Recipe for Disaster?
January 27, 2002 7:13 PM Subscribe
Recipe for Disaster? The World Economic Forum meets in New York this week, and the usual parties are going to converge on the city. With 9.11 so fresh in people's minds will things get way out of hand? It seems like a powderkeg to me.
When will people learn that making a fool of yourself by dancing around naked, wearing masks, and/or just shouting catchy slogans will not make your opinion respect by Mr. Average American.
Throw your own conventions. Bring up arguments without yelling or throwing things. It'll make people actually look at your ideas, instead of just looking at you.
posted by geoff. at 7:42 PM on January 27, 2002
Throw your own conventions. Bring up arguments without yelling or throwing things. It'll make people actually look at your ideas, instead of just looking at you.
posted by geoff. at 7:42 PM on January 27, 2002
That's funny, mr_crash_davis, I have a funny feeling New Yorkers (like myself) will have very little patience with unruly world leaders playing God. What's on their agenda, I wonder? How stupid was it to have this meeting in New York?
posted by djacobs at 7:47 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by djacobs at 7:47 PM on January 27, 2002
I'm kind of looking forward to it. The Forum usually has interesting discussions. Most protesters are non-violent and peaceful.
There are a very small group of people ... a few groups ... that attempt to turn things violent and destructive at these things. I think, however, (as someone who lives in Mahattan and works in midtown) that these folks may be in for a rude awakening if they try that this time. They are used to figuring out how to deal with the police, but usually assume the populace is not a factor (which it usually isn't). Welcome, however, to post 9/11 protesting in NY. Anyone attempting big shows of violent or destructive protest will, I think, wind up praying that the police do get to them before they are beat to death by New Yorkers. While 9/11 is no longer in the headlines every day, this is ground zero, and there are still big, raw, open wounds here in the New York State of Mind.
Kicking grizzly bear cubs would probably be a safer occupation than trying to damage a midtown McDonalds right now.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:48 PM on January 27, 2002
There are a very small group of people ... a few groups ... that attempt to turn things violent and destructive at these things. I think, however, (as someone who lives in Mahattan and works in midtown) that these folks may be in for a rude awakening if they try that this time. They are used to figuring out how to deal with the police, but usually assume the populace is not a factor (which it usually isn't). Welcome, however, to post 9/11 protesting in NY. Anyone attempting big shows of violent or destructive protest will, I think, wind up praying that the police do get to them before they are beat to death by New Yorkers. While 9/11 is no longer in the headlines every day, this is ground zero, and there are still big, raw, open wounds here in the New York State of Mind.
Kicking grizzly bear cubs would probably be a safer occupation than trying to damage a midtown McDonalds right now.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:48 PM on January 27, 2002
I get the feeling that New Yorkers will have very little patience with unruly protesters right now.
And I get the feeling that many of the protestors will be New Yorkers.
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2002
And I get the feeling that many of the protestors will be New Yorkers.
posted by Mo Nickels at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2002
I know that I keep spinning this yarn out, but I think that we really need to examine how the relationship between protest and law enforcement has deteriorated over the last three years. This is probably going to be an unpopular statement, but it appears that both activist groups and police forces are to blame for the increased mutual hostility. Ten years ago I went to Washington D.C. for the 92 March in Washington for LGB rights and just about everybody associated with the city from the police officers directing traffic to the public transit employees were extremely helpful and friendly. There certainly was a group that was engaged in civil disobedience but this was announced well in advance the people engaging in civil disobedience peacefully cooperated with police and as far as I was aware no major problems occurred.
On the one side, the anti-globalization (a really bad name if there ever was one) groups have really failed in both trying to collaborate with police, and to train and organize their own activists in keeping the situation calm. On the other hand, law enforcement seems to be unwilling to engage in any kind of a collaboration, or to make a distinction between people engage in civil disobedience, and people engage in legal protest. Unfortunately, this probably lead to the fatal violence in Verona. The pacifist group attempting to organize the protest dropped out after repeated attempts to negotiate march routes and legal protest zones with police.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2002
On the one side, the anti-globalization (a really bad name if there ever was one) groups have really failed in both trying to collaborate with police, and to train and organize their own activists in keeping the situation calm. On the other hand, law enforcement seems to be unwilling to engage in any kind of a collaboration, or to make a distinction between people engage in civil disobedience, and people engage in legal protest. Unfortunately, this probably lead to the fatal violence in Verona. The pacifist group attempting to organize the protest dropped out after repeated attempts to negotiate march routes and legal protest zones with police.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2002
" ... That's funny, mr_crash_davis, I have a funny feeling New Yorkers (like myself) will have very little patience with unruly world leaders playing God. What's on their agenda, I wonder? How stupid was it to have this meeting in New York? ..."
1. Why is it that any time any world leaders meet, it is naturally for evil purposes, obviously an act of playing god, and clearly must be stopped so that (it is implied) the "common man" doesn't get screwed?
2. This is what is on the agenda.
3. It is being held in New york as a gesture, a genuine show of support for New York on the part of world leaders ... many of whom are often critical of the US at these meetings.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:08 PM on January 27, 2002
1. Why is it that any time any world leaders meet, it is naturally for evil purposes, obviously an act of playing god, and clearly must be stopped so that (it is implied) the "common man" doesn't get screwed?
2. This is what is on the agenda.
3. It is being held in New york as a gesture, a genuine show of support for New York on the part of world leaders ... many of whom are often critical of the US at these meetings.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:08 PM on January 27, 2002
Midas is correct in that it is a small number of people who act like idiots at protests of this sort. And that small number of people give the more thoughtful(and peaceful) critics of global corporatism(of which there are many) a bad name.
I found that the one good by product of 9/11 for me was that I for all time lost my taste for Grand Guignol confrontations and knee-jerk "I'm right, Your wrong" dualistic displays of violence forever. Hopefully, the protesters and the cops have had similar epiphany's.
