April 21, 2006
IMF Meetings Prompt Street Closures, Questions
It was in April 2000 that tens of thousands of anti-globalization protestors marched the streets of the District, protesting the secretive meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and the policies that emerged from them. Police presence was heavy, given a nervous sense that Washington could go the route of Seattle, which just months prior had been the scene of an epic battle between protestors and police that had provoked an imposition of a state of emergency and the interruption of the World Trade Organization's meetings.
Fast forward to this weekend. The IMF and World Bank are meeting again. Over the course of the last years the crowds of protestors have gotten smaller and smaller, so much so that this year they didn't even bother applying for permits for marches or demonstrations. Yet the District is proceeding as if it were still six years ago -- streets downtown are being closed, and the city is activating its 19-camera CCTV network.
We sympathize with the security-minded among us. After all, instances of violence have marked some of the larger anti-globalization protests over the last years, and we wouldn't put it past crafty terrorists to use large crowds as an excuse to get as close as possible to the IMF or World Bank headquarters.
That being said, there comes a time when police should question the usefulness of shutting down entire city blocks during these meetings. The only real instance of trouble at any of these protest occurred in September 2002, and that was when the Metropolitan Police Department illegally corralled and arrested over 400 peaceful protestors and bystanders in Pershing Park. In fact, a report issued by the D.C. Council Committee on the Judiciary in March 2004 found that since 2000, it has been the police that have been responsible for the majority of the trouble during large-scale protests -- undercover officers have infiltrated political organizations; officers have taken preemptive actions against peaceful protestors and were not disciplined thereafter; the rights of speech, assembly and privacy have not been respected and police have violated their own operating guidelines for handling large protests. Maybe the street closures are to protect protestors from the police, rather than the other way around.
Ultimately, such actions have little impact on our daily lives. Few us venture downtown on the weekends, and fewer of us much care that the police are once again overestimating how much security is needed to handle the expected protestors. But their actions indicate that police might still be unable to distinguish a dissident from a threat, and, more importantly, that they might not yet know how to deploy security measures that balance the security of the city and the rights of its residents and visitors. We'd like to think that six years later they would have learned. Apparently not.
|
I am thinking that some of your sentiment might stem from your feelings about the IMF and World Bank, though you do not elucidate them in your post. Might there be some value to taking steps to ensure that the officials who must attend the annual meetings can actually get to them and conduct the business that the organizations exist to conduct? Isn't there some value in prophylactic security measures? As someone who will have a family member in the buildings during the meetings, as opposed to someone who doesn't go downtown and doesn't care about whether the police are overestimating a security threat, I am pleased the police are taking the security threat seriously.
I agree with one of your points -- that those involved in the meetings should be able to get to them. But given the reality of the situation -- that the protests are small, if they occur at all -- police should start scaling back their presence and fine-tuning their security measures. It's no longer necessary to clamp down with an iron fist when the circumstances just do not merit it.
I'm glad the size of the groups has gotten smaller of the last couple years. Half of the protestors don't even know what they are protesting.
A lot of them come couch surfing in Adams Morgan...funny seeing people in black hoodies with bandannas over their faces lining up at the Citibank ATM to get cash to buy corporate beer to knock back before the Antiflag show. Hee hee
I've taken a lot of flak here for supporting what some people call Draconian security measures in the past, but, yeah.
If thousands and thousands of people are coming to town, you need to take unusual security measures. But you would know that already from just, you know, reading the Internet. And if it's not necessary, no point to making the civil liberties / money tradeoff of crazy locking everything down...
There's a great article in the WSJ today about how the booming world economy of the last 3 years has significantly diminished the IMF's influence. Since countries aren't going bankrupt, and those that did have paid down a lot of their IMF debt, the IMF doesn't have anyone to loan to. As a result their income is down and their influence isn't as far reaching.
Depending on how you see it, that's either a good thing or a bad thing.
"We sympathize with the security-minded among us. After all, instances of violence have marked some of the larger anti-globalization protests over the last years"
Well, I have gone to a number of these protest and will probably go this weekend and I know your statement above it totally false. Just because a few people do something illegal doesn't reflect on the whole crowd. In Seattle, it was clearly the police who insighted the riot, and that was proven in the courts after people were beaten and arrested...in America. Thats right, post 9-11 we are supposed to embrace thesecurity state.
