arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Comments on Genoa in WTO-related Conference Call, July 31, 2001

Walden Bello, Focus on the Global South

(The following is an expansion of various interventions I made during
the conference call of activists organizing around the WTO on July 31,
2001. I would like to thank all participants in the call for the
stimulating exchange of views.)

Let me say, first of all, that I think the organizers of the Genoa
Social
Forum did an excellent job getting all those people there and
managing the protests. This was the biggest anti-corporate
globalization mobilization so far. One can only appreciate their
achievement if we understand the great constraints they were under,
including the lack of cooperation from the police and the national
government, and even from the regional government, which dragged
its feet providing the promised conference facilities and translation
services.

Police on the Offensive

My sense is that the difference between police behavior in Genoa,
compared to that in earlier big mobilizations-Seattle, Washington,
DC, Melbourne, Chiang Mai, Prague (I wasn't in Quebec)-is that in
Genoa, the police were in an offensive mode whereas previously, they
were, though in many instances brutal in their behavior, largely in a
defensive mode. The preemptive attack on the peaceful march at the
Corso Torino, over three kilometers away from the wall of steel
around the Palazzo Ducale area, illustrated this. I think that the
choice
of strategy was not fortuitous. There has probably been some
consultation going on among police forces internationally, some
coordination, especially since the global elites are now greatly worried
about these protests.

Denunciation and fraternal criticism

I agree that our thrust should be to denounce the police and the state,
who were the principal instigators of violence in Genoa. Indeed,
Genoa can be described as a police riot. I also don't think it's
appropriate to denounce people who say they are on our side but
with whom we may have disagreements over tactics. But although
there is oftentimes a thin line between denunciation and critical
analysis, I think that we should be free to analyze and issue fraternal
criticism of groups that say they are on our side when that is
necessary.

Provocateurs: not a homogeneous group

I agree that many of the provocateurs were police. The visual
evidence gathered so far by the Genoa Social Forum confirms this.
However, I think it would be a mistake to say that all of them were
police. There were others who were not under the control of the state
and acted the way they did out of belief or ideology. To erase this
distinction is to open ourselves to illusions that will damage our
capacity to deal with future contingencies. Since there is a great deal
of sensitivity to the names we use for such political groupings, I will
use the term "Bs."

No to Parasitical Tactics

If the Bs want to violently engage the police, that's one thing. We
may deplore this but we can't do a thing about it. What is crucial for
me is that they confine the confrontations to themselves and the police,
and operate politically and physically at a great distance from us. It
is
when they use our non-violent mass mobilizations for their own ends
that I draw the line. In Genoa, a tactic I often observed was the Bs
would stay at the edges of the march and from there provoke the
police by throwing rocks at them. The police would invariably
respond by lobbing tear gas at our ranks, creating disorder and
confusion and causing injury to our people. This is a parasitical mode
of operating that also preempted in many instances our people's plans
to stage peaceful mass civil disobedience actions.

Please don't misunderstand. I am not referring to the angry responses
that our people displayed in response to the police's preemptive
attacks during the first day. It was very understandable that lots of
people who were in the Corso Torino area threw rocks at the police,
oftentimes in a defensive response to unprovoked police attacks. No,
I am referring to the deliberate way the Bs, especially on the second
day, would provoke the police by creating disturbances ahead of the
front ranks of the big march, like burning cars, or staying on the outer
perimeters of our ranks and, through rock throwing or window-
breaking, provoke police to attack us from the side and from
behind-which the police was only too happy to do. This happened
again and again and again.

I emphasize this not just out of concern over the image of violence and
confusion that such actions created and associated with an otherwise
impressive show of peaceful protest. It was also a question of
physical security. It was simply irresponsible to provoke a police
attack on thousands of people that were marching closely packed in a
narrow boulevard. The dangers of a stampede were really very great
that second day, and this would have been disastrous had one
occurred. It is testimony to the discipline of our people that they did
not break ranks and run in panic when they were gassed. I think they
realized that stinging eyes and difficulties in breathing had to be
endured because the alternative was worse. Whatever his or her
ideology, anybody who deliberately exposes masses of people to
such dangers is acting in a criminal fashion.

There were marshals who were tasked with protecting the people
from the police and provocateurs during the march. For the most
part, they did an admirable job though they were overstretched. They
kept the ranks calm when it became very tempting to cut and run. It
is admirable, too, how ordinary marchers took things in their own
hands. Several times, when some Bs would want to smash a window
or overturn a car, groups of marchers would plead with them not do
it. Sometime moral suasion worked. Sometimes it did not.

Denial or Preparation?

I think that given the high visibility they achieved in Genoa, it would
be
na?ve not to expect the Bs to descend in force on the next big
mobilization. We can either go into the next one in a state of denial
or
we can be prepared.

First of all, I think that we should not be intimidated by either police
or
Bs but resolve to make the next anti-corporate globalization protest
the biggest and most militant ever.