It's my theory that the people who engage in wanton violence and destruction at these events(radicals and cops alike) are like the people who ran wild at Woodstock a few years back. That is to say, just idiots who want to fuck shit up just to prove what big shots they are. The majority of people on both sides, I believe relize that this kind of stuff does nothing to advances noones cause and does nothing to preserve order.
posted by jonmc at 8:17 PM on January 27, 2002
I found that the one good by product of 9/11 for me was that I for all time lost my taste for Grand Guignol confrontations and knee-jerk "I'm right, Your wrong" dualistic displays of violence forever. Hopefully, the protesters and the cops have had similar epiphany's.
It's my theory that the people who engage in wanton violence and destruction at these events(radicals and cops alike) are like the people who ran wild at Woodstock a few years back. That is to say, just idiots who want to fuck shit up just to prove what big shots they are. The majority of people on both sides, I believe relize that this kind of stuff does nothing to advances noones cause and does nothing to preserve order.
posted by jonmc at 8:17 PM on January 27, 2002
" ... but I think that we really need to examine how the relationship between protest and law enforcement has deteriorated over the last three years ...".
100% agreement KikJobSluder. Seems to be an escalating trend, and it worries me. Don't know what to do either. The vast majority of protesters are peaceful, and using protest as a legitimate mechanism for airing opinions. A very, very small few factions operate within them, however ... and I don't think the peaceful folks really can control them - they are out for blood and anarchy. They want the headline pictures of damaged property and police cracking down (status in their circles goes way up when a McDonalds goes up in flames).
The problem is, if you have 10,000 peaceful protesters, that spend months working on press releases, attempting to frame their points and communicate them, and 10 people that do something destructive ... the destruction is what hits the wire services.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:18 PM on January 27, 2002
100% agreement KikJobSluder. Seems to be an escalating trend, and it worries me. Don't know what to do either. The vast majority of protesters are peaceful, and using protest as a legitimate mechanism for airing opinions. A very, very small few factions operate within them, however ... and I don't think the peaceful folks really can control them - they are out for blood and anarchy. They want the headline pictures of damaged property and police cracking down (status in their circles goes way up when a McDonalds goes up in flames).
The problem is, if you have 10,000 peaceful protesters, that spend months working on press releases, attempting to frame their points and communicate them, and 10 people that do something destructive ... the destruction is what hits the wire services.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:18 PM on January 27, 2002
My favorite phrase from the powderkeg reference was.. "socially conscious activists". Are these protesters supposed to be telepathic or are they merely pretentious hooligans? In the latter case my advice to these lunatics would be to not mess with armed Korean grocery store owners.
posted by Real9 at 8:25 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by Real9 at 8:25 PM on January 27, 2002
True. However, New Yorkers might also remember that there's lots of unemployed folks sitting in on way too many C-SPAN congressional hearings these days. Attempting to restrict participation in "A Vision for a Shared Future," with international security part of the discourse ... to invited guests only, in Manhattan? We're glad all those leaders are working on the vision thing, but there's also such a thing as getting one's vision checked. By referring to this situation as "a powderkeg," and linking to "all the usual players," aren't we also intimating that events held at "United Nations Church Center, 777 UN Plaza" are some kind of problem?
If 9-11 means we give up on our ability to continue to hold basically peaceful public demonstrations, who's winning?
If the world's leaders meet, and everyday people want to participate, but the media only showcases a small number of unruly, testosterone-laden disrupters, who's winning?
posted by sheauga at 8:32 PM on January 27, 2002
If 9-11 means we give up on our ability to continue to hold basically peaceful public demonstrations, who's winning?
If the world's leaders meet, and everyday people want to participate, but the media only showcases a small number of unruly, testosterone-laden disrupters, who's winning?
posted by sheauga at 8:32 PM on January 27, 2002
Real9- good point.
It's always struck me as ironic that those who loudly claim to be "for the people" seem to consider it their mission to do as much to piss off "the people" as humanly possible.
posted by jonmc at 8:39 PM on January 27, 2002
It's always struck me as ironic that those who loudly claim to be "for the people" seem to consider it their mission to do as much to piss off "the people" as humanly possible.
posted by jonmc at 8:39 PM on January 27, 2002
perhaps it's the classic affluent radical story: college kid finds out the rest of the world isn't as privileged as him and becomes radicalized. He then proclaims allegiance with struggling masses whom he's never met. When he does finally met them, he discovers they want nothing to do with him, which only adds to his persecution complex, making him more beligerrent and doctrinaire.
Obviously I'm using hyperbole and overgeneralization to make a point here, but judging from a lot of people in the latest crop of 'radicals' I've met this is far from inaccurate.
posted by jonmc at 8:46 PM on January 27, 2002
Obviously I'm using hyperbole and overgeneralization to make a point here, but judging from a lot of people in the latest crop of 'radicals' I've met this is far from inaccurate.
posted by jonmc at 8:46 PM on January 27, 2002
perhaps it's the classic affluent radical story: college kid finds out the rest of the world isn't as privileged as him and becomes radicalized. He then proclaims allegiance with struggling masses whom he's never met. When he does finally met them, he discovers they want nothing to do with him, which only adds to his persecution complex, making him more beligerrent and doctrinaire.
Obviously I'm using hyperbole and overgeneralization to make a point here, but judging from a lot of people in the latest crop of 'radicals' I've met this is far from inaccurate.
posted by jonmc at 8:46 PM on January 27, 2002
Obviously I'm using hyperbole and overgeneralization to make a point here, but judging from a lot of people in the latest crop of 'radicals' I've met this is far from inaccurate.
posted by jonmc at 8:46 PM on January 27, 2002
djacobs, mo, I'm not claiming to have my finger on the pulse of New York City, by any means. I've only spoken to a small number of people there (the staff at one of our offices on Williams St. and a few scattered friends) in the last week or so, but as I said it's my feeling that they're not too keen on it. The staff at the office is pretty much exhausted (they just finished putting in the last of the land lines that we lost 9/11 and are finally back to "normal") and seem to be out of patience for anything that disrupts what order they've managed to rebuild.
