[antiwar-van] G-8 EPILOGUE: Movement at the Crossroads

[Garth Mullins]

G-8 EPILOGUE: Movement at the Crossroads 
Garth Mullins  
July 5, 2002

VANCOUVER: Given the blanket prohibition on public assembly, and the largest 
peacetime deployment of the repressive apparatus of the Canadian state, it is 
a victory that our movement defied authorities and held a series of anti-G8 
events in Calgary and Kananaskis. However, this is a qualified victory - we 
cannot paint a sunny face on a movement that is at a crucial moment in its 
development. We face some serious political questions and are at a strategic 
crossroads. The limited numbers and support we were able to mobilize against 
the G8 reflects our slow recovery from the conservative backlash and 
political disorientation of 9/11, as well as internal contradictions and 
weaknesses that were only exacerbated by the September attacks.   

G8 summit deliberations were eclipsed not by insurrections like those of 
Quebec or Seattle, but rather by a growing crisis of corporate corruption at 
World Com and Xerox. Plummeting investor confidence sent global markets into 
a tailspin, losing almost 10% by the close of the summit. George W. Bush felt 
compelled to speak out against the state of business ethics from the 
foothills of Alberta.  

Official discussions on terrorism were likewise overshadowed. Instead, Bush 
unilaterally called for a market-driven, democratic Palestinian state, where 
he chooses the non-Arafat-leadership. Chretien, after agreeing with Bush, 
then not knowing, finally decided he might leave the choice of a leader up to 
the Palestinians themselves.  

In terms of reforms, the presence of an African delegation at the G8 table 
and of NEPAD on the agenda (with its many well-documented shortcomings) 
reflects the growing influence of civil society and of the anti-corporate 
globalization movement. Critics at the "Peoples Summit - G6B" were right to 
point out that the New Partnership for African Development is largely an 
attempt to give the G8 a kinder, gentler face.  

The Movement   

The ruling class is on the offensive, retaking legitimacy and political 
ground lost to us over the last several years. Last week's G8 resistance 
represents a crisis in the development of our movement and its ability to 
mobilize significant numbers and support. The plateau we have now stalled-out 
at is an expression of a convolution of objective political forces and 
subjective dynamics. Kananaskis was no Genoa - it was not a political victory 
for us. Neither was it a shocking defeat. Rather, it was a concrete indicator 
of the state of the movement’s health.  

Our numbers were dramatically fewer, our politics insufficiently 
confrontational, our strategy in a state of retreat, our tactics unclear, and 
our organization mal-functioning and inadequately transparent. The Canadian 
state made its boldest moves in the weeks before the summit; deploying the 
army on citizens with permission to shoot to kill, denying protesters any 
physical presence at the summit site, fear mongering to the locals and making 
veiled threats in the media. Our actions were a defensive response to these 
initial moves. Officials read the public mood and realized that they could 
get away with a much more aggressive orientation towards dissent than they 
were previously able. Organizers were likewise aware. Our movement did not 
rise to the violence mongering of politicians and the media. But neither did 
the army shoot nor police attack. They realized how insignificant a treat we 
posed.  

We must arrest the decline of our movement, or face political irrelevance. 
Our immediate task is to come together in our local communities and figure 
out where we are now and what we can do about it. In Vancouver, such a 
meeting will take place on July 13. Everybody should be included in a frank 
discussion on the direction of the movement, and how we organize in this 
brave new era of reaction.  

Authorities use the carrot and the stick approach to dispensing with their 
political opposition - repression and co-optation. Radical tactics and 
militant analysis are the best defense against the latter. The radical 
grassroots must not leave national and global networking to the NGOs. While 
maintaining our local roots and organic connections to local struggles, we 
must rid ourselves of our parochial blinders. The radical grassroots must 
play a more active role in the direction of the global movement and its 
Canadian constituency.  

Over the past year or so, a consensus has been building among activists to 
move beyond "summit hopping" While abandoning summit hopping is wise in terms 
of mass strategy, we cannot leave world leaders to meet in peace, and we 
cannot leave the NGO's to form the infrastructure and leadership of the 
movement. Further, the corresponding links to organic, local and regional 
struggles are still in their beginning stages. Stopping hopping to K- Country 
is a failure to recognize everything that made this summit qualitatively more 
odious than other international summits. Kananaskis was the first test sight 
of the government's new approach to civil rights, as seen in recent 
security / anti- terrorist legislation.  

The voices of anti-corporate globalization protesters across the country were 
peripheral to G8 discourse. Unlike other summits where we radically 
undermined the leaders' hegemony, we were unable to significantly call into 
doubt the legitimacy of the G8, its agenda or the system it perpetuates. But 
neither were the issues framed entirely by G8 leaders.  

