacked uniformed officers to provoke
them into violent reprisals against demonstrators and journalists.
In Genoa, the Italian police went further: one dead, more than 600 injured,
hundreds of arbitrary arrests and a real political plot. There is evidence of
complicity between the authorities and gangs of Black Block agents
provocateurs that damaged parts of the city [4].
But force seems to have little effect, so the authorities are resorting to legal
harassment. A leading member of the Ruckus Society [5], known for its
training sessions in non-violence to prepare for occasions like Seattle, was
picked up on the streets of Philadelphia the day after demonstrations at the
Republican Party convention. He was questioned for six hours by an officer
who cheerfully admitted that he had orders to "dump a bunch of shit on his
booking papers" [6], indicted on 13 counts and (unprecedented for such
minor offences) required to put up bail of $ 1m.
Wrongful arrest, intimidation and ill-treatment of detainees, and closing meetings "as
a preventive measure", are common wherever opponents of globalisation meet. For
evidence, visit one of the independent, decentralised
Indymedia websites [7] that are causing headaches in Washington. On the day of the big
demonstration in Quebec, FBI and US secret service agents appeared at the Indymedia
office in Seattle with court orders requiring it t
o disclose the names and email addresses of everyone who had visited the site in the
previous 48 hours - several thousand people. This was in flagrant breach of rights
guaranteed under the US constitution [8]. In Genoa, o
n the night of 21-22 July, carabinieri raided the alternative media centre without a
warrant, beat and arrested people, and claimed they were looking for evidence of
infiltration by "rioters".
In Europe too, governments have no compunction about taking liberties with the law. In
December 2000 an attempt was made to reduce the scale of the demonstrations against
liberal policies pursued by the EU. At a European
Council meeting in Nice, 1,500 Italian nationals were held at the Franco-Italian
border although they had valid tickets and passports. In January 2001 Swiss
authorities blocked all access roads to Davos, transforming the
region into a military stronghold. The Italian government suspended the Schengen
agreement for four days in a vain attempt to prevent demonstrators from other
countries congregating in Genoa.
The backlash
There is a serious ideological backlash, too. How can the powers regroup after a
fiasco like Seattle? The first ploy is to accuse opponents of being "enemies of the
poor", a ploy used by London's Financial Times and The E
conomist, and by Mike Moore, director-general of the World Trade Organisation, who
said in Geneva "these protesters make me want to vomit". Paul Krugman, economist at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and media da
rling, added: "The anti-globalisation movement already has a remarkable track record
of hurting the very people and causes it claims to champion." Of the demonstrators in
Geneva, he said: "Whatever their intentions, they
were doing their best to make the poor even poorer" [9].
The theme was taken up on the eve of Genoa by President George W Bush, in a statement
to Le Monde: "The demonstrators are condemning people to poverty". In its first issue
after Seattle, The Economist tried a second argum
ent. Faced with the success of the NGOs, it claimed that they "represented a dangerous
shift of power to unelected and unaccountable special interest groups". The alleged
lack of legitimacy of the "anti-globalisers" has b
een a constant complaint in business circles since the publication of the Geneva
Business Declaration in September 1998, an outcome of a dialogue organised by Helmut
Maucher, then president of the International Chamber of
Commerce (also chairman and managing director of Nestl� and president of the Round
Table of European industrialists) and the UN secretary-general.
The declaration said that: "Activist pressure groups should place emphasis on
legitimising themselves. Where this does not happen, rules establishing their rights
and responsibilities should be considered. Business is acc
ustomed to working with trade unions, consumer organisations and other representative
groups that are responsible, credible, transparent and accountable, and consequently
command respect. What we question is the prolifera
tion of activist groups that do not accept these self-disciplinary criteria."
The third ploy is to repeat that the protesters don't know what they are talking
about, to label them and their organisations "opportunist" or "alarmist". Their ideas
and opinions are described as "disinformation", "blata
nt lies" and "nonsense". Thomas Friedman of the New York Times says opponents of
neo-liberalism are "despicable [and] deserve a slap in the face" [10]. The Financial
Times, mildly threatening, says that if the advance of
globalisation's foes is to be halted, "now is the time to draw a line in the sand"
[11]. But what happens if the "self-discipline" is not forthcoming, if no-one takes
any notice of the "line in the sand" and the oppositio
n continues to "talk nonsense"? A great many people are considering this.