Again, as a casual observer who's thousands of miles away, it's just my opinion.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:47 PM on January 27, 2002
Again, as a casual observer who's thousands of miles away, it's just my opinion.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:47 PM on January 27, 2002
Attitudes are changing all over. Let me add a PS, that I hope those Black-Blockers will fare a little better when they have to square off with Al Kaida types attempting to infiltrate them then they do when they square off with the police. These days, Black-Blockers have cause to be thankful that Uncle Sam's watching their backs.
posted by sheauga at 8:49 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by sheauga at 8:49 PM on January 27, 2002
Correction: William Street. No "s".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:52 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:52 PM on January 27, 2002
JonMC - didn't you just describe several of the 9/11 hijackers? Affluent types who felt marginalized and radicalized themselves therefore?
Followup question: wasn't one of the worries in the 9/12 and beyond civil liberties crackdown (Ashcroft's infamous "If you support the constitution you support the terrorists" scare tactics (paraphrased)) that peaceful protest groups who organized as many of them are doing here, could find themselves prosecuted under the USA PATRIOT act or its state-sponsored ilk?
posted by swerdloff at 9:04 PM on January 27, 2002
Followup question: wasn't one of the worries in the 9/12 and beyond civil liberties crackdown (Ashcroft's infamous "If you support the constitution you support the terrorists" scare tactics (paraphrased)) that peaceful protest groups who organized as many of them are doing here, could find themselves prosecuted under the USA PATRIOT act or its state-sponsored ilk?
posted by swerdloff at 9:04 PM on January 27, 2002
" ... Correction: William Street. No "s" ... ".
Right you are. I actually live on William. Small damn world.
And when you say "The staff at the office is pretty much exhausted ... and seem to be out of patience for anything that disrupts what order they've managed to rebuild ...". I think you've really nailed a sentiment that isn't spoken much, but is probably widely felt.
Things still seem slightly ... I dunno, precarious or something. I do know that anything that even remotely resembles destructive actions, or damaging property to make a political point ... is not going to be looked upon kindly.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:12 PM on January 27, 2002
Right you are. I actually live on William. Small damn world.
And when you say "The staff at the office is pretty much exhausted ... and seem to be out of patience for anything that disrupts what order they've managed to rebuild ...". I think you've really nailed a sentiment that isn't spoken much, but is probably widely felt.
Things still seem slightly ... I dunno, precarious or something. I do know that anything that even remotely resembles destructive actions, or damaging property to make a political point ... is not going to be looked upon kindly.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:12 PM on January 27, 2002
And I get the feeling that many of the protestors will be New Yorkers.
i don't know about that, Mo. it would seem a little counterintuitive that the financial center of an unabashedly capitalist country would be very receptive to, much less supportive of, an anti-globalist agenda. (On a side note, i really don't "get" the "anti-globalization" movement. Globalization is an organic, systemic phenomenon that naturally occurs in a free-market system. Being "anti" globalism is as futile as being "anti" evolution. These guys seem like economic Luddites. Am I missing something? If I'm misunderstanding what they do, feel free to enlighten me...)
This New Yorker will definitely be irritated if this turns into anything more than a peaceful protest. Not because I don't agree with their agenda - and I readily admit that I don't - but because I think it's horribly inconsiderate for these people to disrupt the lives of New Yorkers to push their own agendas when we've already had to deal with so much crap in the last few months. There are other ways to accomplish what they want to accomplish without raining even more unnecessary melodrama down on the [exhausted] people of Manhattan. Even New Yorkers that would normally be sympathetic to their cause are likely to tell them to stop whining and go home.
posted by lizs at 9:14 PM on January 27, 2002
i don't know about that, Mo. it would seem a little counterintuitive that the financial center of an unabashedly capitalist country would be very receptive to, much less supportive of, an anti-globalist agenda. (On a side note, i really don't "get" the "anti-globalization" movement. Globalization is an organic, systemic phenomenon that naturally occurs in a free-market system. Being "anti" globalism is as futile as being "anti" evolution. These guys seem like economic Luddites. Am I missing something? If I'm misunderstanding what they do, feel free to enlighten me...)
This New Yorker will definitely be irritated if this turns into anything more than a peaceful protest. Not because I don't agree with their agenda - and I readily admit that I don't - but because I think it's horribly inconsiderate for these people to disrupt the lives of New Yorkers to push their own agendas when we've already had to deal with so much crap in the last few months. There are other ways to accomplish what they want to accomplish without raining even more unnecessary melodrama down on the [exhausted] people of Manhattan. Even New Yorkers that would normally be sympathetic to their cause are likely to tell them to stop whining and go home.
posted by lizs at 9:14 PM on January 27, 2002
Well this New Yorker is largely sympathetic to the protesters in this case, and I'm pissed about them holding the meetings here in the first place. Almost as pissed as I am that they're being held with no accountability to the millions of people whose lives they're directly going to affect.
How is holding the meetings in New York a "show of support" for New York City when from the outside, all we're going to be seeing are a bunch of closed-off streets, a few thousand stormtroopers on hair-trigger alert, and some protesters who've come to town (on their own dime, and certainly not as tourists) to try and show whoever's listening that this corporate-governmental gladhanding session here is little more than an exercise in consolidating power for the self-interested, corrupt few?
Another thing. I've been involved in these protests before, and you know, I might do it here too. And in my personal experience, the Affluent College Lifestyle Radical card is extremely inaccurate.
Protesters come from everywhere, for lots of reasons. Paint everyone with the same brush at your risk.
posted by chicobangs at 9:37 PM on January 27, 2002
How is holding the meetings in New York a "show of support" for New York City when from the outside, all we're going to be seeing are a bunch of closed-off streets, a few thousand stormtroopers on hair-trigger alert, and some protesters who've come to town (on their own dime, and certainly not as tourists) to try and show whoever's listening that this corporate-governmental gladhanding session here is little more than an exercise in consolidating power for the self-interested, corrupt few?
