*** see also:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/qatar/results/doharaoul.htm
***

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:19:09 +0100
From: Raoul Jennar
Subject: [StopWTORound] WTO :  THE TRADE-BASED ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD
     CONTINUES


WTO: The Doha Declaration

DESPITE BRAKES,
THE TRADE-BASED ORGANISATION OF THE WORLD CONTINUES

>From Marrakech to Doha, the will of industrialised countries to impose the
ultra-liberal ideology throughout the planet has by no means withered.
Since the adoption of a set of agreements in 1994 at the end of the Uruguay
round, agreements that are managed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO),
this ideology has not lived up to its promises for all of those for whom the
priority is the fight against poverty through a better distribution of
wealth, through a reduction of inequalities, through the pre-eminence of the
rights of peoples over private interests.  Economic indicators have, year
after year, proven that free-trade set up as a dogma benefits only
industrialised countries.  The lack of decisions at the 3rd ministerial
conference in Seattle marked the beginning of a resistance movement stemming
>from the South, a resistance to this imperial desire of the North.  Thanks
to the real progress made by developing countries in terms of their
expertise and cohesion, the conference which recently took place in Doha, if
it re-launched the process of trade in goods and persons has, nevertheless,
limited the declared ambitions of industrialised countries.  But, the corpus
of Marrakech remained unchallenged.  And the courageous resistance of
developing countries will demand new and important efforts in the coming two
years which separate us from the next ministerial conference to which some
of the demands of rich countries have been deferred to.

Doha also gave a brutal lesson to Europeans militating in favour of a united
world based on law.  The hypocrisy and double language of European
governments and the Commission in Brussels has become a planetary evidence.
The humanist language voiced in unison and aiming to hypnotise the good
conscience of the public in Europe and to abuse some of the governments of
the South was never translated into concrete action at the negotiation
table.  When it comes to making a choice, the European Union stands side by
side with the US, not with developing countries: protectionism is acceptable
only when and if it benefits rich countries.  The responsibility of the 15
European governments and of the political parties supporting them is, in
this regard, complete.  All of the European governments, from Jospin to
Berlusconi, follow the same line, supporting the mandate granted to Pascal
Lamy and government participation, here and there, from the communists to
the greens has, unfortunately, changed nothing.  The powerlessness of
citizens to change, for Doha, the mandate which had already been granted to
the European Commission for the Seattle conference by the 15 national
parliamentarians and the 15 governments should provoke thought with regards
to the strategies which should be implemented in the coming months.  The
self-satisfaction expressed after Doha by the European governments and the
parties supporting them provides a clear indication of what has yet to come.


THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: A PERSISTING OLIGARCHY

Developing countries have made considerable efforts to prepare Doha, to
analyse the stakes and to express both, their viewpoints and their
alternatives.  In short, they have made the effort to play the game of
democratic debate taught to them again and again by Americans and Europeans.
Both Americans and Europeans, however, did all they could to start of the
Doha conference on the basis of their expectations, manipulating WTO rules.
The positions expressed by developing countries at various intergovernmental
summits (of African countries, of the ACP countries, of the LDC group, of
the Group of 77) or at meetings organised regularly or informally by the WTO
have been systematically ignored and even denied.  Indeed, the western
media, in collusion with their governments, have been taking part to a real
occultation of any opinion that differs from the dominant discourse imposed
by rich countries.  The successive drafts of the ministerial declarations
prepared by the WTO's General Council presidency were outrageously biased,
excluding any reference to the positions expressed by developing countries,
in violation to WTO rules.  Upon arrival in Doha, official delegations were
forced to work on a draft declaration that completely follows the diktats of
industrialised countries.  Everyone knows that entering into a negotiation
on the basis of an adverse position is the same as being forced into a
situation of weakness.

The organisation of the work programme at Doha was never carried out with
the concern of respecting the fundamental rules of democratic debate.
Rather, it was carried out in a context of power struggles.  This was
blatantly illustrated during the bilateral contacts between rich countries
and developing countries, the former alternating between promises and
threats.  The persons chosen to represent the chair person during the
consultations were chosen amongst the partisans of rich countries and the
issues chosen for consultation were those which correspond to the
expectations of these very countries.  Developing countries had to fight to
be able to include one of their representatives in order to begin the
consultations on issues which mattered to them.  Despite the fact that the
negotiations were split into seven groups - which required, from each
country, a large enough delegation to ensure representation in each of the
groups - these various consultations, as much as the meetings between the
heads of delegation, enabled developing countries to voice their opinions.
This was a progress when compared to the situation in Seattle where the
delegations from the developing countries - although representing the
majority - had to wait in the halls for industrialised countries to reach an
agreement in their name.  Yet this time, industrialised countries could not
- unless they were ready to run the risk of a new Seattle - afford to
continue the negotiations without including developing countries.  It is
indeed difficult to isolate a country like India whose population totals 1
billion inhabitants. The solution was, rather, to resort to the most diverse
forms of manipulation.

When it appeared that developing countries could in fact force rich
countries into agreeing to some concessions, "informal consultations" were
renewed - a technique that had often been used in Marrakech and Seattle as
well as in the day to day operations at the WTO.  It is more commonly known
as the "green room" in reference to the initial colour of the Director
General's office.  The "green room" in Doha was, in fact, the "presidential
suite no. 11".  It is there that the western camp and its allies held
meetings with the most resilient delegations.  It was also the means to
isolate the Indian delegation from the rest of the negotiations that were
being held during a part of the decisive night between the 13 and 14
November, a night which marked the turning point of the Doha conference.
Only 20 of the 144 countries (China and Taiwan having been admitted during
the conference) were granted the right to access presidential suite no. 11.
The other countries that had wished to participate were denied access.  A
number of the countries allowed in were able to be represented only by their
ministers, excluding any expert who could have shed light on the subjects
discussed.  The leaders of the negotiations took advantage of the confusion
regarding the different state of the texts to be discussed.  Adherence to
the proposed drafts were bartered against promises of technical assistance,
direct financial aid or threats of withdrawal of such aid.  The charade went
as far as pure and simple intimidation and persecution of the most resistant
ministers.  The WTO secretariat took active part in the game, siding with
these practices and completely neglecting its obligations towards all member
states.

It was at the end of this night that the coalition of countries gathering
the African and ACP countries and LDC group was dismantled.  ACP countries
obtained the necessary waiver with regards to the application of the special
trade regime provided for in the Cotonou Agreement.  Yet, despite these
mafia-style methods - indeed, this is how, with the support of our
governments, the world of trade is being regulated - a couple of hours
before the end of the negotiations which were prolonged by one day, some ten
countries still held on to their position when the heads of the delegations
were all gathered for a meeting.  This last handful crumbled when confronted
to the possibility of being held responsible for what could be a new
Seattle.  India alone held strong and continued the battle until the last
possible limit.  It was able to snatch a decisive interpretation on the
postponed opening of the negotiations regarding what is commonly called the
Singapore issues (see below).  It is thus that India gained the contempt of
the French newspaper 'Le Monde' which accused the country of having
obstructed the process from beginning to end.

Doha has offered a blatant refutation of the Financial Time's recent
assertion (09.11.2001) according to which "the multilateral rules-based
system gives the poor and the weak the same rights as those granted to the
rich and powerful".  The WTO is not a democratic institution.  Its working
methods have produced a system based on power struggles rather than on the
law.  Its reform is more than ever essential.  The outrage experienced by
developing countries should incite them to consider this reform as the
priority in the next ministerial conference.

THE CONTENT OF THE DOHA DECLARATION: EVERYTHING BUT DEVELOPMENT

In order to evaluate the implications of the 'Doha Declaration', it is
important to recall that there are two types of negotiations at the WTO.
There are areas which, in virtue of the Marrakech Agreements, are the object
of quasi-permanent negotiations: agriculture, services and intellectual
property rights.  This is the built-in agenda.  Whether there is a
ministerial conference or not, whether there is a new round or not,
negotiations on these issues are scheduled and underway.  Only a formal
decision of the ministerial conference could put an end to this, by changing
its scope or defining the direction to be taken.  The 'Doha Declaration'
gives direction to the negotiations on these issues.

The concept of a 'new round' thus only concerns negotiations on other
issues.  There is hence - in the Doha programme - a difference between that
which regards the built-in agenda and that which regards the new round of
negotiations.

During a USA - European Union summit last spring in Sweden, the governments
of this Atlantic economic community had called for a "new ambitious round"
of negotiations in view of privatising new sectors of life.  This wish for a
new "ambitious" round was confirmed by the 15 European governments last 29
October in Luxembourg.  During an informal meeting gathering some 20
countries a couple of weeks ago in Singapore and confronted to the hostility
of developing countries with regards to a new round of negotiations, a
proposal had been presented to rename the project "an agenda for
development", without, of course, changing the ultra-liberal proposals
contained therein.  The Doha programme, whether concerning the built-in
agenda or the new round, is neither ambitious nor devoted to development.
The programme is limited to a few expectations of rich countries without any
opening whatsoever for negotiations on the issues forwarded by developing
countries.  As has declared Chakravati Raghavan in the SUNS (no. 5011 of the
16 November 2001), we can talk about a round of "Everything but
development".

Articles 1 and 2 of the Declaration reassert the belief in the virtues of an
absolute free-trade system.  This is the dogma and its implementation is
believed to automatically produce growth and development.  Lyrical wording
follows concerning the fight against poverty which has recently become the
refrain of the institutions (World Bank, International Monetary Fund, WTO)
which have contributed the most to the increase of poverty.

THE BUILT-IN AGENDA

Negotiations on the three areas of this agenda continue, permanently, at the
WTO headquarters in Geneva.  The 'Doha Declaration' has been limited to
providing indications as to the direction which should be given to these
negotiations.  It did not question any of the relevant agreements, contrary
to the demands of developing countries.

Agriculture
This is the area which concerns the overwhelming majority of the planet's
population: the small farmers.  It is the area which offers the most amazing
show of hypocrisy from the European Union and the USA.  Together, they
grant, each year and under different forms, 380 billion US$ in premiums and
subsidies whilst at the same time forbidding, through the Agriculture
Agreement, the rest of the world from supporting their production and
exports of foodstuffs (should they have the capacity to do so) and to
protect their domestic markets against this unfair competition.  Nothing in
Doha was granted to small farmers.  Either in the area of agriculture or in
that of the protection of natural resources and indigenous knowledge.
(refer to the TRIPS issue)  NOTHING.  The European Union took the risk of
provoking the failure of the Doha conference for the sake of protecting the
European agro-industry and its hyper-productivist model (the performances of
which are well-known: dioxin, mad cow, foot and mouth, massive pollution).
Developing countries asked for preferential tariff treatment and specific
measures for small-scale agriculture through a special chapter in the
Agriculture Agreement.  The European Union led the opposition to this
demand, summarised in the expression "Development Box".

The draft declaration mentioned the will to commit to "holding global
negotiations with the aim of phasing out the export subsidies in view of
their progressive withdrawal".  The European Union, which grants aid of a
whole other nature than that granted by the US, pushed to introduce an
additional indication in the text which indicates that what matters is the
reduction of "all forms" of subsidies.  However, the European Union also
obtained that the phrase "with a view to phasing out" become ineffective by
introducing the following indication: "without prejudging the outcome of the
negotiations".

