arch/ive/ief (2000 - 2005)

Qatar reveals impact of Sept 11 on trade battle
by Judy Rebick

After years of battle, the pro-corporate globalization forces have won a victory in Qatar. Maude Barlow in an internet radio report from Qatar says NGOs on the ground at the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks "are devastated."

The WTO, you will remember, was the target of the first huge anti-corporate globalization action in Seattle a couple of years ago. The demonstration combined with the resistance of developing countries to the WTO agenda scuttled that round of talks and gave new power and visibility to protesters. Now the talks are back on.

The United States and other rich countries are using the "war on terrorism" to bully and bribe poor countries into supporting the WTO agenda, which will expand corporate power and increase the gap between rich and poor.

The momental events of September 11 and its aftermath have had an impact in both strengthening the position of the rich countries and weakening the anti-corporate globalization forces, especially in North America.

In a polarizing climate of fear where any critical viewpoint faces immediate and vicious attack, the times are very tough for any movement for social change. But the danger is greatest for the anti-globalization movement both because it has been the most visible and effective movement for change and because its strength lies in an uneasy coalition of diverse forces.

The institutional part of the movement, including unions and large NGOs, seems to be taking a step back from mobilization. Unsure about the support of their members in the case of unions and worried about government or public backlash to their funding in the case of the NGOs, these groups have become more cautious. The more radical wing of the movement, on the other hand, seems to see any significant change in tactics as a retreat.

On November 17 in Ottawa, there will be a mobilization that on the surface looks like previous mobilizations in Quebec City and Windsor before it. A local group, Global Democracy, is organizing and expects "thousands." Plans are afoot for creative confrontation, like the teddy bear catapult in Quebec City. There is a long list of activities including a teach-in organized by the Council of Canadians and featuring anti-globalization stars like Susan George.

What's missing is the support of most institutional groups. In Seattle, Quebec City, Windsor and Genoa, there were differences between the different wings of the movement but both institutional and radical groups mobilized.

In Ottawa, there is no sign that the unions and big NGOs are mobilizing. Part of the problem is the short notice of the meeting that makes it more difficult for unions to organize. . But there is little doubt that the impact of September 11 has deepened already existing divisions in the movement.

According to David Robbins, a young anti-corporate activist now working for the Council of Canadians, "Mainstream groups are being careful, which seems to mean not doing things." He adds, "there is still a class war out there and we are the only side expected to stop fighting."

The main march on the morning of November 17 will be non-violent according to the Global Democracy web site http://www.flora.org/gdo . But on the day before and the afternoon after the march, groups who do not promise non-violence will be organizing actions.

The reality of the anti-globalization movement is that there are groups who adhere to what they call "diversity of tactics." Most of these groups do not use violence themselves but they will not condemn or stop others who choose to use violent tactics.

The problem with the "diversity of tactics" argument is that a tiny group who wants to throw stones at cops can put thousands of people into danger who have not chosen to be in danger. In Quebec City and Genoa, organizers created a safe or Green zone, as they are doing in Ottawa, but when police violence escalated noone was safe.

The radical wing of the movement sees enforcing demonstration rules as authoritarian and simply will not accept it. They also reject arguments that the heightened level of polarization and potential for repression creates a new reality post September 11 where promising non-violence is even more important.

Young people I've talked to who support non-violence say they cannot insist upon it because they would exclude an important part of the movement. The problem here is that a much larger group is de facto excluded because they can't afford to risk arrest, violence or a backlash in their membership.

After September 11, an anti-war, anti-corporate movement could be reaching out to many immigrants and refugees who understand very well the price of this war but the cost of participating in a protest that may turn violent is too high for them. Women's groups, who in Ottawa tried to establish rules for non-violence, have also been excluded by the rejection of such an agreement.

So many of these groups are voting with their feet. Neither wing of the movement can be effective without the other. The radical wing has created the energy, dynamism and attracted the youth that has put the anti-corporate movement back on the map after the failure of the old left. The institutional wing provides resources, continuity, credibility, establishment contacts and a broader base.

Each group thinks they are justified in their disagreements with the other. But the cost of allowing disagreements to turn into permanent splits is too high. This is what happened in the workers' movement during World War I. We are still suffering the consequences of the split between the radical Communists and the moderate social democrats. The events of September 11 raise the urgent necessity for dialogue, discussion and compromise in the anti-globalization movement. Nothing is more important.

This article is pretending to say "unite!" while it's actually feeding division.

[1] It's clearly describing 2 wings out of the movement: a radical (violent) one and an institutional (non-violent) one. This is far too simple, and it's exactly what goverments and mainstream medias are shouting all the time.

[2] It's spreading a big myth about violence and "diversity of tactics". The police doesn't act violently or not because of violent actions against them. Their action is political, they do it according to their own strategy. See Göteborg, Barcelona (ultimate example), Genova and lot of local actions. They may stand quiet and arrest nobody even if they are stonned, aswell as they may organize terrible provacation and repression against peacefull protest. The "diversity of tactics" and the respect between different styles of actions have to be develloped and increased. Some "peacefull" people are sometimes trying to impose too much non-violence, while about no violent group are asking everybody to join their attacks!

[3] The all point is about political options and long terms strategies. Most of the time institutional NGOs may have money and media attention, but no large mobilization potential. They are more than welcome in the movement, but nobody have to try to impose their view. Discussion about violence is mostly use to hide weak political positions, to avoid radicalization.

[4]The last part of the text, about the 2nd International is pityful. The author says that there's been a split between radical and moderate and that's the reason why there's a "urgent necessity for dialogue, discussion and compromise" in the movement. The real point is (once more) political. There were no split between radical and moderate, there was a split about a really concrete issue: the so-called 'moderate' betrayed the 'workers movement' by supporting the war!
.