"G-8 EPILOGUE: Movement at the Crossroads"

Garth Mullins

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

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

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

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

The Movement

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

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

We must arrest the decline of our movement, or face political irrelevance.
Our immediate task is to come together in our local communities and figure
out where we are now and what we can do about it. In Vancouver, such a
meeting will take place on July13. Everybody should be included in a frank
discussion on the direction of the movement, and how we organize in this
brave new era of reaction.

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

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

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

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

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks there has been a qualitative re-polarization
of the political landscape and a reactionary ideological backlash to rival
that of the '80s. Our movement has shifted from a 'war of position' to a more
defensive posture. In the war of ideas, our movement must seek to deconstruct
hegemonic discourses relating to terrorism and security, and to reframe these
themes in terms of state terror, state repression, racism and imperialism.

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

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

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

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

Over the past year or so, a consensus has been building among activists to
move beyond "summit hopping" However, the corresponding links to organic,
local and regional struggles are still in their beginning stages. Further,
this strategy fails to recognize everything that makes the Kananaskis summit
qualitatively different from other summits, as well as the impact of recent
security / anti- terrorist legislation..

Conclusion

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

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

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

Garth Mullins, July 5, 2002