Services
The Doha Declaration confirms the on-going negotiations, the direction taken
and the objectives pursued.  In spite of the fears expressed by citizens,
nothing formally indicates that the notion of public service will be
protected against the will of privatisation, apart from paragraph 7 of the
Declaration which stipulates that: "We reaffirm the right of Members, under
the General Agreement on Trade in Services, to regulate, and to introduce
new regulations on, the supply of services."  It has been asserted that this
provision will enable states to protect the concept of public service,
particularly in the areas of education and health.  It should be noted that
environmental negotiations which are about to commence (see below) entail
environmental services which are directly threatened by privatisation.

Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)
The Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)
- the extremely elaborate form of property law - hinders the application of
fundamental rights: the right to health (A) and the sovereign right of
peoples over their natural resources (B), a right which is, for that matter,
enshrined in international instruments adopted and ratified by all states.
The TRIPS tackles areas of intellectual property (C).

A. With regards to the right to health and its practical application, that
is, the right to access essential medicines, a different declaration was
adopted following the persisting efforts of developing countries, resolutely
united in their fight presented, quite rightly, as "a matter of life or
death".

In February 2000, in front of the European Parliament, the European
Commissioner for international trade asserted, peremptory, that
international property rights (patents) have no effect on the price of
medicines.  The Doha Declaration adopted in Doha makes note of exactly the
opposite.  The Doha text on the "TRIPS and health" represents a major
political step.  Yet, it contains no legal translation, a point which the
American delegation did its very best to recall at all times.  The problems
posed by patents in the area of public health and of the fight against
epidemics have been identified and recognised.  States have expressed their
wish to ensure that the application of the TRIPS does not hinder the rights
of WTO members to take appropriate measures to enable access to essential
medicines.  They did not question the principle of a patent.  A negotiation
is scheduled in Geneva on the issue of the import of generic medicines.  It
should be finalised before the end of 2002.

B. With regards to the sovereign right of peoples over their natural
resources and the fight against biopiracy and the patenting of life, article
19 of the Declaration gives instruction to "the Council for TRIPS, in
pursuing its work programme including under the review of Article 27.3(b),
the review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement (. . .) to examine,
inter alia, the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the protection of traditional knowledge and
folklore, and other relevant new developments."  Even if the wording does
not open a renegotiation of the TRIPS as was requested by developing
countries, it does not put an end to the discussions of article 27:3 b), as
was requested by the European Union.

The progress witnessed with regards to the TRIPS (concerning medicines) in
the Doha Declaration should not make us forget that this Agreement is not
open for renegotiation.  According to the demands of multilateral
pharmaceuticals and of the agro-industry, the European Union and the USA are
resolutely hostile to such a renegotiation which was requested by developing
countries.

C. The Declaration announces the opening of negotiations on the
establishment of a multilateral system of notification and registration of
geographical indications for wines and spirits.   This is the implementation
of article 23 of the TRIPS and not its review.

THE NEW ROUND

Under the leadership of an ad hoc committee, negotiations will be held
between the 01.01.2002 and the 01.01.2005.  A ministerial conference will be
organised to take decision on the results.  These negotiations, their
conclusion and the implementation of their results will be treated as parts
of a single undertaking. These negotiations will focus on the following
areas:

* Market access for non-agricultural products: it concerns customs
duties and tariffs on industrial products.  Developing countries and, more
particularly, the African group, had asked that there be no negotiation
prior to an in-depth study of the impact of the lowering of custom duties
and of tariff peaks on the de-industrialisation of developing countries.
Their voices were not heard.  If care is not taken, negotiations on this
issue could lead to a considerable expansion of free-trade in the areas that
directly concern sustainable development.
*
* The GATT 1994 (that is, the agreements reached within the framework
of the former GATT until 1994): the negotiations will focus on the question
of the implementation of the existing provisions, particularly in the area
of subsidies (for example, fisheries) as well as the procedures and
disciplines relating to regional trade agreements.
*
* The environment: negotiations will concentrate on the relation
between WTO rules and multilateral environmental agreements. These
negotiations will, however, not bind those countries which are not signatory
to the agreements.  The US is thus free to act as it wishes and to impose to
others rules that it refuses for itself.  Worse yet, the wording of this
provision shows an implicit pre-eminence of WTO rules above all other rules
which make up international law and incites countries to refuse to adhere to
environmental agreements.  The Declaration also announces that the
environmental negotiations will focus on the "reduction or, as appropriate,
elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers applicable to environmental
goods and services". The way has been paved for the privatisation of
environmental public services (water, energy, waste . . .).  On the other
hand, the prescriptions with regards to labelling for environmental purposes
have been transferred to a working group.  The priority of sustainable
development is not presented as a limit to the expansion of free-trade.
*
* Implementation.  It is not a matter of negotiations on new issues
per se, but rather on the details of implementation of the existing
agreements.  It was a request expressed by the overwhelming majority of
developing countries in their wish to see that work on implementation and
its impact would eventually lead to the review of the existing agreement.
They did not obtain this.  No significant progress has been made concerning
the respect, by rich countries, of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,
nor on the abusive use by these very countries of anti-dumping measures.
*
* The reform of the dispute settlement mechanism.  It is the only
negotiation which will focus on an existing agreement and on the actual
operations of the WTO.  Contrary to the other issues of the new round, the
deadline for these negotiations has been set to May 2003.  Without
forecasting the direction which the negotiations will take, it is indeed a
delight to see that a possibility has been offered to review a mechanism
which has given rise, quite rightly, to substantial criticism.

It is evident that the impact of this new round is greatly limited.  It
would have been different if the so-called Singapore issues had been
integrated into the negotiations.  Industrialised countries wanted the new
round to focus on investment (to give impetus to the Multilateral Agreement
on Investment rejected in 1998), competition, government procurement and
trade facilitation.  Developing countries - and LDC even more so - were
unanimous in declaring, time and time again, that they were not ready to
take this big step forward into free-trade which is turning the planet into
a single market dominated by transnational corporations from the North.

The entire battle which took place on the night between the 13 and 14
November concerned these paragraphs of the draft declaration (20, 23, 26 and
27).  During the first days of the conference, developing countries had
obtained that a decision on these issues be postponed to the 5th ministerial
conference in 2003.  However, under the pressure of the European Union, they
were reinserted in the programme of the new round.  The only difference
between these issues and the other issues of the programme is that
negotiations on the former will take place "after the 5th session of the
ministerial conference on the basis of a decision to be taken by explicit
consensus, at that session, on the modalities of negotiations."

It was India's persistence which led to the presentation, before the
adoption of the Declaration in plenary session, of the following
interpretation by the chair of the conference: "I would like to note that
some delegations have requested clarification concerning Paragraphs 20, 23,
26 and 27 of the draft declaration. Let me say that with respect to the
reference to an 'explicit consensus' being needed, in these paragraphs, for
a decision to be taken at the Fifth Session of the Ministerial Conference,
my understanding is that, at that session, a decision would indeed need to
be taken by explicit consensus, before negotiations on trade and investment
and trade and competition policy, transparency in government procurement,
and trade facilitation could proceed. In my view, this would also give each
member the right to take a position on modalities that would prevent
negotiations from proceeding after the Fifth Session of the Ministerial
Conference until that member is prepared to join in an explicit consensus."
This means that if a member is not willing, in 2003, to participate to the
consensus, negotiations on these issues will be blocked. The USA and the
European Union will most certainly forward the fact that the chair's
interpretation does not have the legal value of the Declaration.  This may
provide jurists with matter for debate even if the clarification of the
conference's chair is an integral part of its work and even if no one can
forecast the final result regarding the adoption of the Doha Declaration had
the chair's interpretation not been expressed prior to this adoption. Beyond
the legal debate, there is undoubtedly a political commitment to avoid
forcing any country before opening negotiations on these issues.

As for the other issues which were not the object of negotiations
(electronic trade, small economies, debt and finance, transfer of
technology, technical co-operation and capacity building), they have been
transferred to WTO working groups. The fundamental internationally
recognised labour norms remain the exclusive competency of the International
Labour Organization.

In conclusion, one will note that, if the operations and rules of the WTO
remain extremely harmful to developing countries, these have started to
defend their interests.  Negotiations on issues of the built-in agenda will
continue and other negotiations will start on new issues.  Everything will
henceforth take place in Geneva.  A long and difficult battle will have to
be waged for trade to be at the service of people rather than for people to
be at the service of trade.

Raoul Marc JENNAR
researcher for Oxfam-Solidarity and the Research, Training and Information
Unit on Globalization (URFIG)
21 November 2001








You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 13:25:35 +0100
From: Kenneth Haar


Majority of EU governments want a wide definition of "terrorism", one
that could include protests



------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

The latest version of the Council's (representing the 15 EU governments)
discussion on the definition of terrorism shows that it could cover
protests and other democratic activity as well as terrorism. The
Council's proposed definition, as discussed at the Justice and Home
Affairs Council on 16 November, is backed by a "a majority of
delegations" who want a reference to "terrorist intent" as set out in
the UN conventions on terrorism (conventions influenced in a major way
by the USA and leading EU governments around G8) - along the lines of
"with the aim of intimidating a population or to compel a government or
international organisation to do or abstain from doing something".

But:

"Other delegations wanted to restrict this definition as far as possible
in order to ensure that legitimate action, such as trade union
activities or anti-globalisation movements, could under no circumstances
come within the scope of the Framework Decision" (12647/3/01, 14.11.01)

The current draft text thus represents the view of the majority of EU
governments and reads as follows:

"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that
terrorist offences include the intentional acts listed below, which may
be seriously damaging to a country or international organisation, as
defined under national law, where committed with the aim of:

(i) seriously intimidating a population, or

(ii) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to
perform or abstain from performing any act or

(iii) destabilising or destroying the political, constitutional or
economic structures of a country or international organisation"

The concept of "seriously damaging a country or international
organisation" is nebulous and vague. "Seriously intimidating a
population" is equally vague and could, in certain circumstances, be
applied to a large-scale protest. "Unduly compelling a Government or
international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any
act"defies reasonable understanding and would appear to cover many, many
legitimate demands for change as would "destabilising or destroying the
political, constitutional or economic structures of a country or
international organisation".

The previous version of 26 October read:

"Each Member State shall take the necessary steps to ensure that
terrorist offences include the [intentional] acts list below, as defined
under national law, where unlawfully committed with the aim of seriously
affecting, in particular by the intimidation of the population, or
destroying the political, economic or social structures of a country or
of an organisation governed by public international law" (the brackets
[] in original; 12647/1/01, 26.10.01)

The Council position on the controversial Article 3.f (in the
Commission's draft). The Commission draft read:

"Unlawful seizure of or damage to state or government facilities, means
of public transport, infrastructure facilities, places of public use,
and property"

The Council's new draft reads:

"causing extensive damage to public facilities, a transport system, an
infrastructure facility, including information systems, a fixed platform
located on a continental shelf, a public place or private property which
may cause massive destruction of such a place, facility or system or
considerable economic loss"

This version adds "a fixed platform located on a continental shelf"
presumably referring to oil or natural gas rigs and re-inserts "or
private property" omitted from the previous version.