Another thing. I've been involved in these protests before, and you know, I might do it here too. And in my personal experience, the Affluent College Lifestyle Radical card is extremely inaccurate.
Protesters come from everywhere, for lots of reasons. Paint everyone with the same brush at your risk.
posted by chicobangs at 9:37 PM on January 27, 2002
If I'm misunderstanding what they do, feel free to enlighten me
I think comparing a seriously regulated [i.e. not free] market with evolution may be missing the point. my major issue with a lot of recent globalization movements is that corporations have been lobbying and legislating and having secret meetings so that they can have the same bargaining and legal power as nations.
I think this is wrong. I think nations should be able to have the soverignty to be able to set their own health and welfare and environmental standards without large corporations [or the IMF or the World Bank which are run by those same large corporations] being able to tell the governments that they are standing in the way of a company's "right" to make a profit in that country. A nation should be able to set laws within their borders that are not overturnable by a global corporation.
However, some of the money for media coverage of this protest has been graciously "donated" by General Motors, so maybe I shouldn't slam them all too hard....
posted by jessamyn at 9:40 PM on January 27, 2002
I think comparing a seriously regulated [i.e. not free] market with evolution may be missing the point. my major issue with a lot of recent globalization movements is that corporations have been lobbying and legislating and having secret meetings so that they can have the same bargaining and legal power as nations.
I think this is wrong. I think nations should be able to have the soverignty to be able to set their own health and welfare and environmental standards without large corporations [or the IMF or the World Bank which are run by those same large corporations] being able to tell the governments that they are standing in the way of a company's "right" to make a profit in that country. A nation should be able to set laws within their borders that are not overturnable by a global corporation.
However, some of the money for media coverage of this protest has been graciously "donated" by General Motors, so maybe I shouldn't slam them all too hard....
posted by jessamyn at 9:40 PM on January 27, 2002
Paint everyone with the same brush at your risk.
chicobangs - read all of my posts in this thread completely before you assume that's what I'm doing. To a large degree, I'm fairly sympathetic with many of the anti-globalists. I was merely portraying the more obnoxious "lets-firebomb-the-Gap" contingent and pointing out some of the inherent ironies in some of posturing I've come across of late. Misunderstandings like this from both sides of the political fence happen to me all the time, both here and out in the real world, which is why I'm feeling more and more alienated from activism or any kind of political process, for that matter. I doubt I'm the only one.
posted by jonmc at 9:48 PM on January 27, 2002
chicobangs - read all of my posts in this thread completely before you assume that's what I'm doing. To a large degree, I'm fairly sympathetic with many of the anti-globalists. I was merely portraying the more obnoxious "lets-firebomb-the-Gap" contingent and pointing out some of the inherent ironies in some of posturing I've come across of late. Misunderstandings like this from both sides of the political fence happen to me all the time, both here and out in the real world, which is why I'm feeling more and more alienated from activism or any kind of political process, for that matter. I doubt I'm the only one.
posted by jonmc at 9:48 PM on January 27, 2002
Not to mention the irony of someone who refers to cops as "stormtroopers" talking about "painting everyone with the same brush."
posted by jonmc at 9:51 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by jonmc at 9:51 PM on January 27, 2002
Here's my suggestion. Let the protesters protest. Have the police on guard. Let the media cover the stories. Let the forum continue as planned. Let the political leaders and corporation heads have their coffee and talks. The protesters shout this and that, the forum participants reply with "we hear you, and we will take it into consideration". Do this for a few days and when it's all over, everyone goes home, the city workers clean up the streets, and we all resume our daily lives.
Result? The forum participants are happy - they might've achieved concensus on some issues, and perhaps had a nice little vacation from it all. The protesters are happy - they might've had their voices heard by the forum, perhaps felt that they indeed made a difference, and at the same time got the media's attention. New York is happy - people came to the city, they spent some money, bought some things, generally helped with the economic recovery. Why, it's a win-win situation for everyone involved! So what's up with all the fuss?
posted by dai at 10:05 PM on January 27, 2002
Result? The forum participants are happy - they might've achieved concensus on some issues, and perhaps had a nice little vacation from it all. The protesters are happy - they might've had their voices heard by the forum, perhaps felt that they indeed made a difference, and at the same time got the media's attention. New York is happy - people came to the city, they spent some money, bought some things, generally helped with the economic recovery. Why, it's a win-win situation for everyone involved! So what's up with all the fuss?
posted by dai at 10:05 PM on January 27, 2002
my major issue with a lot of recent globalization movements is that corporations have been lobbying and legislating and having secret meetings so that they can have the same bargaining and legal power as nations.
A) corporations don't legislate anything. B) they lobby, as is their right under our system of representative democracy and just as non-commercial activist groups and individuals have a right to do; and C) secret meetings are neither illegal nor unethical. thanks to Regulation FD, public companies *have* to have closed-door restricted meetings to make sure public disclosures are made to all parties simultaneously and nothing "leaks."
I think nations should be able to have the soverignty to be able to set their own health and welfare and environmental standards without large corporations...being able to tell the governments that they are standing in the way of a company's "right" to make a profit in that country.
having worked with a few multinationals, i can tell you from direct experience that this interpretation of how things get done is very naive. as much as the anti-globalists don't want to admit it, the much-maligned multi-nationals, have, in many cases, been responsible for the imposition of the very health standards you seem to think they're blocking. i've also never been party to any situation where a foreign government kicked and screamed when a U.S. corporation wanted to put a subsidiary on their turf. in most cases, they were doing everything they could to woo the U.S. suitor. U.S. corporations meant more tax revenue, and in some cases, the corporations were willing to pay for public infrastructure (roads, communications equipment) the governments themselves couldn't afford or wouldn't pay for.
there are, to be sure, some corporations that exploit the lax regulatory environments of some countries to their own advantage and to the detriment of the host country's populus. (See Union Carbide, Bhopal.) The fact that these things do sometimes happen is not a sufficient indictment of globalism any more than the fact that some people drive recklessly/drunk is an indictment of auto travel. Yes, power can be abused. That doesn't mean that it always will be, or that it can't be and isn't used for immense good as well.
posted by lizs at 10:11 PM on January 27, 2002
A) corporations don't legislate anything. B) they lobby, as is their right under our system of representative democracy and just as non-commercial activist groups and individuals have a right to do; and C) secret meetings are neither illegal nor unethical. thanks to Regulation FD, public companies *have* to have closed-door restricted meetings to make sure public disclosures are made to all parties simultaneously and nothing "leaks."