And as for the comment about "most of the people protesting don't even know what they are protesting"...proove that blanket statement. We know what we are protesting, just for an intro here are a few of our concerns:
1.) The IMF/World Bank is a U.S. publicly funded organization, but the public has no input on who is appointed to their board of directors or any access to notes from the meetings. Even though you would think this violates the freedom of information act, since it is an international institution this ruling is up in the air.
2.) The World Bank has FAILED at every one of its efforts. Argintina was supposed to be the first success story, but even that looks closer to calapse now. The World Bank keeps poor countries poor, while corporate america get cheap, cheap labor and forces farmers into capitolism.
3.) The World Bank has destroyed farming communities all over the world. Farmers are not even allowed to grow thier own seed, they are forced into buying seed from companies like "Cargil" and if they don't thier goverments are REQUIRED to destroy thier crop.
Thats just a couple of this issues. Unfortunately, people these days can care less about the poor in other countries or they might educate themselves on these issues...
Is it me or does a 19-camera CCTV system seem fairly small? Since we're obviosuly past the point of whether we should have a system at all, 19 just seems like an ineffective number.
If more protestors would take the time to read GLOBALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS, perhaps being armed with knowledge rather than slogans and papier-mache would inspire them to take some pride in their confrontation with the IMF and present themselves as a dignified group united by informed righteous anger, rather than an ill-tempered mob of shabbily-clad scalawags.
Pat, MPD always claims the CCTV network is 19 cameras. However, this does not include traffic cameras, security cameras at the various federal and office buildings, atms, metro, etc. While I don't believe the federal security cameras are viewable in live-time by MPD, they'll also have many officers on the ground. There is more than enough video coverage of the area.
Hey Cliff: "instances of violence"
Doesn't seem like a blanket generalization that reflects "on the whole crowd" to me. Merely points out that some of these events have been marked by instances of violence.
And while you personally may know good and well what you're protesting (and good on you for doing it), be honest with yourself. When these IMF/WorldBank protests increase in size, you can see the collective intelligence level drop dramatically. A lot of the protestors (not you, so don't get all in a huff) haven't a clue. They're just young, idealist college students wrapped up in the anti-everything movement. And MM's post is about as pertinent an example of their stupidity/hypocricy as you'll ever find.
Protest, good sir, it's worth it. But don't ingnore truths.
Sinclair...sorry to disagree with you but any protest attracts a number of people who aren't sure what they are protesting. Your stereo-typing of these protesters is exactly how the media portrays them. I am a 33 year old electrical engineer who graduated from college in 1996. Yes, just like those gay pride parades the news will show you all the drag queens and dykes on bikes, they will show you the hippies and anarchists to sensationalize the issues....
I've been to them myself, my friend, and stopped going because of those very people. The media can't show them if they're not there, keep in mind. And they do make up a significant portion of the protesting masses.
I'm not bagging the protests at all, but don't even attempt to act as though the hippies and anarchists are just a fringe element at these events.
I understand what your saying, but the point that I am trying to make is that any protest will get the fringe. The fringe is needed because if only a few people show up to a protest it is not going to get any press. If 500 wackos show up then even though people will sit back and judge them at least it gets press. Can you imagine if there were no fringe? Would there even be ANY protests of size? The fringe at least makes descent known and even though people erroniously view the cause against the WB as hippie types that don't know what they are protesting people also ask the question "what are they upset about" and invoking curiousity is the first step toward educating yourself....
The IMF and the World Bank are lending institutions that attach conditions to their loans that they think will increase the chance of getting paid back. They don't "force" countries to do anything. Countries accept these conditions as a part of the loans. The IMF and World Bank are not charities, and therefore, don't have to give money away. The World Bank and IMF are not just US publicly funded institutions, but international institutions. Paul Wolfowitz, former Deputy US Sec. of Defense in the Bush administration, is the President of the World Bank, so don't go crying about lack of US influence in these organizations.