Full-text of European Commission proposal: Text (pdf)
Full-text of first Council's reaction (12647/01): Text (pdf)
For full background see: Statewatch "Observatory" in defence of freedom
and democracy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [GATSCrit] GATS: EU-wide student- and pupilstrike and
protestdays
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 07:58:18 -0000

EU-wide student- and pupilstrike and protestdays
>From the 10th until the 14th of December

Newsletter number 5
25.11.2001

In this newsletter you can read articles about the latest
developments on the protestweek in the different EU countries and
some practical information for the demonstration in Brussels (Coaches
to the demonstration, citymap and sleepingplaces in Brussels). From
the 10th until the 14th of December pupils and students will protest
all over the European Union against the GATS-treaty and the
privatisation of education. At December the 14th lots of students and
pupils will march in an „educationblock" in the demonstration against
EU politics during the EU summit in brussels. This newsletter starts
with information about the WTO summit in Qatar.

The Services-industry is statisfied with Qatar

The services-industry says it`s very statisfied with the results of
the WTO-summit in Qatar that took place from November the 9th until
November the 14th.
On services, ministers acknowledged the work already undertaken in the
negotiations as well as the large number of proposals submitted by
WTO members on a wide range of issues. They also reaffirmed the
guidelines and procedures adopted by the WTO's Services Council in
March 2001 for continuing the
negotiations.

The ministers added that countries participating in the negotiations
should
submit initial requests June 30, 2002, for services market access
commitments they would like to see other WTO members make. This would
be followed by the submission of initial market access offers by the
participants no later than March 31, 2003, at which time the
intensive stage of bargaining would begin.

Benchmarks, Deadlines Seen as Key

J. Robert Vastine, president of the U.S. Coalition of Services
Industries,
said his group was satisfied with the outcome from Doha. "The major
thing for us is that we obtained benchmarks and deadlines with
respect to the submission of offers," Vastine told on Nov. 19th.

Vastine said the delay in getting to the bargaining phase of the
negotiations was not necessarily a negative thing. "This will take
lots of educating, both by industry and governments, on issues like
transparency and domestic regulation," he noted. "A lot of people
just don't understand these issues. We will need all that time to
educate folks, which might end up in the submission of a higher level
of offers."

The round is being conducted as a single undertaking, meaning that
even if
a deal on services were clinched early on, a final deal would be
contingent on completion of negotiations on all other issues.

The Doha declaration, however, does provide that early agreements may
be
implemented on a provisional or definitive basis pending the
conclusion of the round.

Christopher Roberts of the European Services Forum, which includes
representatives from more than 30 European services sectors, said his
industry association was "generally happy with the outcome in Doha.
We knew that, if the WTO negotiations on services are in due course
to achieve substantial results, we had to have a round."

"Ideally we would have preferred an earlier start to the request/offer
process on services," Roberts admitted, "but it is more important to
have a precise timetable. The services section of the ministerial
declaration was not a
matter of controversy at Doha. So we look forward to engaging, from
next year, in a serious and detailed negotiation."

Moore Optimistic

WTO Director-General Mike Moore said Nov. 19 that the delay in
entering the
request-offer phase of the services negotiations was aimed at
ensuring some symmetry between services and other sectors. "We don't
want any one area to get too far ahead," Moore said.

What does this mean to us?

The failure of the WTO summit (Qatar was definitly a failure, they
achieved almost nothing) is that the participating states didn`t
agree about most items and than decided to extend the timetable. The
danger for us doesn`t get smaller for us but the possibillities to
resist against neo-liberal globalisation are getting bigger. The
privatisation of public services like for instance water and
education has ofcourse already started but we might stop these
developments. The GATS-treaty will take care that the situation will
escalate so we have to stop it! It gave us a lot of hope when we
heard that students are on strike against privatisation in South
Korea, Argentina, Brasil and Nicaragua. An studentunion from Uruguay
contacted us and they want to work together with European students.
They also have created a Latin-American Network against the neo-
liberal politics. We have are also in contact with students from
Canada, the U.S.A. and Australia.  This ofcourse means that we can
think about actions and a network against the privatisation of
education and GATS on a larger than, EU, scale on the meeting in
Brussels.

The present overview

Demonstration and international meeting of pupils and students in
Brussels

On December the 14th the international demonstration will take place
in Brussels. During a meeting on November the 17th in Brussels it was
agreed on that there will be a students- and pupilblock (lots of
NGO`s and other groups will demonstrate against EU politics on
December the 14th)at the demonstration. The meetingpoint for
the „educationblock" can be regognized by a huge banner with the
slogan „Public education is not for sale!" on it. Take your own
banners with you! On our website (webadress below) you can find
information about coaches (busses) from that will drive to the demo
in Brussels from different EU countries, about sleeping places in
Brussels and  a citymap of Brussels where the demonstrationroute is
drawn.

In the evening of the 14th of December the international meeting of
students and pupils will take place. We want to discuss there about
the next steps in the campaign against GATS and privatisation but
also find a political position for the network on wich base we will
work togheter in the future.

Points of discussion are until now:

1. Short introduction by EU students
2. GATS and Bologna – what is connecting these declarations
3. Discussion about the actions from December the 10th until the 14th.
4. Foundation of a coalition against the privatisation of education
(finding a political position on wich basis we can work togheter)
5. Next steps (future actions) in the campaign against the
privatisation of education.
6. Final round with general questions and items.

All points of discussion are being introduced by somebody who will
tell something about the subject. EU students (Dortmund) will travel
to Sevilla to get informed about the next eU summit in Sevilla (June
2002). Somebody from belgium will prepare something for the item
Bologna and somebody from EU students about the GATS-treaty. EU
Students will also prepare something about the "„orld Education
Market" that will be held in Portugal in Mai 2002 and where
the „education-industry" will meet.

14th December:

International demonstration from Brussels to Laeken

>From the Little Castle (name of the asylum seekers centre) to the Big
Castle
(the Royal family lives in Laeken).
Leaving at 11 o'clock from the Little Castle (Watch for the banner:
Education is not for sale! there will be the educationblock),
bd. 9ième de Ligne, Brussels
Arrival in the Parc Stuyvenbergh, Laeken

Netherlands

On the 8th of November there was an action in the Dutch city of
Leiden there was an action against the commercialisation of
education. Several commercial billboards where during broad daylight
taken of the wall of the university-restaurant and brought to a
company called "Worldwide Baggage Services" at Amsterdam airport.
They said the the company that they should fly the billboards to
Qatar since they didn`t want this kind of garbage to hang at the
walls of their university. For the week of the 10th  until the 14th
of December actions are being planned in several cities. Students
from several cities will also attend on the international meetin and
demonstration in Brussels.

Belgium

In Belgium actions are planned on several universities and ofcourse
there is a massive mobilisation for the demo in Brussels.

Germany

In Germany the second national meeting of pupils and students took
place. In almost every region there are meeitings to prepare actions
for the protestweek. In some cities there will be protests in some
other cities there are general assemblees to discuss and vote about a
strike. In the following cities there will be protests: Berlin,
Dortmund, Bochum, Halle, Kassel, Duesseldorf, Leipzig, Potsdam,
Frankfurt a/M, Hamburg, Münich, Cologn and lots of other cities. On
the meeting in Fulda we decided that most local actions will be on
December the 11th and 12th. From Germany lots of busses will drive to
the demonstration in Brussels as well.

Spain

In Spain there are a lot of actions already against the L.O.U. law.
It`s all about privatisation and the lack of democracy on the
university under this new law. In Madrid about 200.000 people (!)
demonstrated against this new law. On the 24th and 25th of November
there will be a national meeting of studentgroups in Zaragoza where
the EU protestweek will be discussed as well. In some cities students
already decided to strike at December the 12th and to organise
actions during the strikeday. On December the 13th lots of students
want to drive to Brussels to attend at the demonstration on the 14th.

Greece

For a lot of Greec students it`s very expensive to travel to
Brussels. In Greece actions will take place in different cities as
well.

Great Brittan

In GB there is a massive mobilisation for brussels and in some cities
there will be protests in the days before...

Denmark

In Denmark demonstrations will take place in three big cities under
the slogans: „Education is not for sale – Ffight neo-liberalism"
and „Education for life – not for the bosses". On December the 13th
coaches (Busses) with students on board that want to jin the
demonstration in Brussels will start from the following cities:
Aalborg, Aarhus, Copenhagen and Odense.
Dänemark

Austria

In Astria there will be some protests to. They are also mobilising
for Brussels.

Sweden

In Sweden there will be actions as well and some groups are
mobilising to the demonstration in Brussels.

France

In France there are several groups activly involved in the
protestweek. Here there will be local actions in several cities and a
massive mobilisation for Brussels.

Italy

There will be an action in Milan but the Italian translation on our
website is pretty bad. We try to get in contact with other groups as
well(Help is always welcome).

Portugal

We have contact with one group and what will happen in portugal isn`t
clear yet.

Luxemburg

Here we have had contact with one group as well. We are pretty sure
that there won`t be any actions in luxemburg.

Ireland

We don`t have any contacts in Ireland (Please help us on that one!)

Finland

In Finnland 2 groups will prepare actions. They are mobilising to
Brussels as well. We have send a mail to the Finnish studentunion as
well.

Outside the European union

In Switzerland and the Chech Republic there are groups that will
organise actions against GATS and the privatisation of education
during the protestweek.

Stories and announcements

You can send uns your Stories and announcements of protests so we can
publish them on our website and in the next newsletter. We are also
still looking for backgroundinformation about the educationpolicy in
all the EU-member states.

Website

On our website you can find loads of information about GATS and the
privatisation and comercialisation of education. You can also find
detailed information about protests in a city near to you (We
hope...). Translations in the other EU languages are still welcome.

Contakt: eustudenten@...

Mailinglists:

English:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/international-pupil-and-studentactions

German:
http://de.groups.yahoo.com/group/int-schueler-und-studentenaktionen

Dutch:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/int-scholieren-en-studentenakties

Website:
http://www.studi-protest.de.vu or
http://int-protest-action.tripod.com




GATSCrit is an open list for spreading information
on GATS. To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to: GATSCrit-unsubscribe@egroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 05:47:47 +0800
Subject: [S26-global] The Next Big Mobilization

"The World Economic Forum, based in Geneva, Switzerland, is an independent
organization committed to improving the state of the world. Funded by the
contributions of 1,000 of the world's foremost corporations, the Forum acts in
the spirit of entrepreneurship in the global public interest to further economic
growth and social progress. The Forum serves its members and society by creating
partnerships between and among business, political, intellectual and other
leaders of society to define, discuss and advance key issues on the global
agenda."

