polo writes:

"An interview with a Baltimore based activist and organizer who has done the rounds from Seattle to Cancun to Miami and emerges with a clear, articulate analysis."

"Where Next for the Global Justice Movement?"

Baltimore IMC: If you are inclined, please provide some background information about yourself.

Mike McGuire: I’ve been involved in Latin American solidarity work since the early nineties, first getting involved in Central America issues, then Mexico and Cuba. As many in the “Global Justice Movement” (GJM), I was inspired by the Zapatista uprising of Jan. 1, 1994 and subsequently made several trips to Chiapas for solidarity work and to attend Zapatista sponsored events. Later I was inspired by London’s anti-capitalist street carnivals and took the time to travel to Seattle for the Nov. 1999 WTO ministerial. I’ve been involved in the GJM ever since, participating in the D.C. mobilizations and then helping out with the recent mobilizations in Cancun (again in protest of the WTO) and then Miami (against the FTAA).

IMC: What group(s) do you affiliate yourself with? Explain the mission of these groups.

MM: The Coalition Against Global Exploitation (CAGE), which is a Baltimore group that was founded after Seattle and is dedicated to outreach, education and mobilization around global justice issues; the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, Wobblies), an anarcho-syndicalist union that seeks to build “one big union” of workers, though now it’s more a labor solidarity and movement group; and, Save Our Civil Liberties (SOCL), a group that formed after Miami to help defend those arrested, build awareness around the country about what happened in Miami and build a national coalition around civil liberties.

IMC: When and how did you first get involved with the anti-globalization movement?

MM: First of all, many of us in the movement described as “anti-globalization” don’t find that classification to fit. In as much as we are a coherent movement, we are an international movement with commitments, links and mobilizations that span the globe. When “anti-globalization” mobilizations occur they are often accompanied by solidarity actions/protests around the world. Another term that has become popular for the movement is “globophobes” (a term intoroduced to the world by Mexico’s ex-president Ernesto Zedillo who describes us as “globalifóbicos”). It should be clear by now that we in the movement do not fear “globalization” but instead object to the emphasis put on trade (a.k.a. plunder) and the power given to corporations in “trade” agreements. We prefer to call ourselves a Global Justice Movement, which more accurately describes our motivations.

When I got involved in the GJM depends on what you designate as the beginning of the GJM. Certainly the Zapatista uprising was an important event. Many around the world have called the uprising a wake up call, reminding us of the continued value of struggle after the fall of the socialist bloc in the late 80's and early 90's, which many saw as the main alternative to capitalism. The Zapatistas rose up on the same day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, thus placing them squarely at the center of what would become the GJM. Additionally, people were inspired by the creativity of the uprising and the rejection of traditional ideologies. For example, the Zapatistas initially called on all of Mexico to rise up against the federal government and march on Mexico City. Instead, people took to the streets to keep the federal government from crushing the rebellion. The Zapatistas quickly changed their strategy, seeing that civil society had power and was their best ally, though they were not going to rise up in arms. In terms of ideology, the closest approximation that developed can be seen in their slogans: “A world in which many worlds fit”; “Lead by obeying”; “Everything for everyone, nothing for us”; etc. Another major contribution of the Zapatistas was their call on the international community to gather and discuss how to fight neoliberalism. The main event they hosted in this regard was the “Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism” which was attended by delegates from every continent, but especially the Americas and Europe. There would be three of these “Intercontinental Encounters”, eventually giving way to the more parliamentary oriented World Social Forum. So, going back to the question, if you identify the Zapatista uprising or the first Intercontinental Encounter as the starting point for the GJM, then my involvement at some level extends that far back, having immediately taken to Zapatista solidarity work and having participated in the first Intercontinental Encounter.

Others date the birth of the GJM as November 30, 1999, the day of our big success against the WTO ministerial in Seattle. That was the major “coming out” party for the GJM in the U.S. There had already been very similar activism in Europe around the WTO, the WEF and G-8, but the U.S. hadn’t seen much action focused on such organizations. I decided to make the trip to Seattle after reading in the British publication Living Marxism of the European mobilizations against the WTO and the anti-capitalist street carnivals in London. The author ended the piece saying, roughly, “The next WTO ministerial is in Seattle, WA, at the end of November. We’ll see if our American comrades are up to the task.” Who could resist such a challenge? In Seattle we were able to take the ministerial by surprise and coordinate a very effective direct action that managed to cause the cancellation of the first day of negotiations and be a major factor in the collapse of the meeting. After the success of Seattle groups started springing up around the country to join the struggle. CAGE was such an organization. It arose out of a report back from Seattle in early January of 2000. The 100 attendees decided to build an organization that would support global justice organizing.