Protests are fine. My original post was just to say that because the IMF and World Bank do stir bitter debate and people get heated (as is evidenced in this comment string), I'm all for security, as long as constitutional rights are protected.
DC - the World Bank gets most of its money from US taxpayers. That alone should be enought for the people of the US to have access and influence. As for the countries that "willingly" accept these conditions, maybe researching some of the countries that refuse to join in would be in order (Chevez refuses and look at what the US wants to do to him). I think of it like credit cards. Sure, its great to give people loans but when people are using credit cards to survive then they are in a downward spiral. I think we agree on a lot, I'm just trying to shift focus from one issue to another I guess...
Trust me, I know all the arguments for and against the IMF and the Bank. I just think that a healthy debate gets both sides/positions out there and your arguments ignored some fundamental principles. Yes, the IMF and Bank's relevance, etc., are a matter of widespread discussion adn import, but characterizing them as big bad wolves that go into countries forcing them to do terrible and destructive things is unfair. They wouldn't impose the conditions if they didn't think they would help ensure a return on their investment, so it's not out of ill will or some evil intent that the conditions are imposed. I think the dialogue is important, but I think the real facts need to be out there. My experience has been that most people who oppose the Bank and the Fund view them as charities gone awry, and that's not the case.
Have the protests been whittled down to a majority-legitimate population? Because I remember at the height of it a few years ago, I was surrounded by idiots. Had I the wherewithal, I would have walked around with a can of ether and quietly sedated anyone with a bandanna. Real protestors have the courage of their convictions, and display their faces to prove it. The WB/IMF is a good idea that is used for harmful ends, not a den of iniquity in and of itself. They need to be convinced, not mugged.
"the World Bank gets most of its money from US taxpayers"
Cliff, do you have a reference for that? My understanding (based on the WBG's 2005 annual report) is that the US supplies only about 10-15% of the trust funds - less than the EU and roughly comparable to Japan - and not "most" of the money.
(Of course, somebody else made the comment that since Wolfowitz is in charge, the US public interest is well-represented at the WBG, which is also a dumb position to take.)
"but the point that I am trying to make is that any protest will get the fringe. The fringe is needed because if only a few people show up to a protest it is not going to get any press. If 500 wackos show up then even though people will sit back and judge them at least it gets press."
So essentially what you're saying is this:
1- I have an opinion
2- I want to get people's attention about my opinion
3- If only some people share my opinion, we'll never get any attention
4- People only pay attention to an idea if it's voiced by a lot of people
5- Let's get a lot of people together to make it seem that a lot of people share my opinion
6- Then we can convince people that a lot of people agree with me, even though they don't
I appreciate your frankness, but you're making a strong case for why people should be cynical about these protests.
"Can you imagine if there were no fringe? Would there even be ANY protests of size?"
Are large protests a good thing in and of themselves? Maybe a large protest is not appropriate if there's not really a large number of people that agree over something. And really, it takes away the impact of when there really IS a cause that a lot of people agree about.
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but you certainly have a pretty utilitarian opinion of protests yourself.
I'm very impressed with how everyone managed to avoid turning this into a flamefest...nice job. The WB/IMF topic doesn't generally foster civility.
That said, I hope that if some little wanker paints anarchy symbols all along our street this time around, they get the old MPD beatdown.
DC - I'm afraid you've mis-interpreted my posts'. I never intended to imply the WB doesn't have good intentions or that they "force" countries to do things. Governments agree to conditions and as a result sometimes (farmers especially) a poor mans livelyhood suffers more than it gains. I view the WB as a taxpayer funded institution, not a charity, and I encourage disclosure of ALL the facts, including the ones that are withheld from the public.
Reid..i haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. You are making inferances that basically put words in my mouth. maybe this is something to discuss over a beer and not a messageboard (I'm not asking you out, just signaling I'm out of the conversation as I don't want to get anyone upset... :)
It is a pretty simple equation for the city. If they go overboard and close off too many streets, than a few people will grumble for a few days and then the entire world will forget about the overreaction.
If they did less, and somehow it got out of control, they would be both sad because of the chaos and violence, but also raked through the coals in public opinion because "these types of meetings are known for being troublesome."