I think nations should be able to have the soverignty to be able to set their own health and welfare and environmental standards without large corporations...being able to tell the governments that they are standing in the way of a company's "right" to make a profit in that country.
having worked with a few multinationals, i can tell you from direct experience that this interpretation of how things get done is very naive. as much as the anti-globalists don't want to admit it, the much-maligned multi-nationals, have, in many cases, been responsible for the imposition of the very health standards you seem to think they're blocking. i've also never been party to any situation where a foreign government kicked and screamed when a U.S. corporation wanted to put a subsidiary on their turf. in most cases, they were doing everything they could to woo the U.S. suitor. U.S. corporations meant more tax revenue, and in some cases, the corporations were willing to pay for public infrastructure (roads, communications equipment) the governments themselves couldn't afford or wouldn't pay for.
there are, to be sure, some corporations that exploit the lax regulatory environments of some countries to their own advantage and to the detriment of the host country's populus. (See Union Carbide, Bhopal.) The fact that these things do sometimes happen is not a sufficient indictment of globalism any more than the fact that some people drive recklessly/drunk is an indictment of auto travel. Yes, power can be abused. That doesn't mean that it always will be, or that it can't be and isn't used for immense good as well.
posted by lizs at 10:11 PM on January 27, 2002
" ... in some cases, the corporations were willing to pay for public infrastructure (roads, communications equipment) the governments themselves couldn't afford or wouldn't pay for ..."
Gotta second lizs here. Have been around the world a bit, indeed, to a few places where the poor folks the protesters are claiming to represent live. In more than one instance, lives were not just slightly, but immensely improved by the presence of a large corporation. This in the opinion of the people themselves.
This, of course, is never mentioned, or even noticed by the protesters. The people that will fly halfway around the world to protest in New York are not those who, for the first time in their lives, experienced sanitary water systems, regular paychecks, and basic health care because a multinational plotted, in "secret meetings", to "take over" their village.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:24 PM on January 27, 2002
Gotta second lizs here. Have been around the world a bit, indeed, to a few places where the poor folks the protesters are claiming to represent live. In more than one instance, lives were not just slightly, but immensely improved by the presence of a large corporation. This in the opinion of the people themselves.
This, of course, is never mentioned, or even noticed by the protesters. The people that will fly halfway around the world to protest in New York are not those who, for the first time in their lives, experienced sanitary water systems, regular paychecks, and basic health care because a multinational plotted, in "secret meetings", to "take over" their village.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:24 PM on January 27, 2002
Okay, jonmc. apologies. 'Stormtrooper' was a poor choice of words. Some cops with shields during the meetings will be courteous and maybe even nice. Agreed. At any rate, I wasn't aiming specifically at you, I swear.
But do you understand why I might be actively concerned about what's going on? (I'd restate what jessamyn said above, but I don't want to undermine the points she made.) To question globalism, in this climate, is to question the viability of capitalism as we know it. That makes this discussion vital to have.
I'll freely admit I don't know nearly enough about what these meetings are all about. But I resent being told not to worry my little head about it, and to trust the Corporate World to take care of the rest of us from behind locked and gunpoint-guarded doors in an era where CEOs with deep ties to ruling governments can cash out on the back of their employees' retirement funds.
Corporations can be great and tangible forces of good, all over the world. Although when their decisions go bad (see Enron, or Monsanto, or okay, Union Carbide), the consequences are comparatively immense. (If I personally short-sell $100,000,000 off insider trading for my golden parachute, or accidentally kill 50,000 people in India, may I never see the light of day again.)
And no one's going to bring these corporations down and drive them out of the rest of the world, nor should they. But while they are responsible only to their shareholders, sometimes their effects reach far beyond that.
Which is why these protests are so vital. It's the only way that the non-shareholders who are deeply affected by the decisions these corporate entities make, for good or ill, have anything resembling a say in what's going on.
So in a way, it's actually globalism at work.
posted by chicobangs at 10:38 PM on January 27, 2002
But do you understand why I might be actively concerned about what's going on? (I'd restate what jessamyn said above, but I don't want to undermine the points she made.) To question globalism, in this climate, is to question the viability of capitalism as we know it. That makes this discussion vital to have.
I'll freely admit I don't know nearly enough about what these meetings are all about. But I resent being told not to worry my little head about it, and to trust the Corporate World to take care of the rest of us from behind locked and gunpoint-guarded doors in an era where CEOs with deep ties to ruling governments can cash out on the back of their employees' retirement funds.
Corporations can be great and tangible forces of good, all over the world. Although when their decisions go bad (see Enron, or Monsanto, or okay, Union Carbide), the consequences are comparatively immense. (If I personally short-sell $100,000,000 off insider trading for my golden parachute, or accidentally kill 50,000 people in India, may I never see the light of day again.)
And no one's going to bring these corporations down and drive them out of the rest of the world, nor should they. But while they are responsible only to their shareholders, sometimes their effects reach far beyond that.
Which is why these protests are so vital. It's the only way that the non-shareholders who are deeply affected by the decisions these corporate entities make, for good or ill, have anything resembling a say in what's going on.