In the middle of the desert
In March 2000 the Cordell Hull Institute in Washington [12], a pro-free-trade
think-tank, ran a seminar "After Seattle: restoring momentum in the WTO". Of the 50
participants - senior civil servants, ministers, advisers t
o big firms, ambassadors - only two represented NGOs. One, scandalised by the
proceedings, posted an account of them on the internet [13]. The meeting had been less
concerned with the WTO than with finding ways to silence
the opposition. Cecil Parkinson, who had been British minister for trade in the
cabinet of Margaret Thatcher, began by saying they must never have another WTO meeting
on US soil as it was far too easy to organise protest
s there. Clayton Yeutter, former US secretary of agriculture, agreed. They should
choose a place where "security could be assured" and give little advance notice to
"keep the protesters off balance".
The Brazilian foreign minister favoured holding the next meeting "in the middle of the
desert" - more or less what will happen in November when the WTO conference meets in
Qatar - or "on a cruise ship". In fact, the G8 su
mmit in 2002 will be held in a nearly inaccessible place in the Canadian Rockies. To
general applause, he then passionately defended child labour: children in Brazil
helped their families by earning a few reales hauling b
ags of coal from depot to steelworks. A senior US civil servant suggested they should
"give the NGOs some other sandbox to play in": they could be told to take their
concerns to the International Labour Organisation, whic
h has no powers. Another senior US civil servant, keen to "delegitimise the NGOs",
suggested persuading the foundations that fund them to turn off the tap. That would
force them to back down.
And whatever the real reasons, the most important American foundations are changing
their approach. According to reliable sources - who prefer to remain anonymous -
think-tanks and organisations opposed to globalisation a
re beginning to be denied resources. Also, and unusually, the presidents of major
foundations are personally monitoring allocations of funds by their programme managers
in cases where, in the past, they have funded groups
in the Seattle constellation. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations now favour
think-tanks like the Economic Strategy Institute, whose president is a former adviser
to Ronald Reagan and whose list of donors reads like a W
ho's Who of US transnational corporations [14].
Electronic surveillance is another powerful business weapon. The eWatch company [15].
illustrates capitalism's ability to profit from anything, including the activities of
those who question its supremacy. This subsidia
ry of a public relations company offers to monitor everything on the net about its
corporate subscribers, checking not only the media, but also a database of 15,000
online public discussion groups and 40,000 newsgroups. F
or an annual fee of $3,600-$16,200, "you can monitor the competition, government
regulators, activists, opposition groups, and anything else that impacts your
business". Cheap at the price.
Such tactics are not expected. And maybe they prove that the opponents of
corporate-led globalisation are making a real impact - why otherwise would the masters
of the universe bother with them? But that is to underestima
te the importance international capital attaches to this battle. Its hatred of
democracy has never been so clearly displayed. It must, by fair means or foul,
establish the legitimacy of its domination before any more shoc
ks. (From this point of view, the elections of Bush and of Silvio Berlusconi are
heaven-sent.) Social movements have to watch their step now, especially since Genoa.
They are entering a minefield.
[1] See "Chasing the holy grail of free trade", Le Monde diplomatique English edition,
April 2001
[2] Toronto Star, 3 May 2001, quoting official sources.
[3] Quoted by Cathy Walker, national health and safety director of the Canadian
automobile workers' union, in Now Magazine, Toronto, 17-23 May 2001.
[4] A churchman, Don Vitallano Della Sala, reports having seen Black Block members
emerging from a police van (La Repubblica, 22 July 2001, Le Monde, 24 July 2001).
[5] See Bruno Basini "Avec les maquisards anti-mondialisation", L'Expansion, Paris, 7
June 2001.
[6] Personal statement by John Sellers.
[7] www.france.indymedia.org and www.indymedia.org.
[8] Communiqu� issued by the Seattle Independent Media Centre, 27 April 2001.
[9] Paul Krugman, "Why sentimental anti-globalisers have it wrong", International
Herald Tribune, 23 April 2001.
[10] New York Times, 19 April 2000.
[11] Financial Times, 19 April 2001.
[12] The Cordell Hull Institute is one of the American partners of the Institut
fran�ais de relations internationales (Ifri).
[13] Bruce Silverglade, Centre for Science in the Public Interest, "How the
International Trade Establishment Plans to Defeat Attempts to Reform the WTO",
electronic message, 5 April 2000.
[14] See www.econstrat.org, in particular announcements of Rockefeller and Ford
Foundation grants for studies on international trade.
[15] eWatch, based in Dallas, is a subsidiary of PR Newswire: www.ewatch.com
* Vice-chairman of Attac France, author of Rapport Lugano, Fayard, Paris,
2000, and Remettre l'OMC � sa place, Mille et Une Nuits, Paris, 2001.
Translated by Barbara Wilson
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED � 1997-2001 Le Monde diplomatique
End<{{
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