Really, I am not going to get all worked up that they are safe rather than sorry. I was living half a block from the World bank in 2000 when this all started. (Mitchell at GW). I was a freshman, so I was amazed at the level of preparation they had days in advance. There were 17 individual K9 units all lined up on both sides of the street on 19th between F and G. It was a sight to see it blocked off. But it wasn't that much of a pain then, and really, most of the people who need to go through can metro or walk around it. Half of them will be attending the meeting anyway, or happy for the excuse to be a couple of minutes late to class.
Botswana just called and wanted to let everyone know that they're doing just fine having rejected the IMF's call for economic conditions that would have caused ultra-privatization and mass capital outflow from currency speculation.
The WB quite clearly views the movement of "unproductive" surplus rural labour into urban manufacturing to be good overall. Macroeconomics is built on millions of little personal tragedies. Are these poor landless peasants better off in the sweatshops or stuck back in rural poverty? They're fucked either way, as far as I can tell, but that doesn't stop them from pouring into the cities. Ever been to Nairobi or Manila? To a tourist, they look like the assholes of the universe, compared with the pretty bucolic village life the migrants are leaving behind. Maybe 'economic development' with all of its attendant ills looks a lot better from the outside looking in.
DCist_Jason, I hope you do realize that countries like Botswana are able to gain leverage against such an institution as the IMF precisely because of the street demonstrations by the "scalawags" you've mischaracterized as uninformed. It's great that you're a policy wonk, and actually most of that "mob" is too, so please get off your high horse, especially if you are interested in making gains against the neoliberal agenda, rather than trying to trash other people's organizing.
Sorry, no. I'm going to have to go with precisely the opposite position, that Botswana succeeded IN SPITE OF and not OWING TO the fact that the scalawags like to get together and break shizz, like, for instance, the bunch of Anti-Flag fans that busted up Adams Morgan last year. Yeah. They, uhm, really dealt a death blow to the economic downturns in the third world with that display. Just think about all the U2 songs that were written that night.
Having watched the archival footage of the events, I recall that the people who presented themselves alongside Martin Luther King, conversely, had showered and dressed in their Sunday best, opted to display stoic dignity instead of shambling retardedness, and did a lot more listening than shouting.
So...yawn. Yeah, I'm definitely going to call BS on you. And let me add that I feel so damn comfortable doing so that my brain has rewarded me with a cute little blast of endorphins. Ahhh...yes. Now that feels good.
" recall that the people who presented themselves alongside Martin Luther King,conversely, had showered and dressed in their Sunday best, opted to display stoic dignity instead of shambling retardedness"
Jason, there were a number of King protest that turned violent.
"Wish I lived in a mud hut and had smallpox" I have helped build solar farms in Manila, El Salvador, Guina, and a number of other poor countries. Just because some countries reject the World Banks version of capitolism doesn't mean they want to live in mud huts and catch smallpox (which has been erradicated anyway)...
Yes. But did the successful ones feature protestor instigated violence?
[pause]
Ex-actly.
[pause]
Your statement is un-measurable. I would say the movement was very successful.
I hope there is no violence at any protests, but if there is I am not going to knock the whole movement....
Cliff--
Can't you tell from their bright shiny faces that those kids really do LOVE stitching sneakers and soccer balls? If they save for 10 years, they might be able to make it to the garment district in NYC!
No one (that I've heard anyways) is saying that the WB prescription for LDC agriculture is pleasant (though there is apparently some difference of opinion as to whether or not it is right)...the point here is the globaloney protests and the rabble of agitated third world groupies who couldn't find Botswana on a map are not exactly fueling a mass movement or contributing to greater public awareness. They make the (very legitimate) critics of the WB/IMF/international economic order look bad to John Q public - guilt by association. And that IMHO sucks.
Well, I'll tell you what is, sadly, VERY measureable: the reaction of onlookers and neutral parties as hooligans destroy things. I brought up last year's Adams Morgan incident as a good example--if those jerks thought that their antics inspired a single person to ponder the plight of the poor and dispossessed, they need to have their heads examined. The thoughts they inspired were more along the lines of "Holy Crow, why are those people busting up the neigborhood!" And, "Somebody please stop them!"