So in a way, it's actually globalism at work.
posted by chicobangs at 10:38 PM on January 27, 2002
Here is (what seems to me, someone mostly pro-) a decently balanced look at the pros and cons of globalization.
posted by owillis at 10:39 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:39 PM on January 27, 2002
" ... But I resent being told not to worry my little head about it, and to trust the Corporate World to take care of the rest of us from behind locked and gunpoint-guarded doors ...".
1. I don't think anyone has told you not to worry about anything.
2. The "locked and gunpoint-guarded doors" are so for a very good reason. It is likely that well over half the men and woman at the Forum - including both corporate and political leaders - have had credible death threats made against them.
3. Do you actually think the protesters, if alowed in, would not try all sorts of different kinds of actions? That many of them - who hold the publically and explicitly stated goal of distrupting, if possible even preventing the meetings - would not welcome the chance? It's a bit bizzare for people to say their intention is to gather in great numbers with the purpose of disrupting discussions, and then make a big deal out of how they are "secret" sessions held behind closed doors and gunpoint.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:10 PM on January 27, 2002
1. I don't think anyone has told you not to worry about anything.
2. The "locked and gunpoint-guarded doors" are so for a very good reason. It is likely that well over half the men and woman at the Forum - including both corporate and political leaders - have had credible death threats made against them.
3. Do you actually think the protesters, if alowed in, would not try all sorts of different kinds of actions? That many of them - who hold the publically and explicitly stated goal of distrupting, if possible even preventing the meetings - would not welcome the chance? It's a bit bizzare for people to say their intention is to gather in great numbers with the purpose of disrupting discussions, and then make a big deal out of how they are "secret" sessions held behind closed doors and gunpoint.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:10 PM on January 27, 2002
"Then I read to Roh from the letter sent in April to US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick by twenty-nine major US multinationals and industry organizations, urging him to push for the same NAFTA investor provisions in the upcoming FTAA negotiations. The appeal was organized by USCIB and vetted by Dan Price. GE, Ford, GM, International Paper, Motorola, Dow, DuPont, Chevron, Procter & Gamble and 3M were among the signers (though not the Business Roundtable). The business letter sounds a lot like Professor Epstein. NAFTA, it asserts, includes "protection from regulations that diminish the value of investors' assets."
"Jesus, they can't mean that," Roh exclaimed. I read him the text again. "Jesus, if they do that, they're going to put Middle America on the barricades alongside the environmentalists."
-The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century by William Greider
Personally, I think the protests are too little, too late. The fight is already over. Eliminate your personal debt, consolidate your assets, become more conservative in your expenditures, and try to find a way to make a living that leaves you less dependent on the whims of someone else's bottom line,and you'll do better. Granted, it's a bitch to figure out how to set up your own MSA, the IRA money could be used for other things, but not having to play their game gives you a lot more options. And you'll need those options.
posted by dglynn at 11:36 PM on January 27, 2002
"Jesus, they can't mean that," Roh exclaimed. I read him the text again. "Jesus, if they do that, they're going to put Middle America on the barricades alongside the environmentalists."
-The Right and US Trade Law: Invalidating the 20th Century by William Greider
Personally, I think the protests are too little, too late. The fight is already over. Eliminate your personal debt, consolidate your assets, become more conservative in your expenditures, and try to find a way to make a living that leaves you less dependent on the whims of someone else's bottom line,and you'll do better. Granted, it's a bitch to figure out how to set up your own MSA, the IRA money could be used for other things, but not having to play their game gives you a lot more options. And you'll need those options.
posted by dglynn at 11:36 PM on January 27, 2002
How did I get into this.
1. Midas, you're right - no one's being told to not worry. They're being told not to think about the meetings at all, except to discredit anyone not in the meetings themselves. A locked meeting for the purposes of disclosing the results in a controlled situation would make a lot more sense if there was any meaningful disclosure at all after these things finished, aside from a few small banalities.
2. I have lost count of the number of "credible death threats" made against any or all of the protesters (many of them in the letters page of the local papers), and to a lesser degree here (Two examples from this thread: "This is a bad time to show up in New York and try to start any trouble," "my advice to these lunatics would be to not mess with armed Korean grocery store owners.") I'm just saying. People are being pretty cavalier about this stuff on both sides of the equation.
3. Look. The protesters, if allowed into the meetings, would, I honestly believe, sit at the table and discuss things as best they could. Midas, your intimation that they're all blithering savages who somehow need to be kept down is insulting.
The protesters are a group that needs to be heard by another influential and moneyed group that is affecting a lot of lives they're not accounting for, not a disruptive force that is only there to fuck shit up. The fact that these meetings are, in fact, "secret sessions held behind closed doors and gunpoint" changes only the protesters' tactics for getting heard, not their goals.
The people who are there merely to disrupt, on the Corp/bad cop side or the protester/hooligan side, are not the people that matter here. (Frankly, I'd be happy if those two groups went into the desert and just beat the crap out of each other, and who cares who came back.) I'm only concerned about those who need and are able to make a coherent point about the lack of accountability that these Corporations have, and see if a little bit more room can be made at the table for the people these decisions are going to directly affect.
posted by chicobangs at 12:04 AM on January 28, 2002
1. Midas, you're right - no one's being told to not worry. They're being told not to think about the meetings at all, except to discredit anyone not in the meetings themselves. A locked meeting for the purposes of disclosing the results in a controlled situation would make a lot more sense if there was any meaningful disclosure at all after these things finished, aside from a few small banalities.
2. I have lost count of the number of "credible death threats" made against any or all of the protesters (many of them in the letters page of the local papers), and to a lesser degree here (Two examples from this thread: "This is a bad time to show up in New York and try to start any trouble," "my advice to these lunatics would be to not mess with armed Korean grocery store owners.") I'm just saying. People are being pretty cavalier about this stuff on both sides of the equation.
3. Look. The protesters, if allowed into the meetings, would, I honestly believe, sit at the table and discuss things as best they could. Midas, your intimation that they're all blithering savages who somehow need to be kept down is insulting.