IMC: Some have used the phrase "movement of movements" to describe what is
developing around the movement against global capital. Can you discuss this
idea a bit?

MM: Yes, the “movement of movements” description is very accurate. This idea was graphically represented in Seattle and has since seen greater reinforcement. While organizations like the WTO claim to be involved simply in the promotion and facilitation of trade, their tentacles actually extend deeply into many aspects of our lives as individuals and as a society. Their decisions affect water standards and supply, environmental protection, what we eat, the information provided to us as consumers, labor standards, tariffs and our ability to pass legislation on issues of importance to us. Now, add another component: how progressive movements organized in the US during the 80's and 90's. Instead of a large single movement it was divided into many “single issue” movements such as the Central America solidarity movement, environmental movement, animal rights movement or labor movement. In Seattle we saw our first major reconvergence of these movements, which opposed the WTO for their own reasons but were now united in struggle against an enemy that threatened progress in all of those distinct arenas. These movements maintain their integrity while participating in opposition to “free trade” agreements and institutions. So that’s the origin of the phrase. Its use also includes the tactical and ideological diversity of the GJM,. Some include any group that challenges illegitimate power as part of the movement of movements, even if they don’t participate in the major mobilizations.

IMC: The anti-globalization movement has been built by individuals from a
variety of backgrounds and with a variety of motivations, values and
ideologies. Considering this, is it important to have cohesion and unity
within the movement? Explain.

MM: There are ways in which cohesion and unity are very important and others that are not so important. First of all, there has to exist some degree of cohesion in order to pull off coordinated actions. If you take the actions that have occurred to date as examples, there’s some basis for unity, such as opposition to agreements and institutions that are instrumental in promoting models of exploitative, corporate trade. Some seek to preserve high wage jobs in the US, others seek to challenge a state apparatus that has historically served the interests of capital at the expense of the people it ostensibly represents. There is quite a difference here. It becomes visible in tactics and objectives. Those that seek to preserve high wage jobs are certainly fighting for something worthwhile, but often don’t express the full extent of what’s robbing them. Different tactics can express differing levels of urgency. Those that march might be seen as having a lower sense of urgency and consciousness . Those that see the state as representing the interests of capital are probably already predisposed to “radical tactics”. This refers back to the old argument between reformism and revolution. The differences can cause real problems on the streets. If one group maintains more aggressive tactics than another, they can put the less aggressive tactics at risk. If one group decides to battle the police while another one non-violently resists, the non-violent ones will be squashed, and the public might think it justified. Similarly, if one group decides to block a street, it can put a march at risk.

IMC: What would you say is the movement's biggest victory to date?

MM: The movement, however you define it, has been a major factor in beating back neoliberalism from the dominant position that it has enjoyed in international relations between the developed and underdeveloped world. The struggle is still on, but I’d say that is our biggest victory yet. The nineties was a decade full of opposition to neoliberalism and its attack on the commons. There was the Zapatista uprising in Mexico, huge indigenous mobilizations in Bolivia and Ecuador, the appearance of the Landless Peasant Movement (MST) in Brazil, the intensification of the civil war and U.S. intervention in Colombia and the upsurge of labor and unemployed movements in Argentina. All of them were fighting against the “Washington consensus” that promoted privatization, deregulation and unfettered market access for foreign investors. Of course, the nineties culminated in those at the center of the global system, the U.S., also rising up against those policies and the institutions that enforce them. After NAFTA squeaked through Congress in the face of extensive opposition, the US movement was able to stop fast track and join others around the world in successfully fighting the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Then came Seattle.

Seattle was a major victory for our movement, both nationally and internationally. By successfully shutting down the first day of the meeting, we were able to create a substantial enough crisis within the organization that the countries that benefit least from the policies were able to themselves rise up. The WTO has yet to recover from that. That victory carried over into Cancun, where the WTO ministerial again fell apart in disarray.

IMC: What is the movement's biggest failure to date?

MM: The relevance of what we call the GJM is currently at risk. Our mobilizations have centered on international trade summits and targeted multi-lateral institutions. The Bush administration has clearly taken the position that they will only work with institutions that they can unquestionably dominate. For example, the US trade delegation to the last WTO ministerial was rumored to have stayed in their hotel for most of the meeting.

The number of adherents to the GJM has never been great. Bush’s threats against Iraq, on the other hand, caused a tremendous number of people to hit the streets in protest. GJMers were among those organizing against the war and hitting the streets, but it was ANSWER that called people together for the large mobilizations. The lack of structure in the GJM has limited its ability to respond to changing circumstances.