Of course not all protestors are of this ilk. But I still say: take a bath, dress yourself, let people see you not as some out-of-control gang of death metal roadies. Instead, allow yourself to be seen as a stoic, resolute, compassionate, and civilizing force. Dignified displays of dissent send the message that it's not a flighty, insipid activity, but one of discpline and permanence. And that gets you respect, and that gets those onlookers interested in what you have to say.
Oh, yeah--have something, you know, worthwhile to say. If all you have is a chant, it's better to just stay quiet. Unless it's got, like, MAD lyrical flow.
MM...DCist Jason...you both make valid points. I just hope you recognize that progress is made by radical behavour sometimes. The boston tea party for example. By todays standards they would be terrorists. Also - as someone who believes very strongly in gay causes - it was the drag queens at stonewall that set the gay right movement in motion. Sometimes, the radical element forces you to acknowledge an issue that is very easy to ignore. Most people don't want to acknowledge that thier cloths are made in sweat shops. Did anyone happen to catch Frontline last week? Tenement Square got out of hand and its the only reason anyone batted an eye. No one else in the world would have noticed.
I don't know Jason, while "More World, Less Bank" is a pretty incomprehensible and worthless chant, it does have some mad lyrical flow.
Also, I really doubt the Boston Tea Party would be viewed as terrorism today.
It'd probably make the "News of the Weird" before Native Americans started to complain about how the partiers were degrading their culture by dressing that way.
Let's not forget that the folks involved in the Boston Tea Party WERE considered terrorists, though that word didn't exist at the time. The response of the British Parliament was to close down the port of Boston (its livelihood) until the city ponied up for the cost of the tea. It refused, and SEVEN YEARS OF BLOODY WAR followed.
I don't actually really have anything to say about the WB/IMF protesters (other than DCist Jason is abso-friggin-lutely right that everyone should read Globalization and its Discontents. Great book.) I just hate it when people appropriate (yes, I said appropriate) historical events or icons to make their own points without respect to the context in which those events or people took place/existed. It's like when Republicans talk about Abraham Lincoln like it was even remotely the same thing to be a Republican then as it is now.
If anyone wants me, I'll be out back behind the woodpile, hating postmodernism.
Sure, I'll read that book, even though its written by a former VP of the World Bank, and a major supporter of Globalism...but you ought to read some books about the other sife of the coin if you haven't already.
Actually, I'm going to recommend reading the debates between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, because the debate on Globalism is basically the same thing...
hmm, I'm with one of the groups organizing the events this weekend... The thread is an interesting read...
Thanks to the original poster for pointing out that the police have been the violent ones here. I can remember participating just after September 11 in a permitted march... They completely creamed us and there are still legal cases pending.
Just a little food for thought to both the apologists and attackers of the market fundamentalist paradigm on the thread:
1) The IMF and WB have not one example (on the country level) of a success story (i.e. a place where poverty has gone down and stayed down primarily as a result of following their policies). I ask them to name one in debates, and they get tongue tied. End up naming India and China, places where they have little influence and they know it.
2) If, on the other hand, you measure success by increases in corporate profits and increasing capital flight from South to North (i.e. more money going out of a country than coming into it) their policies have been incredibly successful. So the question is have they been a really poor job of decreasing poverty or a really good job of making their main stakeholders (the G7 control more than 50% of the voting power in the institutions).
3) The movements that I consider myself a part of, those that demand an end to global apartheid, which we define as an economic system built on inequality, are not different than those that put an end to colonialism and slavery. In fact they are organically linked to both of those movements, as when those systems ended, the foundations of the current systems of exploitation were put into place.
For more info see www.50years.org or www.globalizethis.org
Actually, the reason that I like the Stiglitz book so much is that he presents a reasoned and well-argued critique of the one-size-fits-all methodology utilized by the WB and IMF in its administration of loans that results in an inablitly to effectively execute its mission. Whether you agree with that mission is one thing (I don't incidentally), but you can't look past the reasonableness of his critique.