Hello Steven,

I think you are largely right.  However, it seems to me that the protests
are much more complex than the establishment see them.

And I really don't like the constant use of terms by all sides that are not
at all relevant - more like Orwellian speak.  For example, there is no such
entity as "free" markets, "free" trade; never has been and never will be.
Both are regulated in one way or another.  The questions are who decides the
rules, who gains from the rules, and who loses?   Are the results equitable?
And, of course, the equitable part will depend on the bias of the observer -
those affected. :-)

Ray

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Bissell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: What the Protestors in Genoa want


> Kind of wishful thinking. This is what the protesters 'should' be, but IMO
> not what they 'are.' From what I've seen of recent protests, there is a
> strong isolationist element and, sadly, a strong anti-science element. I
do
> not agree with the authors that this is the only form of expression left,
it
> would seem to me that there are lots of suitable alternatives. For
example,
> at the CITES meetings, NGOs are given a place at the table, although not
> necessarily a vote. There influence is very strong however and ability to
> shape policy tangible. At least this is what I'm told by associates at
WWF.
> Well, maybe the protests will evolve into something useful, along the
lines
> of the Vietnam protests.
> Steven
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ray Lanier
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 8:09 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: What the Protestors in Genoa want
>
>
>   From The New York Times OP-Ed page
>
> July 20, 2001
>
> What the Protesters in Genoa Want
> By MICHAEL HARDT and ANTONIO NEGRI
>
> Genoa, that Renaissance city known for both openness and shrewd political
> sophistication, is in crisis this weekend. It should have thrown its gates
> wide for the celebration of this summit of the world's most powerful
> leaders. But instead Genoa has been transformed into a medieval fortress
of
> barricades with high-tech controls. The ruling ideology about the present
> form of globalization is that there is no alternative. And strangely, this
> restricts both the rulers and the ruled.
>
> Leaders of the Group of Eight have no choice but to attempt a show of
> political sophistication. They try to appear charitable and transparent in
> their goals. They promise to aid the world's poor and they genuflect to
Pope
> John Paul II and his interests. But the real agenda is to renegotiate
> relations among the powerful, on issues such as the construction of
missile
> defense systems.
>
> The leaders, however, seem detached somehow from the transformations
around
> them, as though they are following the stage directions from a dated play.
> We can see the photo already, though it has not yet been taken: President
> George W. Bush as an unlikely king, bolstered by lesser monarchs. This is
> not quite an image of the future. It resembles more an archival photo,
> pre-1914, of superannuated royal potentates.
>
> Those demonstrating against the summit in Genoa, however, are not
distracted
> by these old-fashioned symbols of power. They know that a fundamentally
new
> global system is being formed. It can no longer be understood in terms of
> British, French, Russian or even American imperialism.
>
> The many protests that have led up to Genoa were based on the recognition
> that no national power is in control of the present global order.
> Consequently protests must be directed at international and supranational
> organizations, such as the G-8, the World Trade Organization, the World
Bank
> and the International Monetary Fund. The movements are not anti-American,
as
> they often appear, but aimed at a different, larger power structure.
>
> If it is not national but supranational powers that rule today's
> globalization, however, we must recognize that this new order has no
> democratic institutional mechanisms for representation, as nation-states
do:
> no elections, no public forum for debate.
>
> The rulers are effectively blind and deaf to the ruled. The protesters
take
> to the streets because this is the form of expression available to them.
The
> lack of other venues and social mechanisms is not their creation.
>
> Antiglobalization is not an adequate characterization of the protesters in
> Genoa (or Göteborg, Quebec, Prague, or Seattle). The globalization debate
> will remain hopelessly confused, in fact, unless we insist on qualifying
the
> term globalization. The protesters are indeed united against the present
> form of capitalist globalization, but the vast majority of them are not
> against globalizing currents and forces as such; they are not
isolationist,
> separatist or even nationalist.
>
> The protests themselves have become global movements and one of their
> clearest objectives is for the democratization of globalizing processes.
It
> should not be called an antiglobalization movement. It is
pro-globalization,
> or rather an alternative globalization movement - one that seeks to
> eliminate inequalities between rich and poor and between the powerful and
> the powerless, and to expand the possibilities of self-determination.
>
> If we understand one thing from the multitude of voices in Genoa this
> weekend, it should be that a different and better future is possible. When
> one recognizes the tremendous power of the international and supranational
> forces that support our present form of globalization, one could conclude
> that resistance is futile.
>
> But those in the streets today are foolish enough to believe that
> alternatives are possible - that "inevitability" should not be the last
word
> in politics. A new species of political activist has been born with a
spirit
> that is reminiscent of the paradoxical idealism of the 1960's - the
> realistic course of action today is to demand what is seemingly
impossible,
> that is, something new.
>
> Protest movements are an integral part of a democratic society and, for
this
> reason alone, we should all thank those in the streets in Genoa, whether
we
> agree with them or not. Protest movements, however, do not provide a
> practical blueprint for how to solve problems, and we should not expect
that
> of them. They seek rather to transform the public agenda by creating
> political desires for a better future.
>
> We see seeds of that future already in the sea of faces that stretches
from
> the streets of Seattle to those of Genoa. One of the most remarkable
> characteristics of these movements is their diversity: trade unionists
> together with ecologists together with priests and communists. We are
> beginning to see emerge a multitude that is not defined by any single
> identity, but can discover commonality in its multiplicity.
>
> These movements are what link Genoa this weekend most clearly to the
> openness - toward new kinds of exchange and new ideas - of its Renaissance
> past.
>
>
> Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri are the authors of "Empire.''
>
>
> Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company