Four major coalitions are planning actions against the Annual Meeting of the
World Economic Forum (WEF) in New York City from January 31-February 5, 2002:

Anti-Capitalist Convergence
http://www.abolishthebank.org/wef2002.html

International A.N.S.W.E.R.
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news.html#update-wef

Knickerbocker Fair Trade Campaign
http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/issue.cfm?ID=173

Public Eye on New York
http://www.davos2002.ch

Web sites dealing with past mobilizations against the WEF contain a wealth of
information:

Anti-WTO Coordination
http://www.reitschule.ch/reitschule/anti-wto

Protest at World Economic Forum
http://www.cyberjedi.org.uk/davos.htm

S11
http://www.s11.org/s14

Switzerland Indymedia
http://ch.indymedia.org/index.php3?lang=en

WEF European Economic Summit 2001
http://www.antiwef.org

These sites contain useful analysis of the WEF:

The Other Davos
http://www.otherdavos.net

Where is the World Economic Forum coming from?
http://www.geocities.com/pwdyson/wef_orgs.htm

New information will be posted here as soon as it becomes available:

http://nyc.indymedia.org

Finally, here is a nifty flier you can use to begin drumming up interest:

http://www.geocities.com/zapatistablock/wef.pdf
--

________________________________________________________________________________
Access your POP email anytime, anywhere with WebMail.com (www.webmail.com), a
product of Mail.com.


-----------------------------------------------------------
to unsubscribe from this list, please send a blank email to
antiimf2000-unsubscribe@egroups.com

more S26 infos: http://x21.org/s26
view messages archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/antiimf2000
-----------------------------------------------------------

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 20:45:55 -0800
Subject: [StopWTORound] Shiva / Doha: Saving Wto, Killing Democracy / Dec 04



----------

Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2001-12/04shiva.cfm

==================================

ZNet Commentary
Doha: Saving Wto, Killing Democracy December 04, 2001
By Vandana Shiva

Doha was described by Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Trade Representative, as
having "removed the stain of Seattle".  Seattle stands as a historical
watershed, through which citizens mobilised democratically to respond to
free-trade treaties and agendas of corporate globalisation.

W.T.O., like NAFTA, FTAA is designed to exclude democratic decision making
in economic affairs. At the domestic level, W.T.O. destroys economic
democracy through rules that prevent people, parliaments and governments
>from providing economic security and livelihoods and jobs for their people.

It undermines economic sovereignty and national constitutions by usurping
the space of national decision making as it did on issues of IPRs,
Agriculture, Services & Investment in the Uruguay Round, and as it has
attempted in Doha on issues of natural resources, investment, competition,
government procurement and trade facilitation.  At the international level,
W.T.O. is loaded in process and content by the agenda of the rich and
powerful corporations and countries.

Seattle stopped the enlargement of this undemocratic structure and its
undemocratic processes.  People from across the world, and governments of
poor countries stopped a new round from being launched.  W.T.O's failure was
democracy's victory. This victory of democracy is being described by
Zoellick as the "stain of Seattle". Removing the "stain" of democracy is
what Doha was designed for and achieved.

First, Doha was chosen as a venue to escape from popular response of
citizens mobilising on a large scale as they did in Seattle, Gothenberg,
Genoa.

The democratic expression of civil society was attempted to be muffled by
the location and restrictions on visas.  The democratic rights of poor
countries were extinguished by bull dozing, armtwisting, undemocratic and
non-democratic processes for which W.T.O. has become famous.

Doha's success was based on democratic failure.  W.T.O. which had been
derailed in Seattle by the combined force of people and developing countries
was, "put on track" in Doha, according to Pascal Lamy, the E.U. trade
commissioner.

During his trip to India immediately after Doha for the E.U. India business
Summit, Pascal Lamy admitted that W.T.O. is a "medieval" institution in
desperate need for reform, but a new round had to be launched before the
reform process otherwise W.T.O. could have been destroyed.

This is like arguing that an infectious disease must be allowed to spread
because curing it might kill the infectious agent. If reform of a diseased
organisation is not possible, then we need to build healthier and more
democratic institutions.  Democracy cannot be systematically throttled to
save undemocratic institutions.  Saving democracy should be the criteria,
not saving W.T.O.

Pascal Lamy has described the new round launched at Doha as a new global
deal on Trade, Development and Environment.  The "global deal' is the
enlargement and acceleration of perverse and polarising, globalisation. It
is a "deal" in which the rich grab more from the poor instead of giving
more.

Development has been reinterpreted to mean trade liberalisation and
environment is being reinterpreted to mean free trade in natural resources.
Unfortunately the very meaning and content of "development" and
"environment" is being forced to undergo change.

Development means self-generative, self-determined growth of an organism, a
society, or a country.  It was used to refer to actions taken by governments
in an effort to improve people's well-being by ensuring their basic needs of
livelihoods - food, water, health and education are met. It was used by poor
countries in trade negotiations at W.T.O. to refer to the basic needs of
their people.

"Development" has been redefined by the rich countries further globalisation
and unrestricted growth of trade. Even development aid is  targetted at
promotion of "free" trade.  After Doha, the slogan of "trade, not aid" has
been altered to "aid for trade" which in effect means using tax payer's
money as subsidies for exports and conditionalities for trade
liberalisation.

In other words, rich countries are to use their citizens money to subsidise
corporate, commercial activity.  The poor in poor countries have disappeared
>from the "development" equation.

For Pascal Lamy and the European Commission, Doha was a "development round.
"Development" has been redefined as "trade liberalisation" and economic
reform for corporate welfare and the welfare of the rich.  While addressing
the E.U. India Business Summit in New Delhi on 22nd November 2001, Lamy
referred to the EU-India cooperation in Science and Technology, Trade and
Investment and said,

All this is part of our natural effort to get in place the type of
"software" that facilitates the everyday life of people like you, business
people, who work on turning our aspirations into reality: namely to exchange
goods and services that our consumers want, and to undertake the investments
that are needed to produce these goods and services, at prices and quality
standards that are competitive internationally.

Notice the mutation of the development agenda -- India has been reduced to
her business people who can export good and services to Europe.  Her women,
her children, her peasants, tribals, craftspeople, workers and their basic
rights have all disappeared.

India's production is not for creating livelihoods for the Indian people or
creating livelihoods for the Indian people or meeting their basic needs.
India must produce for rich European consumers, and "undertake investments"
not for her people's development but for commercial interests and the growth
of consumerism in the North. And she must provide goods and services to the
rich in the North at "internationally competent prices" -- not at just and
fair prices that respect workers rights, ensure just wages and defend
people's livelihoods.

In other words, India's workers and farmers must become poorer, her women
and children must starve, so that the rich can buy goods and services more
cheaply and commercial profits can increase.  For this to happen, trade and
investment must be further deregulated and "liberalised", labour laws must
be dismantled and labour markets deregulated.

Corporations should have more freedom to make super-profits, and public
money of the North and South should be redirected from support to the poor
to a subsidy for rich corporations and rich consumers.  This is the new
"development agenda" of the rich.

Instead of development being sovereign, self-determined provisioning of
basic needs for the poor, Doha has formalised development as exploiting the
labour and resources of the poor to provide cheap goods and services for the
rich.

The "development agenda" of Doha is in fact an anti-development agenda based
on transforming natural resources and labour of the South into environmental
and social subsidies for wasteful consumption and non-sustainable commerce.

Unfortunately even though it was India's Commerce Minister Musoli Maran who
fought hardest against further liberalisation of trade and investment in
Doha, his first announcement on returning to India was to accelerate the
pace of economic reforms and liberalise investments.

If liberalisation of trade and investment is destructive of Third World
people's livelihoods and well-being, and that is why it is resisted by
countries like India in W.T.O., Mr. Maran's commitment to "autonomous
reforms" to implement the very agenda he resisted and got deferred in Doha
is like committing suicide because you have been threatened with murder.
Murder threats need to be responded by heightened protection, not
self-annihilation.

The people of India reject the imposition of irresponsible commerce and
corporate globalisation by W.T.O., or by government, because the impact on
people is the same -- more farmers committing suicide, more children dying
of hunger, more violence against women, more workers without jobs.

That is why a very broad alliance of  "Indian People's Campaign against WTO"
has been formed which held a rally of more than 100,000 people on 6th Nov,
before Doha, and after Doha told the government that is globalisation
policies would be strongly resisted.  The people of India will define and
shape their own development, base don sustainability and justice.

People's rights to natural resources and livelihoods is at the heart of the
development agenda of the poor in India.  It is also at the heart of our
environment agenda.  It is the poorest of Indian communities who fight
hardest to defend their seeds, their forests, their land, their rivers.

For us environment is not a luxury, but the very basis of survival.  That is
why international environmental agreements like the Montreal Protocol on
Ozone depleting substances, the Basel Convention, banning trade in toxics,
the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity and Climate Change and the
Biosafety protocol to regulate GMOs and the Kyoto protocol to reduce CO2
emissions are such important instruments of environmental justice for us.

However, in Doha a distorted attempt was made to reduce the environmental
agenda to an agenda of the rich -- of appropriating the natural resources of
the poor for commercial profit and making commerce take precedence over
conservation.

Patents and Biopiracy are the instruments promoted and legitimatised by the
rich country IPR systems and the TRIPs agreement of W.T.O. for take over of
the natural wealth of biodiversity which is the livelihood base of the two
thirds of humanity in the Third World.

Even though Article 27.3 (b) of TRIPs which imposes patents on life,
establishes corporate monopolies on seeds and plant varieties, and enables
biopiracy was to have been reviewed and reformed in accordance to a
mandatory review started 2 years ago no corrections were made in TRIPs in
Doha to change the distorted, perverse, unjust and unethical system of IPRs
it forces on people.

Much PR mileage has been claimed by W.T.O and rich countries on a TRIPs
declaration related to public health.  However, Doha failed to legally
modify TRIPs to protect farmers' right to seed and the integrity of
biodiversity, and indigenous knowledge systems.

Two thirds of the health care in Third World societies is based on
biodiversity based indigenous medical systems.  Biopiracy of the plants and
knowledge which are the basis of indigenous health care is also a threat to
public health.  The legal reform and correction of TRIPs to stop biopiracy
of the intellectual and biodiversity wealth of the Third World continues to
be blocked by rich countries.  This is the incomplete agenda of modifying
TRIPs that needs to be completed.

The environment movement in the South and the North has been among the
strongest critics of free trade and globalisation because of its impact on
the environment. The streets of Seattle were full of environmental
activists. The Doha declaration is a desperate attempt by governments to
subvert the environment movement and the multilateral Environment
Agreements, and to promote free trade in natural resources.

The problem with the Trade and Environment agenda of the Doha Round is not
that environment will be used to restrict free trade but that it will be
used to expand free trade to cover water, and other "environmental goods and
services" as the U.S. proposed para 31(iii) of the Doha declaration states.
Doha's environmental agenda threatens to become an anti-environment agenda
if the environmental movements of South and North are not vigilant.

One of the major reasons for the collapse of the Seattle negotiations was
the attempt by U.S. to drag the environmental issue of the ecological risks
of GMOs into W.T.O. while the developing countries and E.U. wanted it
covered by the Biosafety protocol of Convention on Biological Diversity.  If
Biosafety issues related to GMOs are primarily determined by the free trade
rules of W.T.O., they will be viewed as non-tariff trade barriers and will
be diluted.