IMC: You were in Seattle, Washington, Cancun, and Miami. How do these events all add up?

MM: Seattle was our main tactical victory. Washington (A16) was, I think, our largest Direct Action mobilization. Cancun was a great opportunity for those in the US GJM to not just stand in solidarity with those struggling in the global south, but to actually stand together in the streets. This ended up being productive, but could have been much better. Miami was the greatest repression of our movement to date. Also, our numbers were quite low. Still, Miami showed some maturation of the movement. We did some very good outreach through a community garden project and an art project (FCAA) to support a locally organized initiative. The “Miami Pro-Democracy Campaign” (where we publicly tried to get the police and city to agree to respect basic conditions for the exercise of free speech, free from government intimidation, harassment, attacks, etc.), ended up not being very effective, but is worth analysis and reproduction. Finally, in Miami we did some solid coalition building between labor, NGOs and the direct action movement. This coalition has stuck together for post-mobilization work.

IMC: How do you assess the significance of the G-22? Of developments in
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela?

MM: The emergence of the G-22 is positive in that it challenges the rule of the wealthiest nations and pushes for greater democratization in the international sphere. This could be very positive if the group sticks together, grows and stays relevant. However, the G-22 was mainly what would be called “the middle countries” in international economic terms. Brazil, the 13th largest economy in the world, led the group, which included Argentina, Mexico, India, China... They were countries that saw the WTO as a potential tool for developing their economies. There are some progressive administrations in the mix, but we’re not talking about many populist heros. There was another group that appeared in Cancun, the G-32. These were the countries that didn’t see themselves benefitting in any major way from the general model that the WTO represents. It was this group that ended up killing the meeting. Kenya, part of the G-32, was the country that walked out on negotiations and ended the process.

The developments in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela show that unpopular neoliberal policies and mass resistance can combine in Latin America to create a change in elected representatives. This is positive. It sure beats the brutal military dictatorships of the 1970s and 80s. An analytical framework that is useful for this response is world systems analysis, which tries to understand the world by looking at big picture tendencies in divisions of labor, wealth, production. Looking at the world we can see that there are countries at the center of the world system and others that are on the periphery. The system is designed to benefit the countries at the center, leaving the peripheral countries to contribute natural and human resources at prices set largely by the central coutries. Yet to be seen is the impact that progressive administrations in peripheral countries can have on the system that envelops them. The history of the modern world system (capitalism) has shown that it is very, very difficult for peripheral countries to have a great impact, but the times might be changing. At least we’ve seen that the US, the country currently at the center of the modern world system, is finding it difficult to impose its will on a lot of Latin America. The story is still being written and the US is on the attack, but it’s looking better now than in the 90s.

IMC: How do you assess the development of the World Social Forum, and related regional forums?

MM: I’ve got to learn more about these forums. The recent WSF in India had some interesting twists. There were greater demands for alternatives, more tension between those from the global north and the global south, and more of an anti-imperialist agenda. It might be just what the actors in the GJM needed to develop. The WSF has consistently grown from year to year and is the mass forum for building an international movement of the scale that could shape our future. This is big talk, but the movement needs to be massive and international. I don’t know that the WSF will be able to deliver. I wish I knew more about the regional forums, but I understand that we might see one in the US soon.

IMC: The traditional Left, whether social democratic or authoritarian communist, argues for the strategic importance of state power and an organized, disciplined party as an agent for revolutionary change. However, today's
anti-capitalist and anti-globalization movement indicates another path. Is
it possible to radically change the world without "taking power"? Are the
Zapatistas an example?

MM: The Zapatista’s are a great example. The dominant Zapatista (or at least, Marcos) line on state power has been that state power is not as important as an empowered citizenry, or in Zapatista lingo, civil society (which seems to include all non-state actors in their definition). They make the state secondary and its popular base primary. Permaculturists, a growing contingent in the GJM, have what I see as being an analogous formulation: OVERGROW THE STATE (as opposed to “Overthrow the state”). I see that as a scenario where citizen movements grow so strong that their agenda becomes the agenda. It’s kind of like Marx’s eventual disappearance of the communist state as it becomes irrelevant. Of course, that never happened and we’re under capitalism anyway. Historically it’s more likely that a movement that gains such power is coopted by the state and then fades away. That’s a real danger, but ultimately the state is not the most powerful actor on the scene. Indeed, it has often proven to be a pretty weak tool. A party apparatus that seeks state power is likely to lead to failure in this sense, even if they are successful in their goal. Their mode of organizing, however, can be more opportunistic than that used by the GJM. I mean that in a good way. The oft maligned ANSWER was able to be the main organizing group against the very unpopular invasion of Iraq because it was organized and has a central structure capable of rapid decisions. Of course many hate ANSWER because of how closed and rigidly ideological it is (another danger of the party model). They have proven to be effective in calling together anti-war mobilizations, but not in expressing the sentiment of those gathered. I think their effectiveness was largely a result of a vacuum of organizing. UFPJ has much greater potential for leading an anti-war movement.

