Public Protests around the World (article)
nn - 02.10.2010 13:18
Old Article written by Anup Shah, relevant to todays Global Issue:
My background is a degree in computer science—not exactly a degree in global issues! The point is that you don’t need to have qualifications to be concerned and want to do something, although you do need the time to sift through a lot of information to understand what is happening!
Public Protests Around The World
Author and Page information
* by Anup Shah
Mass protests, throughout history have come at a time when enough of the population has been affected by policies of the rulers and elite. They have often been met with brutal, efficient crackdown by the guardians of the elite, be they local police, militias, national militaries, or even another nation’s military forces.
The large protests at the WTO meetings, at IMF, World Bank, G8 and other such summits that are seen today have typically been against the current forms of globalization and the marginalization it is causing, as well as the increasing disparities between the rich and the poor that it has predictably led to already. These issues have motivated people all over the world to protest in many ways.
The mainstream media has concentrated on only a few of these global protests, such as:
* Seattle in 1999
* Washington D.C. in 2000 and 2002
* Quebec in 2001
* Genoa in 2001
These were just some of the more mainstream and reported ones because:
* Two of them were in the home nation of the current superpower, the United States
* Quebec was a Free Trade of the Americas Agreement (FTAA) that involved the United States directly,
* and Genoa was a G8 summit that involved the 7 richest nations plus Russia.
These protests, directed at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF)/World Bank, the FTAA and the G8 respectively, were all protests at the effects of the current forms of globalization which go along the lines of a neoliberal/corporate capitalism ideology (which, as suggested elsewhere on this site, is more of the mercantilist/imperialist policy of wealth appropriation that has continued throughout history.)
While protests have been aimed at different international bodies and blocs, the underlying themes are similar, while the actual themes of the protests have been different. For example:
* The WTO protest of Seattle was about the trade policies being drawn up in undemocratic ways yet affecting people all around the world.
o Here too, the elite’s “front guard” was mobilized to protect the image of the multinational corporations and institutions that support their “rights”.
o The police crackdown was often violent and unprovoked.
* The IMF and World Bank protests in Washington D.C. were about the policies of the IMF and World Bank towards developing countries.
o Their methods of “assistance” have been criticized for a long time, for things like:
+ increasing dependencies on the richer nations
+ promoting a form of development whereby developing nations continue to provide cheap resources and labor to the richer nations
+ to continue to remain in servitude for the west.
+ etc.
o These policies are a precursor and basic framework to allow trade policies discussed at the WTO to be effective; they go hand in hand.
* The protests seen at various G8 summits have included issues such as debt relief.
It is ironic then, that in many countries, leaders, elected through processes of democracy (themselves often painful, trying and hard-won) have been turning against protestors, via pressure from the aristocracy of that nation and from “international” (western) financial institutions that are the target of the protests and criticisms. As protests increase, it is harder for elected leaders to hide behind their claims of being elected, if they are not fulfilling their promises, or turning out not to support their people via their policies:
When the G8 leaders were besieged and publicly upstaged by upwards of 200,000 demonstrators, they had a single line of defence which they repeated to whoever wanted to hear it: “We are democratically elected” - as if this fact had some magic talismanic power. But people are not impressed. Democratic election does not justify presidents when they betray their electoral promises and the public interest, or embark on wholesale privatisation and liberalisation. Nor does it entitle them to move heaven and earth to service the demands of the companies that financed their electoral campaigns. As we know, at least two of the G8 heads - George W Bush and Silvio Berlusconi - represent big business to a far greater extent than they represent ordinary people.
— Ignacio Ramonet, Presidents under pressure, Le Monde diplomatique, August
|