If, on the other hand, CBD and environmental criteria take precedence, trade
rules will have to change to ensure regulation for Biosafety.  By usurping
the MEA agenda at Doha, W.T.O. could undermine the  environmental treaties.
The outcome of Rio needs to be defended at Rio+10 at Johannesburg.

The Earth Summit needs to set the agenda for environmental reform of W.T.O.
not vice versa.  Over the next two years before the Fifth Ministerial,
environment and development groups and movements need to build up enough
public pressure and public opinion to promote environmental and sustainable
development goal, and reform of global institutions and trade treaties to
reach those goals. Transformation of W.T.O. rules and structures will have
to be an important part of this agenda.

The work of  Seattle needs to continue.  It is the undemocratic stain of
Doha product and process which needs to be removed.  This requires a
reinvigoration of the new democracy movement which has so far been referred
to only negatively as the anti-globalisation movement.

The agenda for the new democracy movement will, at a minimum, need to
include :-

1. The democratic right of citizens and countries to restrict imports to
defend livelihoods and prevent the impoverishment of people.

2. The democratic right of citizens and countries to regulate trade and
commerce to defend people's rights to natural resources and prevent
ecological destruction.

3. The right of people of all countries to food sovereignty, water
sovereignty and biodiversity sovereignty, the reclaiming water and
biodiversity as commons, and food as a basic need.

4. The democratic right of people to regulate investment for ecological and
social justice.

5. The democratic right of people to not allow public wealth and tax payers
money to subsidise corporations.  Public wealth must be used for public
good, not private gain.

In terms of changes in W.T.O. rules this implies :-

1. The sovereign rights of countries to impose Quantitative Restrictions on
Imports.

2. MEAs have precedence over W.T.O rules.

3. A "food security" or "development" box is introduced in the A.A before
the next Ministerial to exempt countries from trade rules on ground of food
security and livelihood security for farmers.

4. The TRIPs review is completed before the Fifth Ministerial to make
patents on life, seed monopolies and biopiracy illegal.

5. Water is not allowed to be covered under para 32(iii) of the Doha
Declaration.

6. No Investment Agreement or Negotiations in W.T.O.











You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:33:54 -0600
From: hmaiba1 <hmaiba1@...>
To: chicagodan@yahoogroups.com
Cc: caravan99@..., chicagomayday@yahoogroups.com,
      global-justice@..., pga@...
Subject: <caravan99> FWD: [Fwd: [RWTO] Our Ottawa Adventures]

>===== Original Message From ideasinc@... =====
Starhawk's frontline account of the recent actions in Ottawa

We're done with three days of actions here against the meetings of <BR>
the IMF, the World Bank, and the G20.ÿ All in all, they went well, <BR>
especially considering the organizers had only three weeks notice to <BR>
pull together a mobilization. <BR>
ÿÿÿÿÿ The organizers of this action took some big risks.ÿ First, <BR>
attempting to call an action on such short notice was extremely <BR>
difficult.ÿ Nevertheless, they mobilized probably 3-5000 people for <BR>
three days of events.<BR>
ÿÿÿÿÿ Secondly, they explicitly invited all factions to sit down at <BR>
the table and coordinated events to attempt to leave space for both <BR>
committed nonviolent actions and actions that support a diversity of <BR>
tactics.ÿ This process wasn't always smooth, but overall the result <BR>
was a deepened level of trust between many groups in the movement. <BR>
ÿÿÿÿÿ Friday, OCAT, the Ontario Coalition Against Tories, CLAC, the <BR>
Anti-Capitalist Convergence of Montreal, and the Black Touta of <BR>
Toronto held a rally at which I spoke, and then a snake march through <BR>
downtown Ottawa.ÿ The snake march was fast and spirited: the idea was <BR>
to keep moving, avoid confrontations with the police, and disrupt <BR>
downtown.ÿ A small contingent of the Living River cluster marched, <BR>
but most people had not yet arrived and we peeled off before the end. <BR>
After we left, a few people broke windows at a McDonald's and tore <BR>
down an anti-choice sign.ÿ This was the only real property damage <BR>
that occurred during the weekend.<BR>
At the same time, a peace vigil was held at the Human Rights Memorial <BR>
near Ottawa courthouse and City Hall.ÿ While the original plan was to <BR>
hold Muslim prayers and then return to the University to break the <BR>
fast of Ramadan.ÿ However, the police threw some kind of chemical <BR>
weapon projectile into the crowd and attempted to snatch a protestor <BR>
out of it.ÿ The Muslims were terrified, and retreated.ÿ The snake <BR>
march, which had joined the rally, continued.<BR>
<BR>
On Friday night, we held a ritual for around a hundred and fifty <BR>
people.ÿ We created a well out of a child's swimming pool, and filled <BR>
it with waters of the world.ÿ Telling stories of loss, of where we <BR>
get our strength, and of what we give, we exchanged stones ad finally <BR>
places them in the well.ÿ We stirred it, spiral danced around it, and <BR>
raised a cone of power to charge our visions, then each took a stone <BR>
from the well.ÿ It was sweet and beautiful.<BR>
<BR>
On Saturday, we gather at LeBretton flats to march in the Peace <BR>
March.ÿ Our cluster, a group of Pagans, became the Living River, <BR>
bringing blue cloth, signs and flyers to focus attention on issues of <BR>
water.ÿ The IMF and the World Bank include the privatization of water <BR>
delivery services in the structural adjustment programs they impose <BR>
on the third world.ÿ With privatization, the costs of drinking water <BR>
rise beyond the ability of the poor to pay.ÿ Water, as a crucial <BR>
resource, is in shorter and shorter supply, and within the next <BR>
decades many places will be facing shortages.ÿ The control of water <BR>
resources may soon be as hot a political issue as the control of oil.<BR>
<BR>
The River had a good contingent, probably sixty people, together with <BR>
the Mothers and Midwives.ÿ Betty Ann, who had graciously provided a <BR>
number of us with food, lodging, transport, jail and legal support <BR>
throughout the week during our troubles with Canadian Immigration, <BR>
brought The Baby-a giant stocking doll that looks like newborn baby <BR>
with an umbilical cord of knotted nylons attached to a giant helium <BR>
balloon of the Earth.<BR>
A contingent of the black bloc had come to support the march.ÿ We all <BR>
started off together, marching in perfect peace and harmony until out <BR>
of nowhere a contingent of riot cops in full gear set up a turnstile <BR>
roadblock.ÿ They were spread out across the road and the march was <BR>
required to walk between them, while snatch teams picked out <BR>
individuals to be searched or arrested.ÿ We knew they would be <BR>
targeting the black bloc, who as we said had been doing nothing other <BR>
than peacefully marching, so we mingled them amongst the River.ÿ The <BR>
cops ran in and grabbed a young man, pulling him out of the flow and <BR>
throwing him to the ground.ÿ The march broke down.ÿ People were <BR>
screaming and cops were snatching kids and crushing them on the <BR>
pavement while more police dogs then I've ever seen were snarling and <BR>
lunging.ÿ Mothers with babies in strollers were frantically trying to <BR>
get away.ÿ Maude Barlow, head of the Council of Canadians, said later <BR>
that she was screaming in fear.ÿ On the side, the cops were holding a <BR>
group of the bloc at bay, menacing them and others with snarling <BR>
police dogs.ÿ A few of us jumped in between to protect the bloc and <BR>
confront the police.ÿ "Your dog bit me!" a man next to me was crying. <BR>
One man was on the ground, being attacked by a dog who bit him nearly <BR>
down to the bone.ÿ The level of sheer, uncalled-for repression united <BR>
everyone.ÿ As Betty Ann said, "When the dogs bit The Baby, it <BR>
confirmed my solidarity with the black bloc." <BR>
While a couple of us kept the attention of the cops in front, Lisa <BR>
and some others found an opening and pulled the bloc through and back <BR>
into the body of the march.ÿ We quickly moved on.<BR>
The bloc was thanking us as we moved away.ÿ On the move, we <BR>
organized the River to surround them and keep them away from the <BR>
edges of the March where they could be easily snatched<BR>
Further along, the police again tried to split the march.ÿ The River <BR>
had the bloc well protected on one side, but on the opposite side our <BR>
ranks were thin.ÿ The police ran in to attempt to grab the bloc, and <BR>
from the other side cops came in to push the rest of the march back. <BR>
They drove a line across the road, pushing our contingent, the back <BR>
end with bloc and Pagans and others all mingled, away from the main <BR>
body of the march.ÿ Riot cops on the side had the dogs which were <BR>
menacing people,ÿ Our line was in formation, chanting "Move! Move!" <BR>
in unison as they tried to push us back.ÿ They were clearing the <BR>
intersection.ÿ We moved back, slowly, and then sat down to make it <BR>
harder for them to move us.ÿ The cops stopped.ÿ On the other side of <BR>
the intersection, the cops moved away and the crowd surged back <BR>
toward us--trapping the line of police who were facing us.ÿ They then <BR>
had to thread their way out leaving us the street.ÿ We jumped up, <BR>
cheered and moved on, laughing and chanting "Whose streets?ÿ Our <BR>
streets!"ÿ It was a moment of triumph. The bloc linked up, chanting, <BR>
"The bloc supports the Pagans, the Pagans support the bloc!"<BR>
At the rally on the Supreme Court lawn, we had a check in and a <BR>
spokes from the bloc came over to thank us and ask if we'd like to <BR>
coordinate actions in the afternoon.ÿ "I was glad to support the <BR>
bloc," one woman in our group said, "But I don't know exactly what <BR>
I'm supporting."ÿ A delightful young man came over and explained to <BR>
us that the black bloc is a tactic adopted by mostly anarchist <BR>
groups.ÿ They dress in black and mask up out of solidarity, to show <BR>
that their actions are not about individuals but about group <BR>
cohesion, and because they fear the apparatus of state security. <BR>
"We're utopianists," he said.ÿ "We try to live our politics and our <BR>
revolution.ÿ We're the most dedicated and committed of the activists. <BR>
When we're not blocking up, we're doing all kinds of ongoing <BR>
political work.ÿ We serve food to the homeless.ÿ We take over squats, <BR>
we work on all kinds of issues.ÿ We don't initiate violence, but if <BR>
we're attacked, we'll defend ourselves.ÿ And we're so grateful for <BR>
your support.ÿ I'm a Pagan!" he concluded.ÿ "I'm an anarchist!" I <BR>
said, and much of the River agreed.<BR>
After the rally, a different militant contingent marched to the <BR>
barricades and attempted to storm them but was pushed back by water <BR>
cannons, pepper spray and rubber bullets.ÿ We held a spiral dance in <BR>
the red zone, snake danced across barricades, and then went across <BR>
the river and around to the green zone reserved for nonviolent civil <BR>
disobedience.ÿ Paul, one of the organizers, with three others had <BR>
peacefully attempted to cross the barricades and been arrested, <BR>
hauled roughly off and tasered in the leg.ÿ We arrived just after <BR>
he'd been take away and led a spiral dance.<BR>
<BR>
On Sunday, we went down to the courthouse in the morning to do jail <BR>
support.ÿ We had called for a ritual at the human rights monument at <BR>
noon.ÿ Another small affinity group wanted to do a die-in at the <BR>
barricades.ÿ We combined ideas, coalescing with a group of French <BR>
students who were doing a mock military march, formed up in groups of <BR>
four, chanting "Gauche, gauche, extreme gauche." "Left, left, extreme <BR>
left,".ÿ We did a very simple grounding-with no sound system <BR>
everything had to be repeated to be heard. We called in the elements <BR>
with a word or two, got everyone dancing, and then danced down the <BR>
street, or marched in formation, depending on your preference, to the <BR>
War Memorial.ÿ The faux military march marched around, then died. <BR>
One by one, people called out what was dying, and threw themselves <BR>
dramatically down on the ground.ÿ When the dead started to look <BR>
restless, I began a heartbeat on the drum, they revived, and we <BR>
danced a spiral, raising a very sweet cone of power.ÿ Then the <BR>
students lifted up 'corpses' and carried them to the barricades, <BR>
dropping them down and dragging them up to the metal barriers.ÿ A few <BR>
people made speeches.ÿ We read the Cochabamba declaration, written by <BR>
the people of Bolivia after they took their water supply back from <BR>
privatization by the World Bank and IMF.ÿ It declares water to be a <BR>
sacred trust and human right to be guarded by an international <BR>
treaty.ÿ We brought out our Reverse Wishing Well filled with Waters <BR>
of the World and colorful marbles.ÿ We passed it around, inviting <BR>
people to make a wish for that better world that is possible, and to <BR>
think about what they would do to make it real.<BR>
We went off to have coffee and cake and leaflet in the market, <BR>
encouraging people to think about alternative ways to show love and <BR>
affection besides shopping at corporate stores.<BR>
The protests were successful in showing that, even during the climate <BR>
of increased repression after September 11, and even on very short <BR>
notice, we could mount a strong opposition to the institutions of <BR>
globalization.ÿ But more than that, they gave us a chance to try out <BR>
on a smaller scale some practical street solidarity.ÿ We have a lot <BR>
of differences in the movement, idealogical, tactical, differences of <BR>
style.ÿ We're trying hard to hold those tensions, and so far, we're <BR>
more successful than any movement I've been a part of before.ÿ But <BR>
it's a fairly new attempt, and not easy.ÿ We're bound to make <BR>
mistakes, and bound to let each other down.ÿ Still, with all the <BR>
difficulties and frustrations, we need each other.ÿ In these times of <BR>
increased repression, we've got to watch each other's backs.ÿ When <BR>
the dog bites The Baby, there's no other choice. <BR>
<BR>
-- <BR>
<BR>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR>
<BR>
</tt>