The Chretien government was able to achieve a broader political victory - the 
further limiting of the right to protest, and forcing our movement into 
retreat. Kananaskis was the feds' first highly visible test of its post-9/11 
approach to democracy and civil liberties. At last April's Summit of the 
Americas, outrage at the fence in Quebec City resonated with folks across the 
Country. There was no similar outrage about the qualitatively larger G8 
security operation echoing off the mountains of K-Country. The lack of mass- 
opposition to the massive G8 security operation gives the government carte 
blanche to implement its new package of security legislation (bills C-35, C- 
36, C-55, etc.) to designate dissent free zones as it deems politically 
necessary. Chretien has longed for such power since trying to make protest 
invisible at APEC five years ago.  

Since the September attacks there has been a qualitative re-polarization of 
the political landscape and a reactionary ideological backlash to rival that 
of the '80s. Our movement has shifted from a 'war of maneuver' footing to a 
more defensive posture. In the war of ideas, our movement must seek to 
deconstruct hegemonic discourses relating to terrorism and security, and to 
reframe these themes in terms of state terror, state repression, racism and 
imperialism.  

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, dissent became a dirty word, people 
rallied around their leaders and flags and our movement became disoriented. 
Some labour leaders and environmental organization representatives called for 
the cancellation of everything we were doing. Others at the grassroots 
proposed that we continue as if nothing has changed. A third current within 
the movement argued for a shift to anti-war work. Things have changed, and 
our political perspective and strategy must reflect this.  

We are still recovering momentum lost during this period of confusion. 
Without a sufficiently developed analysis of how the political landscape had 
moved, the movement engaged the Canadian state from a weakened position - we 
were unaware of how different the world had become. The summit drew closer 
and the government was armed with scary new legislation. Its terrorist 
bogeymen were around every corner. We were in a state of retreat in the face 
of this offensive, before the mayor was even placing cowboy hats on 
delegates' heads. Before 9/11, the government would have found it much more 
difficult to deploy the army against its own citizens, and give soldiers 
permission to use lethal force.  

Our movement arises from diverse political backgrounds, different 
communities, and we are bound to disagree about assessments of conditions and 
appropriate strategies and tactics. However, the phrase "diversity of 
tactics" is now being used to paper over disagreements and to avoid a 
desperately needed discussion about tactics and political perspective. In 
such a climate, I watched our G8 Spokescouncils devolve into logistical Q&A 
sessions rather than the models of radical democracy and alternative vision 
they can be. As much as possible, participants in an action must have agency. 
This cannot be downloaded to the affinity groups. Mass actions are not just 
cattle-drives; they are fundamentally acts of self-emancipation.  

Some organizations use marches to let their leaders flex their muscle at the 
negotiating table or as they lobby governments or corporations. Participants 
are turned on and off like a tap. This is obvious to those to whom it is 
done, and merely continues their alienation. That is not what our movement is 
about and we cannot afford to let parts of it slip back into that mode of 
operating. We then lose that spark that has grabbed the imagination and 
commitment of so many. This movement is founded on the principle of direct 
confrontation with the enemy - in the streets, at the point of production or 
consumption, or in the ideological arena. As opposed to lobbying elected 
officials to enact incremental change on our behalf. Most of the time we are 
political spectators, on the sidelines, watching as our leaders make a 
history we do not condone. We are encouraged to express ourselves through the 
products we consume. But in resistance, we have the opportunity to defiantly 
step out of our prescribed role of consumer or spectator, and to become an 
active agent in the political process, to step up to history, and play an 
active part.  

Conclusion  

 At Calgary and Kananaskis, the movement defied attempts by authorities to 
completely stifle dissenting voices and prevent public assembly. Given our 
disorientation in the wake of the 9/11 backlash, strategic retreats in the 
face of elevated state repression, and the resultant decrease in numbers, we 
posed little threat to the legitimacy of the G8 agenda. Nationally, we were 
unable to mobilize a meaningful challenge to the hegemony of corporate 
globalization as embodied in the G8 summit. This campaign reflects a movement 
still trying to find its feet in a massively repolarized political 
landscape.  

In missives to these lists, some people have described G8 resistance as a 
nail in our movement's coffin. Others are singing in the rain. The G8 will 
only be a defeat for our movement if we fail to learn from it, grow, deepen 
our analysis, build our links and move forward. There will only be cause for 
pessimism if we do not take this opportunity and learn from these lessons. 

An ideological security perimeter is being erected around a renewed hegemony 
of world leaders and forces of corporate globalization. Where they haul out 
their terrorist bogeymen at the slightest criticism. We must not respond to 
this Brave New 9/11 World Hegemony with accommodation and retreat. Rather, we 
must regroup, debate, deepen our analysis of current political situation and 
decide to answer the gathering forces of reaction with bold ideological 
initiative, and an escalation of tactics.