The protesters are a group that needs to be heard by another influential and moneyed group that is affecting a lot of lives they're not accounting for, not a disruptive force that is only there to fuck shit up. The fact that these meetings are, in fact, "secret sessions held behind closed doors and gunpoint" changes only the protesters' tactics for getting heard, not their goals.
The people who are there merely to disrupt, on the Corp/bad cop side or the protester/hooligan side, are not the people that matter here. (Frankly, I'd be happy if those two groups went into the desert and just beat the crap out of each other, and who cares who came back.) I'm only concerned about those who need and are able to make a coherent point about the lack of accountability that these Corporations have, and see if a little bit more room can be made at the table for the people these decisions are going to directly affect.
posted by chicobangs at 12:04 AM on January 28, 2002
been responsible for the imposition of the very health standards you seem to think they're blocking
lives were not just slightly, but immensely improved by the presence of a large corporation
any information you could forward citing cases of this would be appreciated. most of what I am aware of is that there are increasing numbers of non-elected, non-democratic governing bodies that companies are entitled to petition for grievances and seek remuneration or direct changing of laws, environmental and otherwise. Multinationals may be okay to work for, but I decline to consider myself naive for not trusting them to make my world a better place for me to be in.
While me and Gerber both have a shot at influencing our congresspeople in the US, only Gerber can really [via US representatives, yes] sic the WTO on the nation of Guatemala to make them change national legislation to make it more favorable to them. They are not a Guatemalen company, they merely do business there. This legislation affected people of Guatemala directly and yet was being decided by an extra-national governing body with no public oversight. My feeling as an activist is that enough people don't know about crap like this, even if Nike is the biggest purchaser of organic cotton in the world.
I'm with dglynn as far as real-life tactics, but if I was on the East Coast, me and my puppets would be trying to make as much noise in NYC as possible. Apologies to the exhausted, sorry about the lousy timing.
posted by jessamyn at 1:06 AM on January 28, 2002
lives were not just slightly, but immensely improved by the presence of a large corporation
any information you could forward citing cases of this would be appreciated. most of what I am aware of is that there are increasing numbers of non-elected, non-democratic governing bodies that companies are entitled to petition for grievances and seek remuneration or direct changing of laws, environmental and otherwise. Multinationals may be okay to work for, but I decline to consider myself naive for not trusting them to make my world a better place for me to be in.
While me and Gerber both have a shot at influencing our congresspeople in the US, only Gerber can really [via US representatives, yes] sic the WTO on the nation of Guatemala to make them change national legislation to make it more favorable to them. They are not a Guatemalen company, they merely do business there. This legislation affected people of Guatemala directly and yet was being decided by an extra-national governing body with no public oversight. My feeling as an activist is that enough people don't know about crap like this, even if Nike is the biggest purchaser of organic cotton in the world.
I'm with dglynn as far as real-life tactics, but if I was on the East Coast, me and my puppets would be trying to make as much noise in NYC as possible. Apologies to the exhausted, sorry about the lousy timing.
posted by jessamyn at 1:06 AM on January 28, 2002
Lest we forget: United States Constitution, Article 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
posted by Carol Anne at 5:55 AM on January 28, 2002
posted by Carol Anne at 5:55 AM on January 28, 2002
" ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ..."
This hasn't been forgotten. People are going to assemble. What many of them explicitly state, however, is that they want to disrupt, or prevent, the leaders from assembling - which they also have the right to do. The thing that does seem to have been forgotten of late by some of the protesters is the "peaceably" part.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:30 AM on January 28, 2002
This hasn't been forgotten. People are going to assemble. What many of them explicitly state, however, is that they want to disrupt, or prevent, the leaders from assembling - which they also have the right to do. The thing that does seem to have been forgotten of late by some of the protesters is the "peaceably" part.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:30 AM on January 28, 2002
jessamyn - how about this article?
Although I would typically shy away from any org that focuses on "religion and" *anything*, this article cites some useful statistics.
The World Bank itself has plenty of research on privately funded infrastructure that provides public goods.
the evidence is there. some people just don't want to see it.
the WTO didn't *make* Guatamala do anything. The WTO is largely a toothless organization. Multilateral economic NGOs are rarely effective in *influencing* policy of signatory countries, much less making policy. The article you pointed to lost all credibility with the following line: "Under WTO rules, corporate intellectual property rights have higher priority than human health." (although coming from "Project Censored", i'm not sure it had that much credibility in the first place.) Even assuming the article got *some* of the facts straight, Gerber, was, quite legitimately dealing with a trademark issue. What were they supposed to do? Put a shriveled, sickly baby on the front of their bottles? Not only would that be a unreasonable request, there's no medical evidence that suggests Gerber's product is in detrimental to the health of children. Depending on what research institution you're talking to, breast feeding may be relatively healthier. That does not make Gerber products harmful to the health of Guatamalan babies.
posted by lizs at 8:25 AM on January 28, 2002
Although I would typically shy away from any org that focuses on "religion and" *anything*, this article cites some useful statistics.
The World Bank itself has plenty of research on privately funded infrastructure that provides public goods.
the evidence is there. some people just don't want to see it.
the WTO didn't *make* Guatamala do anything. The WTO is largely a toothless organization. Multilateral economic NGOs are rarely effective in *influencing* policy of signatory countries, much less making policy. The article you pointed to lost all credibility with the following line: "Under WTO rules, corporate intellectual property rights have higher priority than human health." (although coming from "Project Censored", i'm not sure it had that much credibility in the first place.) Even assuming the article got *some* of the facts straight, Gerber, was, quite legitimately dealing with a trademark issue. What were they supposed to do? Put a shriveled, sickly baby on the front of their bottles? Not only would that be a unreasonable request, there's no medical evidence that suggests Gerber's product is in detrimental to the health of children. Depending on what research institution you're talking to, breast feeding may be relatively healthier. That does not make Gerber products harmful to the health of Guatamalan babies.
posted by lizs at 8:25 AM on January 28, 2002
Keyword: peaceably
Definitions differ--as people in my neighborhood found out just this past New Year's Eve.
posted by y2karl at 8:55 AM on January 28, 2002
Definitions differ--as people in my neighborhood found out just this past New Year's Eve.
posted by y2karl at 8:55 AM on January 28, 2002
peaceably - as long as we do not see pictures like these from Genoa,Italy G8 summit meeting last July.
posted by Voyageman at 10:09 AM on January 28, 2002
posted by Voyageman at 10:09 AM on January 28, 2002
i don't know about that, Mo. it would seem a little counterintuitive that the financial center of an unabashedly capitalist country would be very receptive to, much less supportive of, an anti-globalist agenda.