<br>

<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td
align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050
63985:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupm
ail/S=1705063985:HM/A=763352/rand=419465236"></td></tr>
</table>

<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


<br>
<tt>
Reclaiming - a Community of people, a Tradition of Witchcraft, and a religious
organization.<BR>
<BR>
More info on Reclaiming:ÿ <a
href="http://www.reclaiming.org/about/">http://www.reclaiming.org/about/</a><B
R>
<BR>
To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:<BR>
RWTO-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>

<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>

</body></html>

------------------------------------
caravan99@...
subscription:
mail to caravan99-request@...
with command in body of mail: subscribe/unsubscribe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 07:55:24 -0800
From: red-red2@...
To: caravan99@...
Subject: <caravan99> News from the www.indymedia.org:8081 newswire


---------------------------------------------------------------

Story from the www.indymedia.org:8081 newswire

Checkout independent media coverage of politics, protest, and life
at: http://www.indymedia.org:8081

This message was sent to you by:

Comments:

---------------------------------------------------------------

Article by: Walden Bello and Anuradha Mittal
Thursday 15 Nov 2001

Email: nparker@...

Summary:Something was launched at Doha, but to call it a \"round\" of trade
negotiations might be stretching the concept of a round.

Weblink: http://www.foodfirst.org

Reference at indymedia website:
http://www.indymedia.org:8081//front.php3?article_id=90263

Article:



	 The results of the WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar, have
elicited some confusion among many of those following the events.

A New Round?

	 Something was launched at Doha, but to call it a \"round\" of
trade negotiations might be stretching the concept of a round.  A
round means negotiations on a broad range of issues directed at trade
liberalization.  What was agreed at Doha were: a) negotiations to
clarify or revise some existing agreements, e.g., anti-dumping rules;
and b) eventual negotiations for new agreements, e.g., transparency
in government procurement, investment, and competition policy.

	 Getting immediate negotiations going on investment,
competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation was
at the top of the agenda of the trading powers in Doha.  They fell
short of this objective, being able to secure a commitment for
negotiations on these issues only after the fifth ministerial in
2003, and only with a \"written consensus\" from member countries.


Doha and the Developing Countries

	 What is clear is that, contrary to the claims of European
Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, Doha did not launch a \"development
round.\"  The key points of the Doha Declaration, in fact, contradict
the interests of the developing countries.  For example,

- There is only a perfunctory acknowledgement of the need to review
implementation issues, which was the key agenda of the developing
countries coming into Doha;
- The language on the phasing out of agricultural subsidies is
watered down owing to the strong objections of the European Union;
- There is no commitment to an early phase-out of textile and garment
quotas because of the strong resistance of the United States;
- The demand for a \"development box\" to promote food security and
development which was being pushed by a number of developing
countries was completely ignored;
- There is no commitment to change the wording of the TRIPs
(Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights) agreement to accommodate
developing countries\' overriding of patents for public health
purposes;
- There is no commitment to change the TRIPs agreement to outlaw
biopiracy and patents on life, which was a key developing country
concern coming into Doha;
- The declaration eliminates the reference in the draft to the
International Labor Organization (ILO) being the appropriate forum
for addressing labor and trade issues, which leaves the door open for
the WTO to assert its jurisdiction in an area where it has no
authority or competence.

The resolution of the TRIPs and public health issue is being
trumpeted as a victory for developing countries.  This is
exaggerated.  While an attachment to the declaration does recognize
that there is nothing in TRIPs that would prevent countries from
taking measures to promote public health, there is no commitment to
change the wording of the TRIPs agreement.  This is a serious flaw
since TRIPs as it is currently written can serve as the basis for
future legal challenges to countries that override patents in the
interest of public health.

A Defeat for Democracy and Development

In fact, Doha was a defeat for the developing countries,
notwithstanding the resistance they--and in particular, India--put up
against arm-twisting, blackmail, and intimidation from the big
trading powers.  Those of us in Doha were witness, as the Equations
team puts it, \"to the highhanded unethical negotiating practices of
the developed countries - linking aid budgets and trade preferences
to the trade positions of developing countries and targeting
individual developing country negotiators.\"

Doha was a victory for the forces with a strong interest in
subverting the interests of the developing countries that form the
majority of the membership of the World Trade Organization by keeping
the decision-making process non-transparent and undemocratic.

Why Doha will Backfire

This is why this victory may well be a Pyrrhic one for the big
trading powers. The combination of developing country resentments
inflamed by the Doha process, a deep global recession brought about
by the indiscriminate locking together of economies by accelerated
trade and financial liberalization, and reinvigorated civil society
resistance to corporate driven globalization, cannot but erode the
credibility and legitimacy of the institutional pillars of free trade
like the WTO.

And without credibility and legitimacy, institutions, no matter how
seemingly solid they may seem, eventually unravel.

At the conclusion of the Fourth Ministerial, Director General Mike
Moore thanked the delegates for \"saving the WTO.\"  The end result may
well be, instead, the accelerated decline of the WTO.


------------------------------------
caravan99@...
subscription:
mail to caravan99-request@...
with command in body of mail: subscribe/unsubscribe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 14:19:44 -0800
From: "Phil Bereano" <phil@...>
To: <phil@...>
Subject: [StopWTORound] WTO = "We Take Over"


strongarm tactics behind the scenes; but it sounds as though we made them
struggle for every one of their victories, not like in earlier meetings.

Phil
============================================
Prof. Philip L. Bereano
Department of Technical Communication
Box 352195
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195

Phone: (206) 543-9037
Fax:     (206) 543-8858


-----Original Message-----
From: biotech_activists@... [mailto:biotech_activists@...]
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2001 6:59 AM
To: phil@...
Subject: Devinder Sharma-WTO: We Take Over


Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@...)    Posted: 11/17/2001  By
dhunt@...
============================================================



>>From ----------
Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin),
http://www.ngin.org.uk
---
WTO Doha Ministerial

"We Take Over"

By Devinder Sharma

The day the World Trade Organisation (WTO) came into existence, on
January 1, 1995, the Indian Express had carried a pocket cartoon on
its front page. It showed two people walking amidst high rise
buildings with huge billboards for popular multinational brands like
Pepsi Cola, Coke, Philips, and McDonalds. The cartoon depicted one of
the person walking down the street, asking: "What does WTO stand for?"
The other man replied: "We Take Over".

The ‘explicit’ way the QUAD countries -- the United States, the
European Union, Canada and Japan -- bludgeoned their way into gains on
virtually every issue on the agenda at the fourth WTO Ministerial,
which ended at Doha recently, the world is certainly up for sale. The
greatest tragedy of Doha is that the world’s richest economies, which
invariably swear in the name of democracy, used all ‘undemocratic’
norms and arms to force a ‘consensus’ down the throat of developing
countries. In the bargain, the autocratic process of takeover of the
global economy puts at risk millions of people, especially women and
children, without basic rights and opportunities, and hoping against
hope.

Such was the urgency to bypass the WTO rules, repeatedly made since
1999, that the developed countries were not even remotely concerned at
considering, let alone agreeing and first implementing these before
launching a new round. Pushing aggressively on new issues on
investment, competition policy, government procurement and trade
facilitation, the agenda was redefined, even if in a limited way for
now, to ensure that the economic takeover of the developing world is
complete in the years to come. To achieve this, the QUAD group
followed in earnest the principle of ‘divide-and-rule’, something that
the colonial masters had so successfully used and abused. After all,
it was not long ago that the Sun never set on the British Empire. No
wonder, the economic re-colonisation through the WTO paradigm ensures
that the Sun never sets on the multinational companies !

Ever since the Uruguay Round was launched, developing countries have
become accustomed to arm-twisting and high-handedness that comes in
the name of trade and investment. Doha Ministerial was no exception.
But what surprised the world, including the civil society, was the
defiant and valiant stand taken by the India. In fact, India’s
Commerce Minister, Mr Murlisaran Maran, would have alone led to the
failure of the Doha Ministerial if it was not for the last minute
‘intervention’ from the Prime Minister’s Office in New Delhi. That was
clever politics and not trade and economics. On the other hand, it was
purely Mr Maran’s strong conviction that the ‘WTO is a necessary
evil’, that he fought like a true soldier. He defied the global
community by refusing to submit to unjust demands and pressures only
to relent at the final nerve-rattling moment and that too under strict
orders from his General.

