[Marxism] The G20 debacle
lnp3 at panix.com
Sat Jul 3 06:32:19 MDT 2010
The G20 debacle
By Cathryn Atkinson
Created Jul 2 2010 - 2:43am
What it might have looked like inside the fence
Hosting the G20 in Toronto was the first of a series of political
gambles by the Conservative Canadian government led by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper. At a time when U.S. President Obama, leader of the
world's greatest debtor nation, was seeking additional stimulus money
and therefore deficit financing (something the previous regime of George
W. Bush was no stranger to), Harper's Conservative Finance Minister and
delegate to the G20, Jim Flaherty, was advocating austerity.
Flaherty, who was Finance Minister for the province of Ontario in the
late 1990s, introduced to Canada's biggest and wealthiest province what
the poor countries had come to know as neoliberalism -- shrinking public
finances through tax cuts and spending cuts, privatization of public
services, and the ideological use of the fear of "deficits" to justify
it all. No matter that Flaherty left Ontario's finances in an abysmal
state, far worse than he found them, with higher deficits and debts.
Ontario's "Common Sense Revolution" had accomplished other tasks: it had
devastated the public sector and the social safety net, harmed the
unions, thrown thousands more people out of their homes to live on the
streets. To deal with the resistance generated by the unpopularity of
these policies, the government boosted police budgets and police powers,
meeting demonstrations with riot police and beatings.
Bodies like the G8 and Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) are generally like minded, as they represent the
minority of countries that are already wealthy. These countries have an
interest in the current order, skewed as it is toward their interests.
Until recently, they have had the power to keep things that way. But
when what was then called the Asian economic crisis struck in the late
1990s, the wealthy countries let the biggest of the poor countries into
a new club, the G20 Finance Ministers meeting. The new body could claim
to be more inclusive: with China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil aboard,
the G20 had the Finance Ministers of 80 per cent of the world's
population and 80 per cent of the world's GDP. But as an informal
gathering of Finance Ministers (Labour Ministers started to meet at
separate summits years later), without any transparent structure, and
whose debates took place away from the public eye, the gatherings were
still suspect. Norway's Foreign Minister recently called the G20 "the
greatest setback since World War II," and "a grouping without
international legitimacy", with "no mandate" (1). The skewed membership
and structure hides skewed power relations within the G20, where the G8
countries have far more say in how the world is going to be governed.
Because the lowest common denominator for countries with such vastly
different problems and agendas is low indeed, the G20 meetings produce
declarations of principle that are mostly platitudes. It is difficult to
argue that they have done much, in their 11 years of existence, to
stabilize economies, much less to deal with any of the other issues for
which sound thinking about global finance is needed, from food and fuel
system problems, development aid and war to environmental degradation
and climate change.
This year's declaration features platitudes, certainly, but also signs
that Obama's (probably half-hearted) desire for additional stimulus was
defeated. The desire for stimulus was echoed by countries like India,
whose growth is based on exports to the West and foreign direct
investment from the West (which currently takes the form of giving away
huge tracts of land and resources to multinationals). But other Western
countries, and especially Europe, have to pass the crisis on to their
populations or risk losing their position in the global economic
hierarchy. This is where Canada's proposals, and Flaherty's proposals in
particular, come into play.
What Flaherty called "Common Sense Revolution" in Ontario in the 1990s
is called "fiscal consolidation" in the summit declaration (2). The
declaration concedes that "sustaining the recovery is key", but
counterpoises this with "the importance of sustainable public finances".
The enemy, once called "deficits", is now recast, perhaps because
environmentalism made it a bad word, as "unsustainable public finances".
The magic word "consolidation", which means attacking deficits, occurs
19 times in the 27 page declaration. Consolidation is to be "growth
friendly", but it must happen. Canada worked hard to dilute any talk of
financial sector regulation, and the declaration's discussion of
regulation is unsubstantial -- promises of "strong measures to improve
transparency and improve regulatory oversight".
Another pillar of the G20 declaration is an absolute commitment to fight
protectionism. Although every single member of the club of wealthy
countries got there through protectionism, the G20, like the WTO, the
IMF, and World Bank, remains wedded to "free trade" doctrine. The G20
countries are applauded for not trying to protect their economies from
the crisis through tariffs.
Consolidation and free trade, which serve the western members of the G20
better than its big, poor members, are the substantial commitments of
the declaration. Both sets of policies have proven immensely unpopular
where they have been imposed. To defend them, like defending the
summits, governments have turned to police forces and fear.
Beyond consolidation and free trade, the declaration contains
well-intentioned but empty platitudes. A non-exhaustive list:
* Standing with the people of Haiti -- while refusing to provide them
nearly enough resources to recover from the earthquake, which would take
a tiny fraction of what was spent helping the banks through their crisis.
* A commitment to Copenhagen's toothless climate change protocols -- for
"those of us who have associated ourselves with the Copenhagen Accord".
Interestingly, "those of us" so associated look forward to "the outcome
of the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Group on Climate
Change Financing which is, inter alia, exploring innovative financing."
Was that an unintentional slip, an admission that any innovative
financing will probably have to come from outside the G20?
* A recognition of the need to share "best practices" after the Gulf of
Mexico oil spill -- talk of a moratorium on offshore drilling or any
other such drastic measures is too much for the G20. A major coastal
ecosystem, fishery, and food source can be destroyed; major banks have
to be saved.
* $224 million in development grants for agriculture in Bangladesh,
Rwanda, Haiti, Togo, and Sierra Leone. This highly generous sum amounts
to about 1/5 of what was spent on security for the summit itself.