New York is also one of the artistic & intellectual centers of the world, and there are plenty of NYers who will be supportive of, and involved in, the protests. This year, people are more exhausted and sensitive than usual, so it's entirely believable that the apolitical majority, who normally wouldn't have cared one way or the other, will find this more annoying than they would have in another year. But it's nothing to do with NY being the "financial center" etc. Most of the people who work in the financial sector commute, anyway.
I heard a man speak a couple weeks ago who'd lost his father in the WTC, but was protesting this conference. He was articulate, informed, emotionally open about his loss but not weird about it (i.e., redirecting anger, too closed off, hysterical, or otherwise disingenuous --which I had feared he would be). It was an interesting discussion, and though it may be naive to think things will be changed by these actions, it makes me very happy that so many people will show up to express their opinions.
It's important to remember that life isn't all about making money. American corporations especially seem to have problems making compromises for "the good of humankind" when they could fight to make a buck. Because, you know, "it's business" - they're able to separate business into a game where you try to win, that abstractly has no effect on the world.
I recently read a history of the oil business, and was really amazed at how differently american vs. british & dutch oil companies dealt with environmental concerns, economic infrastructure of nations where they drilled, partnerships and self-regulation, etc etc etc. American co's were basically willing to do whatever it took to remain the biggest and richest company - to "win" - while the british & dutch actually made some decisions that would cost them in the short term, for the sake of a) general good and b) long term goals, keeping the co. going even after those particular executives would be retired or dead.
(BTW, those conclusions were mine based on an objective history, not those of the author - the book was The Prize by Daniel Yergin)
posted by mdn at 10:17 AM on January 28, 2002
New York is also one of the artistic & intellectual centers of the world, and there are plenty of NYers who will be supportive of, and involved in, the protests. This year, people are more exhausted and sensitive than usual, so it's entirely believable that the apolitical majority, who normally wouldn't have cared one way or the other, will find this more annoying than they would have in another year. But it's nothing to do with NY being the "financial center" etc. Most of the people who work in the financial sector commute, anyway.
I heard a man speak a couple weeks ago who'd lost his father in the WTC, but was protesting this conference. He was articulate, informed, emotionally open about his loss but not weird about it (i.e., redirecting anger, too closed off, hysterical, or otherwise disingenuous --which I had feared he would be). It was an interesting discussion, and though it may be naive to think things will be changed by these actions, it makes me very happy that so many people will show up to express their opinions.
It's important to remember that life isn't all about making money. American corporations especially seem to have problems making compromises for "the good of humankind" when they could fight to make a buck. Because, you know, "it's business" - they're able to separate business into a game where you try to win, that abstractly has no effect on the world.
I recently read a history of the oil business, and was really amazed at how differently american vs. british & dutch oil companies dealt with environmental concerns, economic infrastructure of nations where they drilled, partnerships and self-regulation, etc etc etc. American co's were basically willing to do whatever it took to remain the biggest and richest company - to "win" - while the british & dutch actually made some decisions that would cost them in the short term, for the sake of a) general good and b) long term goals, keeping the co. going even after those particular executives would be retired or dead.
(BTW, those conclusions were mine based on an objective history, not those of the author - the book was The Prize by Daniel Yergin)
posted by mdn at 10:17 AM on January 28, 2002
that's not to say non-US companies are all good - anyway our brand of capitalism seems to be spreading, along with the whole entreprenuerial, libertarian spirit where it's every man for himself etc.
also, I know no history is truly "objective" - just meant that it wasn't anti-american. It's a fascinating book, btw, and no one really comes off clean, as the quest for oil is all about money, power & domination.
posted by mdn at 10:28 AM on January 28, 2002
also, I know no history is truly "objective" - just meant that it wasn't anti-american. It's a fascinating book, btw, and no one really comes off clean, as the quest for oil is all about money, power & domination.
posted by mdn at 10:28 AM on January 28, 2002
Interesting story here.
Two points:
"Police...plan to strictly enforce a century-old law barring groups of demonstrators from wearing masks."
and
"...representatives of some groups that demonstrated at last year's event will be inside the conference as guests this time."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:01 PM on January 28, 2002
Two points:
"Police...plan to strictly enforce a century-old law barring groups of demonstrators from wearing masks."
and
"...representatives of some groups that demonstrated at last year's event will be inside the conference as guests this time."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:01 PM on January 28, 2002
1. Masks, right. Evidently the openness and accountability that ought to apply to corporations doesn't apply to certain individuals standing up on behalf of their beliefs. (Dish it out but can't take it!)
2. Hey, Midas, why don't you or your cohorts inside the conference try posting some of the more interesting sessions to nyc.indymedia.org? Let us know if it doesn't work.
posted by sheauga at 2:10 PM on January 28, 2002
2. Hey, Midas, why don't you or your cohorts inside the conference try posting some of the more interesting sessions to nyc.indymedia.org? Let us know if it doesn't work.
posted by sheauga at 2:10 PM on January 28, 2002
« Older Names, names, names. | Q209354 - HOWTO Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It'll be interesting to see how Bloomberg plays this one, though. I think if Rudy was still mayor he'd put a serious clamp down on these protesters, and people would throw him a ticker-tape parade.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:38 PM on January 27, 2002