For the other developing countries, which could muster enough
political courage to stand up to ‘undemocratic’ pressures, it was
difficult to hold on to the final whistle. One by one they deserted
India. Among these were Egypt, Malaysia, Tanzania and finally
Pakistan. Interestingly, the US Commerce Secretary, Grant Aldonis,
reportedly offered to lower the restrictions on the import of bed
sheets and pillowcases from Pakistan in return for its signing the
draft text. In addition, he also indicated US willingness to lift a
1998 quota on cotton yarn, even though the WTO had in April ruled that
the US quota on Pakistan’s cotton yarn exports was illegal.

As to why no concessions were made on textile trade, the Wall Street
Journal reports that in a recent letter to the US President George
Bush, 31 members of the Congress, including four Republicans, had
stated that "the U.S. should make no further concessions in textiles
and apparel in future trade agreements". As for America's antidumping
rules, which protect domestic industries -- such as steel -- from
foreign products, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, was
quoted as saying: "Why would we agree to this? What do we gain?" This
is true not only for textiles. In fact, everything that has been
negotiated and renegotiated at the successive WTO meetings, without
exception, has been to the advantage of the rich trading countries.
For the developing countries, all the WTO leaves behind are promises
and promises galore.

Much is being made out about the ‘concessions’ wrested by developing
countries on agriculture and medicines for public health. In fact, Mr
Maran too defends ‘the decision to yield some ground on environment to
gain substantially in agriculture’. What has been incorporated now in
the final agreed text is nothing new but a mere reiteration of what
has been spelled in the Agreement on Agriculture. By agreeing to "a
phase out of agricultural subsidies", and to "take into account the
development needs, including food security and rural development" is
like dangling a carrot before the developing countries. In reality,
agricultural subsidies in the QUAD countries are on an upswing. The
richest trading block -- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) -- provide a phenomenal support of US $ One billion
a day for agriculture. The US, under its new Farm Bill that is pending
before Congress, has already promised its farmers an additional US $
170 billion in the next ten years.

Developing countries, and also the civil society groups espousing the
cause of the farming communities in the South, are behaving like an
ostrich by refusing to read the writing on the wall. The mere mention
of ‘food security’ is no safeguard against heavily subsidised food
imports given the fact that developing countries, including India,
have opened up their trade barriers by lifting the quantitative
restrictions whereas the massive subsidies in the west keeping on
mounting. Unless the removal of quantitative restrictions is linked to
the removal of agricultural subsidies in the west, food security in
developing countries cannot be ensured.

Equally damaging is the ‘landmark’ declaration on TRIPs and Public
Health. To think that the decision to allow the production of cheaper
generic drugs to meet any health crisis, is ‘historic’, is to ignore
the ground realities. It is here that even the civil society groups
have fumbled. The sordid episode of the HIV/AIDS drugs that were
requisitioned by South Africa from India and which resulted in the
drug companies filing a court case against TRIPs infringement, is in
reality a wrong case study. Why the Indian drug company was able to
supply cheap generic version of the medicine was because India still
does not have in place the new patent regime, on the lines of TRIPs.
Once the patent laws are amended to conform to the TRIPs Agreement,
Indian companies will be forbidden from producing any cheaper version
of generic drugs. And once the production of generic drugs stops,
where from will cheaper drugs be procured?

And still, we are being unabashedly told that international trade can
play a major role in the promotion of economic development and the
alleviation of poverty. We are being told that the WTO recognises the
need for all our peoples to benefit from the increased opportunities
and welfare gains that the multilateral trading system generates. What
it does not tells us is that global trade is being aggressively
pursued by the rich industrialised countries to garner more economic
benefits from the poor and marginalised societies. The new trade
paradigm will eventually further the economic divide between the North
and the South. It will not only usurp democratic traditions in the
name of trade and sustainable development as Doha has conclusively
shown but lead to denial of human rights as well as economic and
political freedom. Perhaps the underprivileged part of the world has
to learn from what independent India’s first Prime Minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, once said: "Freedom is in peril, defend it with all
your might". #

(Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst.
His contact address is: dsharma@... )







============================================================
How to Use this Mailing List
============================================================

You received this e-mail as a result of your registration on the
biotech_activists mailing list.

To unsubscribe, please send an email to listserv@.... In the body of
the message type:
unsubscribe biotech_activists

For a list of other commands and list options, please send email to
listserv@....
In the body of the message type:
help

Please direct content questions about this list to: dwiehoff@...

Please direct technical questions about this service to: support@...





You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[! MORE AT http://ontario.indymedia.org/ !]

Ottawa Demonstrations Against World Bank/IMF/G20

N17: Movement sees co-operation between diverse factions

"The Pagans support the Bloc, the Bloc support the Pagans"

The march started at 3 locations: Hull, Lebreton Flats (near Booth &
Scott) and University of Ottawa. Every part of the march had been blocked
at different locations. The Lebreton Flats march had faced filters right
at the beginning. After the cops had dispersed, protesters continued until
they were blocked off at Laurier & Bank.
Denise Campbell of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women
spoke before the University of Ottawa march (audio, photo). That march got
blocked off at Laurier bridge where everyone had to be searched in order
to go through. The march decided to avoid this, and snake to Byward
Market, but then decided to cross MacKenzie King bridge, which is normally
reserved for buses.
The Hull march was blocked off at a bridge between Quebec and Ontario.
They were finally able to go through, but had to be searched.

The 3 marches eventually merged at the Supreme Court. The group then
separated into green zone and red zone. Both groups walked toward Elgin
and Wellington, and went in different directions, one heading towards the
Congress Centre, and the other headed down Elgin to cross the canal on the
Laurier bridge.

People have been reporting cooperation between different factions of the
movement (1, 2). "The Pagans support the Bloc, the Bloc supports the
Pagans" was also chanted. The Black Bloc were very peaceful at the jail
solidarity march.

In the Green Zone, an activist voluntarly arrested himself (photo of
Spiral Dance).

Things starting to get ugly towards 4:00 PM. The Legal Collective reported
40 arrested (as of 8:00 pm), 12 suspected arrests and 20 people missing
(as of 4:30 PM) as well as dogbites, one serious. A protestor's leg was
snapped by a plastic bullet fired by police. Usage of water cannon and
paper spray has been reported. Earlier in the afternoon, activists were
harassed in the Rideau Center for having signs. One IMC Ottawa member is
reporting official millitary presence among the police.

The day ended with a jail solidarity action which was greeted by 100 cops.

Meanwhile, a major protest against the School of the Americas is happening
in Fort Benning -- see Atlanta IMC. SOAW has issued this statement of
solidarity.

  IMC Ottawa and IMC Ontario thank the Women's Studies Student
  Association | DC's activists perspective on N17 (Zoe, Zinna) | Photos (1,
2,
  3, 4, Inside) | Antonia Juhasz | Statistics on WB/IMF |Articles | Links

N16 starts with rally at Dundonald park followed by snake march

On Friday the 16th at 12:30 pm, 500 people gathered at the corner of
Somerset and Lyon to prepare for the snake march. The People's Potato
(from Montreal) provided free vegan food while people listened to 4
speakers making the link between IMF / G20 / WB.

The march started, walked, drummed, and danced throughout downtown.
Traffic was disrupted -- most of traffic had to use Laurier.

At the University of Ottawa, people gathered for a rally for peace at 3
pm. A march then followed to the Human Rights Monument. Around 4:30 pm,
one smoke grenade (NOT TEAR GAS) was fired. A few protestors seemed to
have approached too close the police lines.

About 5 arrests occured yesterday, including one IMC volunteer

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:48:18 +0530
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 13:08:09 +0100 (MET)
From: "Benny Kuruvilla, EQUATIONS" <bennyk@...>
Subject: [StopWTORound] DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LOSE IN DOHA and 15 Nov PRESS
     RELEASE of  The  Indian People's Campaign against WTO

Please circulate widely. Sorry for cross postings

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES LOSE IN DOHA.

As tired delegations left the Doha ministerial after 6 days of hectic,
confused and often acrimonious negotiations it was clear to developing
countries that the WTO continues to be dictated by the interests of the QUAD
countries (EU, US, Japan and Canada).

The reworked draft which emerged in the early hours of 14 November in Doha
essentially launches a New Round of trade negotiations- something that
developing countries have consistently rejected.  Developing countries
constitute the bulk of membership of the Trade organisation that purports to
work on the consensus principle to create a rules based system for the
conduct of multilateral trade. It is deplorable that even after years of
concerted lobbying this most priority issue for countries like ours has been
virtually ignored by the WTO. On the other hand countries like the EU have
bludgeoned their way into gains on virtually every issue on the agenda.

The minimal gains in agriculture and TRIPS are represented by feeble
language with the EU mentioning clearly that the outcome of negotiations on
removing their subsidies on agriculture will not be prejudged. Contrary to
widespread critique on the General agreement on Trade in Services the WTO
has decided that the ongoing negotiations that are part of the built in
agenda will continue. The UNCHR is in the process of reporting on the human
rights implications of trade in services. Developing countries have said
that there should be an assessment before they are required to further
commit their sectors. Most developing countries do not maintain data on a
majority of their services sectors, which makes it impossible for them to
make informed commitments. The EU and the US have been demanding that there
are further commitments in the GATS and this green signal from the WTO will
put further pressure on delegations from the south.


EQUATIONS was part of the coalition of civil society groups in Doha and we
were witness to the courage and determination of the developing countries to
secure the interests of thousands of their populations who will be
profoundly impacted by the deliberations in Doha. We were also witness to
the highhanded unethical negotiating practices of the developed countries
like the Green Room process, linking aid budgets and trade preferences to
the trade positions of developing countries, and targeting individual
developing country negotiators. Countries like India initially held a high
moral ground but caved into the intense pressure exerted by the troika of
the US, EU and the WTO's Director General Mike Moore.  It is tragic that a
sanction to a new round was given while many developing countries are still
recovering from the wide-ranging impacts of the Uruguay round.

The Doha ministerial holds nothing for the developing countries. Along with
our civil society partners from across the globe we reaffirm our commitment
to a vision for a just and equitable trading order.

In solidarity


THE GATS PROGRAMME
EQUATIONS
198, 2ND CROSS, CHURCH ROAD,
NEW TIPPASANDRA
BANGALORE - INDIA

  Below is the 15 November 2001 press release on the WTO declaration by the
WTO WIRODHI BHARATIYA JAN ABHIYAN (Indian People's Campaign against WTO)

WTO WIRODHI BHARATIYA JAN ABHIYAN
(Indian People's Campaign against WTO)

1.The Doha ministerial meeting has concluded . The results are before us to
see. When we met PM on 30th October and presented him  a  memorandum
containing our views and suggestions  with a view to  fully  safeguarding
the national interests in the negotiations, he assured that GOI WOULD NOT
SUCCUMB  to the pressures of developed countries and multinationals.
Unfortunately, the outcome of Doha makes that promise meaningless.

2.Although the ministerial declaration calls it a Work Programme and not a
New Round of negotiations, it amounts to launching of  a new round of
negotiations under WTO. The negotiating mandates on different subjects have
been elaborated. The traditional mechanism that goes with the commencement
of a New Round  viz. the  establishment of   a "Trade Negotiations
Committee" to supervise and direct the process of negotiations has been
announced. In the true style of New Round, the entire negotiations  will be
treated as a" single undertaking".