Given the bizarre billion-dollar price tag -- a price tag that assumes
that the citizenry is so boggled by large numbers that it can't smell
when something awful is cooking -- the declaration cost about $37
million per page.
The spectacle of these finance ministers meeting to talk about passing
on the costs of their economic crises on to their citizens has produced
opposition, and large protests, wherever they were held. As the host of
the summit, Harper had the choice of where to locate it. The financial
capital of the country, Toronto, was a natural choice. But a major city
meant a major protest. The city's mayor, David Miller, suggested a
contained area frequently used for conferences and meetings, Exhibition
Place. Harper opted to hold the meeting in the downtown core, contain it
with a multimillion dollar fence, and commence what might have been the
largest police mobilization in the country's history.
And the view from outside the fence
In the weeks leading up to the summit, the media was full of
fearmongering. A Toronto Star "Survival Guide" advised staying calm
around the police, and explaining to them whatever they wanted. A police
official went a step further, in an unusual usurpation of authority by
police to tell citizens what to do and where to go: "don't come."
Security for such summits had in the past, at the highest level in
Pittsburgh, run as high as $100 million. What was the $1 billion paying
for? Some of it went to new, and lasting, police infrastructure: new
water cannons, new sound weapons, new surveillance cameras, an array of
nonlethal weapons intended to disrupt protests. The training,
communications, and command systems would cost more. The overtime pay
for the thousands of out-of-town police would cost still more. But $1
billion? No one believed there was any credible threat to the safety of
the G20 officials. At worst, protesters might have smashed some windows,
as they had in some previous global summits like the WTO protest in
Montreal in 2005. Could smashed windows, or any conspiracy to smash
windows, justify $1 billion in security expenditure? Could it justify
the various changes to the law and emergency police powers that were put
in place? The open question represented a political risk for Harper: if
the protesters succeeded in capturing the agenda or disrupting the
summit, Harper could lose some of his law-and-order reputation. If
Harper's police went too far, they might risk a backlash from the
public, who have so far been very forgiving of Harper.
In the event, the police forces took no chances, and quite probably took
matters into their own hands. When the big march (well over 10,000 by my
count, 25,000 by some counts) failed to pass police lines (given that
about an equal number of police, 19,000 or 20,000, were deployed), and
continued, a group of protesters doubled back before turning south
towards the fence. Some of these covered their faces and, after they'd
left the big march, smashed windows and police cars. While deep police
lines backed by horses had prevented the big march from heading south to
the fence, a gap appeared and a group of protesters was somehow allowed
to head several blocks south before being stopped. At the southernmost
location, Bay and King, a police car was somehow set on fire, although
some eyewitnesses say there were almost no protesters around and also,
mysteriously, no uniformed police (3). The role of police provocateurs
in these events might eventually come out in court, to which I will return.
The point here is that at least through a passive decision, and more
likely through active provocation, the police helped see to it that
windows and police cars were destroyed. Journalist Joe Wenkoff followed
the Black Bloc for 27 blocks without any police presence (3). A police
source told Toronto Sun reporter Joe Warmington (4) that the police had
orders to let it happen: "there were guys with equipment to do the job,
all standing around looking at each other in disbelief."
Almost no one was arrested during the smashing. Before the demonstration
took place, police seized activists and organizers in raids -- some of
whom are still being held at detention centres. The (Saturday) night
after the afternoon demonstration and the day after (Sunday), however,
police rounded up hundreds of people -- some 1,000 in total (which means
$1 million security expenditure per arrested protester). Curiously,
police had announced prior to the summit that they expected to arrest
1,000. Did they simply keep arresting until they met their numbers?
Given the "catch and release" policy they followed (100 of the 1,000 are
still in detention, and many of those released have given shocking
testimonies of abuse by police, outdoor cages, open toilets, denial of
feminine products to prisoners) it seems likely.
People on Toronto streets reported seeing police operations that had no
relationship to any protest or anything going on: riot police shuffling
about, horse charges, rapid deployment from one part of the city to
another, temporary closures of areas and sweeping up of random people
into mass arrests. It looked to me like Harper's people were flexing
their muscles, testing the public stomach, seeing how far they could
ride over people's rights and liberties. Accompanying the show of muscle
was a public relations effort - placing the burden of justifying the $1
billion security expenditure on some smashed windows and police cars
(with damages probably in the tens of thousands).
Something of a public backlash did emerge. On Monday afternoon, 2,600
people (by my count) protested the police response outside headquarters.
Among the slogans: "No more cops on overtime, protesting is not a
crime". The same police who had been so abusive the day before were
relatively quiet. Protesters didn't see any riot gear, the bike police
didn't push people with their bikes as they often do at protests, and
the horses stayed largely out of sight a block away.
Important questions remain about the dozens that remain in detention.
Will the government pursue charges and seek jail sentences for
protesters? If some of those who smashed windows were entrapped by
provocateurs, will the evidence emerge in trial? Will the public allow
the state to persecute protesters when the police role was so
pernicious? And the question that, unfortunately, is likely to get lost
in the details: since these summits are destructive when they are not
useless, are they worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars,
shutting down cities, destroying civil liberties?
1. Der Spiegel, June 22, 2010: Norway Takes Aim at the G20 .
2. http://g20.org/Documents/g20_declaration_en.pdf 
3. Joe Wenkoff, "G20 Toronto Black Block get green light to rampage ."
4. Joe Warmington, "Cops had hands 'cuffed ". Toronto Sun June 30, 2010.
Justin Podur is a Toronto-based writer. This story first appeared in
More information about the Marxism