The GJM’s main deficiency in terms of being able to lead a broader movement is that the organizing happens around summits and there isn’t a standing organizing body that can build and adapt. It’s form of organizing, however, is not its limitation.

IMC: The Direct Action Network (DAN) developed after Seattle as a direct action organizing umbrella in the US for groups with anti-imperialist,
anti-patriarchal, anti-racist, anti-global capital perspectives. It seemed
to offer the beginnings of an anti-authoritarian organizational form. 9/11
sent DAN into 'limbo'. Can you comment on the development of DAN and the
future of organizational alternatives?

MM: I wasn’t involved in DAN and can’t give a good answer to this question, but it sure would have been nice if DAN had been in a position to organize the US anti-war movement instead of ANSWER. We might have seen a much more robust, inspired and inspiring movement within the US. DAN was an attempt to fill the above mentioned deficiency of the GJM.
IMC: People involved in direct action were hoping that there would be
accomplishments in Miami similar to those seen in Seattle, Quebec, and
Cancun: a dismantling of the fence and meeting disruption or meeting
closing. Unfortunately this was not the case in Miami. In light of this, is
there a need to re-evaluate tactics, strategies and objectives?

MM: There’s clearly a need to re-evaluate the GJM. Tactically, we benefitted greatly from surprise in Seattle. We haven’t had that surprise since, and in the US we’ve seen the increased presence and militarization of the police at trade summits. The DA tactics used in Seattle are still very useful, but probably not at trade summits. In terms of strategy and objectives, the changing world situation (from capital accumulation strategies based in multi-lateral institutions to a uni-lateral, imperialist vision of economic integration) calls into question the primary relevance of multi-lateral trade agreements and institutions as a target. This is not to say that the model of trade and “development” endorsed by these institutions is to be accepted, just that there may be more important targets right now and for the GJM to stay relevant it must adapt.

IMC: What’s your perspective on the two basic approaches to direct action organizing--nonviolent direct action vs. diversity of tactics direct action?

MM: This question has really flared up as a result of the extreme police repression in Miami. There are those that think that Miami demonstrated the need to directly engage the police in violent confrontation, while others, like myself, think that trained non-violence could be much more effective.

The police in Miami were brutally repressive. There’s a lot that could have been justified in the name of self defense. Similarly, the neo-liberal economic order is quite violent and there’s a lot that could be justified in the name of combating the institutions that bring death to people through privatization and diminished social spending. However, the more you engage the police in violence, the easier it is for the state to justify and legitimize violence against you and those you associate with. And, let’s face it, the US is not in a revolutionary situation. Not many people in the US are going to line up behind a movement that engages in pitched street battles against the police. There’s also the classic question of openness in a movement. A violent movement is almost always going to be a closed, secretive movement, with concerns for security culture, etc. This does not build a broad movement.

In the face of brutal repression, non-violence can be especially effective. One of the models of non-violent civil disobedience is that you use your body to demonstrate the injustice that you seek to remedy. While taking a beating is not fun, it can help show the desperate need for struggle and social change. It also provides no legitimacy for violent police tactics. If we are going to build the movement in the US and model the world that we want to create, I think that it has to be through non-violence.

IMC: People all over the country are still feeling the effects of Timoney's
paramilitary police state in Miami. Many of those that did not necessarily
suffer directly left town with a bad taste in their mouth. Will this have
long term effects on the movement?

MM: It’s hard to predict such things. There have always been stresses in this movement of movements. We’ve been able to work within them pretty well, but the way that Miami has polarized the debate could have an impact on future mobilizations. Another possibility is that some people might avoid mass mobilizations for fear of more repression on the scale of Miami.

IMC: What's in store for the "movement of movements" in 2004?

MM: There are always mobilizations. In 2004 we have one in D.C. from April 22-25 against the IMF and World Bank for their 60th anniversary meetings. The G-8 will meet on an island off the coast of Georgia in June. There’s also an international biotech conference in San Francisco in June, with a call to action for June 8. That one ought to be a lot of fun. Then we have the political conventions, DNC in Boston in July and RNC in New York in Aug./Sept. I think the RNC will be the next big opportunity for movement building in this country. We’ll also see how adaptive the GJM is in 2004. It seems obvious that our movement has to change and grow. This might be a decisive year.