Second, we should expect the police to be on an offensive mode, to
break up our capacity to deploy civil disobedience, and to turn us
from disciplined marchers into an angry mob acting in a disorganized
fashion. People should be organized for orderly retreats, swift
advances, and disciplined resistance. This is not to militarize our
demonstrations; it is simply to make them more organizationally
effective in communicating our message to the world under the
conditions of the new offensive strategy of the police.

Third, we must find a way of dealing with the Bs, whom we can
expect again to cling to our ranks to achieve their objective of
provoking violent confrontation. I think that we need to devise a
strategy of neutralizing them. I would recommend five steps:

1. Initiate dialogue in the planning for the mobilization with the more
open, honest, and trustworthy B groups with the intent of getting them
to agree to respect the political and ethical parameters of our mass
actions;

2. Organize our ranks so that teams can be deployed when needed to
engage in peaceful moral suasion of Bs engaged in violent activity;

3. In the event this does not work, work out orderly ways of putting
as much physical and political distance between our ranks and the Bs
in confrontation situations; and

4. In the event this fails, to work out and deploy non-violent methods
of restraining and defusing violent behavior.

Let me just say that unless measures such as these are incorporated
into our preparations, there might be many among us who would find
it difficult to wholeheartedly mobilize people for the next mass action.
Without such measures, I would think twice before exposing people
to the dangers of stampede, panic, and uncontrolled rage that could
have broken out at any moment in Genoa, with incalculable
consequences.

In conclusion, let me say that the other side--the pro-globalist
political
and economic elites-is now on the defensive. For all our problems,
we must remember that Genoa was a big setback for the G-8. Our
movement now has the moral ascendancy. We cannot afford to lose
it. And one of the reasons we continue to have it is that we have
continually learned from both our successes and our mistakes. Genoa
yielded new challenges. I am confident that we will meet those
challenges head on.

Focus on the Global South (FOCUS)
c/o CUSRI, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok 10330 THAILAND
Tel: 662 218 7363/7364/7365/7383
Fax: 662 255 9976
E-mail: N.Bullard@focusweb.org
Web Page http://www.focusweb.org

aaach,

kijk nu worden we het stilletjesaan beu dat een paar crypto-marxisten en kleinburgelijke NGO's ne les komen spellen over hoe zich te gedragen tijdens een bnetoging. Black Block's bestaan reeds tientallen jaren, voor jullie de term globalisatie hadden ontdekt.
We kunnen sterk zijn binnen onze verschijdenheid van actiemethodes, maar we blijven niet op onze kop schijten. De betere reacties over geweld en verdeeldheid zijn ook op indymedia te lezen (vooral Italy, France,...).
Tiens, by the way waar waren al diegene die roepen dat anarchisten HUN beweging afpakken in het prille begin?? hé?

je suis d'accord en general sur l'analyse, quoi qu'elle sous-estime un peu l'influence de la police dans ces Bs. Plusieurs groupes appartenat aux Bs l'ont declare ouvertement une bonne partie de ce qu'il s'est passé à Genes n'est pas le fait des "blacks blocks" traditionnels, pour eux cela ne peut etre que la police. De plus certaines reactions de ce meme genre de groupes assumment totalement les "casses" et les justifient, malgre l'evidence de la pauvrete des résultat positifs de ce genre de faits sur le mouvement. J'aimerai tellement pouvoir discuter avec des gesn se réclament du black bloc. Voir exactement ce qu'ils pensent de ce qu'il s'est passé. Mais il est evident que les discussions doivent avoir lieu avant les actions. Si il est clair a l'avance pour tout le monde que les Bs ne rentrent pas dans le cortege des "Ds" par exemple, si cela se passe tout de meme, le contrat est rompu, soit c'est des flics, soit des imbeciles et on peut agir... mais comment...?

ik weet niet waar die geruchten vandaan komen. we praten hier wat en niemand die er waarschijnlijk effectief bij was. Het Zwarte Blok is vrijdag als 1 groep vertrokken en had nooit de intentie zich te mengen in de andere demonstraties en heeft dat ook niet gedaan.
Het gezever dat het Zwarte Blok de oorzaak is van het politiegeweld tegen de vreedzame betoging is het hele boeltje omdraaien. Het is nog altijd de politie die jullie aanvalt en niet het Zwarte Blok. Is het een rechtvaardiging dat de politie geweld gebruikt tegen jullie omdat het Zwarte Blok het gebruikt tegen de politie?
Het niet in vraag stellen of eerder niet de juiste vragen stellen over het politiegeweld en er een zondebok voor zoeken, komt duidelijk uit de reformistische hoek die de werkelijke redenen van de repressie niet wil zien en daarmee een beweging gaat opsplitsen in goede en slechte demonstranten. Of gaat het om de slechte af te wimpelen zodat de goeien kunnen gaan 'democratisch onderhandelen'??
Volgens mij komt geen kloof tussen geweldlozen en BlackBlockers, maar tussen ultrareformisten en....hopelijk de rest.