3.The bulk of "implementation" issues whose satisfactory solution, our
country, among other developing countries, had insisted upon as a
pre-condition for any new negotiations , have been incorporated as part of
the new negotiations. By all accounts, there has been no worthwhile
commitment on the part of developed countries on further liberalization of
access for developing countries' exports of textiles products. The  issue of
abuse of anti-dumping provisions   as  neo-protectionist measures has been
now made part of new negotiations with little or no flexibility for
reopening  basic elements of the existing discipline and instruments
currently in use by USA.

4.As far as the New Issues are concerned, there is an explicit commitment
that negotiations will start after two years on  for" trade facilitation" on
some specific articles of GATT 1994.
On the issues of "Investment" and "Competition policy" and "Government
Procurement", three most important new issues, (which ,GOI was repeatedly
asserting , would  be opposed ) have been squarely put in the work
programme. The mandates in respect of these three issues start with a
phrase: "recognizing the case for a multilateral framework". This amounts to
a-priori decision on elaborating a multilateral discipline. While the formal
decision on modalities of negotiations on these issues has been postponed to
the next ministerial meeting i.e. giving a reprieve of two more years, no
doubt whatsoever has been left that under the apparently innocuous title of
"further work" of  the respective " Working Groups" , virtual negotiations
would proceed apace forthwith. The working group on investment  will focus
on " scope and definition; transparency; non-discrimination; modalities of
pre-establishment commitments; development provisions; exceptions and
balance of payments safeguards; consultations and  settlement of disputes
between members.". The working group on competition policy will focus on
"core principles; transparency; non-discrimination and procedural fairness;
provisions for hard-core cartels; progressive reinforcement of competitive
institutions in developing countries." If these elements are elaborated in
the next two years , all that will remain to be done at the next ministerial
meeting is to formally adopt the multilateral agreements on these two
issues,  incorporating these provisions !
  The only fig -leaf that was obtained by those who tried  unsuccessfully to
resist this process of launching the New Round with New Issues , consists of
"an understanding" from the Conference Chair that would enable each member
to use the negotiations on modalities to prevent any negotiations until the
member is prepared to join a consensus for negotiations on all the four new
issues. What legal and practical value such an understanding has remains to
be seen. If the members could not resist the virtual launch of negotiations
ab initio on these issues at Doha, what hope is there that they would
succeed later when  the negotiations would have already gained momentum and
the members would be busy protecting their individual interests in the light
of the specific elements of the agreement that would have emerged by then?

On the other new  issue of "core labour standards", i.e. the celebrated
"social clause", the  text  does not contain the wording that ILO is the
appropriate forum for a substantive dialogue on  labour rights and thus
implies that WTO could bring up the issue later.
On electronic commerce,  the zero duty commitment that USA had extracted
earlier from the rest of the countries, has been extended until the next
ministerial meeting.

5.On the question of "reviewing" the agreements like TRIPs and "
Understanding on Dispute Settlement"  so as to redress the imbalances and
inequities that have been imposed  by the former on developing countries and
to do away with  the coercive, undemocratic and unaccountable features that
characterize the latter ,  hardly anything  has been accomplished. The much
publicized  declaration on TRIPs and Public Health  serves a very limited
purpose; in the words of one commentator " it could (and it is  no more than
could ) enable developing countries to take measures to protect public
health  and "promote" ( not assure) access to medicines for all." The wider
issue of TRIPs constricting the  development and dissemination of technology
in developing countries and strengthening the hold  of private monopolies in
knowledge and technology in general, at the cost of public welfare and
development, has remained untouched.

6.In the area of on-going negotiations on "Agriculture" and "Services", the
position is as follows. In "Agriculture", all that is there is the
willingness "to take into account" the "development needs, including food
security and rural development". The whole perspective of negotiations will
continue to be informed  mainly by trade concerns i.e. removing  the
so-called trade distortions. There is no recognition that for a country like
ours that perspective is inappropriate and harmful. There is not even a
hint that India will insist on retaining her right to impose quantitative
restrictions on imports of agricultural products, without any qualifications
and  without prior consultations.  In other words, GOI would continue to
rely on the old and oft- repeated  weak dispensation of "differential
treatment to developing countries" in terms of tariffs and subsidies and
even that would be subject to the  broad negotiating objective of
substantial improvements in  market access  for agriculture exporting
countries.
In regard to "Services",  there is a reaffirmation of  the right of members
" to  regulate, and to introduce new regulations  on the supply of services"
and of the articles in GATS  that  are in favour of developing countries.
But  there is no departure from the  very narrow approach regarding movement
of labour. Moreover,  no cognizance has been  taken of the far-reaching
issue raised by the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
about the fundamental importance of the delivery of basic services,
particularly health and education, as a means of promoting human rights ,
and the  likely adverse implications of a market-oriented  and
"liberalizing" approach in respect of such services on the promotion of
human rights.

  7.All in all,  brave posturing of GOI notwithstanding, what has finally
happened at Doha is what we apprehended in our memorandum to PM viz.
capitulation to the pressures of developed countries and their
multinationals. Whatever name they may give it, the product of  Doha
reinforces the process of encroachment on our economic sovereignty.

>From all accounts, the Doha process constituted one more chapter in the
murky annals of  undemocratic, non-transparent and non-participative
functioning of WTO. GOI has meekly surrendered to the armtwisting and
trickery of the developed countries and compromised national sovereignty .

We reiterate our  demand in  our memorandum to PM  for a White Paper. We
also repeat our demand that no agreement in WTO be signed without prior  and
explicit approval of  Parliament and the State Leglislatures , as necessary.

The outcome of Doha will be challenged by the people of India.

We reaffirm our resolve to continue and intensify our struggle against  the
process of globalization, marketization and  recolonization spearheaded by
WTO and furthered by the GOI.




You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 08:34:05 EST
From: SIUHIN@...
To: SIUHIN@...
Subject: [S26-global] Urgent! US Activist Lisa Fithian Detained At
Canadian Border--Starhawk


Hi everyone:

My friend Lisa Fithian and Starhawk from California were detained at Ottawa!
Lisa currently in Canadian jail. Anyone know Lisa and Starhawk are great
non-violent anti-globalization activists, we need to support them and protest
against Candain authority and your local Canadian consulates about their
acts!!!

Lee Siu Hin
ActionLA/PeaceNoWar.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
US Activist Detained At Canadian Border -Starhawk
by starhawk - reposted November 14 2001, Wed, 7:07pm (at Ontario IMC)

An activist was detained at the Ottawa border and is now imprisoned. She
choose this option as a political stance. The article is written by her
travelling companion and discusses the issue of open borders and free trade.
There is also contact information for various government officials to voice
your dissent.

Global Justice Activist Detained At Canadian Border!

By Starhawk

11/13/01

On Monday, November 12th, Lisa Fithian and I were travelling together to
Ottawa when I was flagged by Immigration for a more extensive screening. We
had both been invited by OPIRG (The Ontario Public Interest Research Group)
to offer trainings on activism in preparation for upcoming demonstrations
against the G20, the IMF and the World Bank which are meeting in Ottawa
November 16-19. I was also scheduled to give a lecture at St. Lawrence
University just across the border in the U.S. Ottawa is the nearest airport.
Lisa
had cleared Immigration but when I went to tell her I might be delayed, they
tagged her, too. We spent nearly five hours waiting, being questioned,
photographed, fingerprinted, and searched. We were told that I was picked out
because I had been arrested in Seattle at the WTO protests in November of
í99, although I was never convicted of any crime there and my charges were,
in fact, dropped. At one point, the Immigration Officer said he knew I had
been in Seattle,
and asked if I were "a member of the WTO." We were treated courteously by the
officers and we remained calm and co-operative throughout. Eventually, I was
admitted to Canada but my computer was held to be examined by Canadian
Intelligence. Lisa was allowed to sleep overnight in Canada, but was required
to return this morning, Tuesday, November 13 at 11:00 AM for a further
interview to determine if she could remain.

At that interview, she was told that she was ineligible to enter Canada. She
was given the choice to leave voluntarily, or be arrested.

Lisa refused to leave and was arrested. She is a courageous woman who made
this choice for the following reasons:

--Only by being arrested could she be entitled to counsel or legal
representation, or have hopes of appealing the decision of Immigration.

--The closing of borders to activists is part of the attempt to stifle
legitimate dissent against the institutions of global corporatization. As an
act of nonviolent civil disobedience, Lisa
refused to cooperate. She chose to stand in the doorway to prevent the door
>from closing; to protect our right to dissent by exercising
it. Her act is the opposite of terrorism: she risks her own freedom and
physical well-being, not that of others; she stands openly for what she
believes in, and she exemplifies the nonviolence of the world she strives
for.

--In jail, Lisa joins hundreds who have been detained since attacks of
September 11 because of the color of their skin or for some minor
infringement of visa regulations. She is a forerunner of those who would be
jailed for their beliefs and political principles if two
Canadian ëantiterroristí bills are passed. C36 would allow the authorities to
detain people for up to seventy two hours for virtually no reason. C35
includes provisions that protect foreign
dignitaries who are terrorists, such as Pinochet, from demonstrations.

--Open borders are one of the things we are fighting for. Corporate
globalization allows corporations to move freely across borders,
without ties or responsibilities to local communities, in search of the
lowest wages and the most lax environmental and safety standards. But people
are not allowed to cross borders in search of economic opportunities or
better lives. Our border difficulties are mild in comparison with the
immigrants who die of thirst or freeze
to death attempting to come to the U.S. from Mexico. All over the world,
displaced people seek refuge at borders. The borders that guard the wealthy
countries are increasingly closed to those who seek political asylum or
economic relief. Hundreds of thousands mass on the Afghanistan/Pakistan
border, seeking to escape from the devastation of U.S. bombs. The possibility
of starvation, rampant disease, and their ongoing suffering haunt us.

The issue is much, much broader than what happens to any individual. The
corporations have laid claim to the resources of the globe, and "free trade"
demands that any borders which interfere with their profits be dissolved. We
lay claim to a different freedom. We say that if capital has no borders, then
people should not be constrained. The institutions of corporate globalization
are international, overriding local and national laws, offering no legal way
in which citizens can hold them accountable. Because they are international,
we must be too. The essence of democracy is the freedom to dissent. No walls
should bind our freedom to make our voices heard.

Lisa is being held at the Ottawa Carleton Regional Detention Center. One of
her supporters was arrested at the airport, but has been
released.



Immigration: 1 888 242-2100 (Then dial "0" to talk to a real person)

Contact Prime Minister Jean Chretien
By phone: 613 992-4211
By fax: 613 941 6900
By email: <mailto:PM@....>PM@...
By Mail: House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6

Contact Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of International Trade
By phone: 613 995-8872
By fax: 613 995-9926
By email: <mailto:Pettigrew.P@...>Pettigrew.P@...
By mail: 507 Confederation Building, House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6

Contact Elinor Caplan, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
By email: <mailto:CaplaE@...>CaplaE@...
By phone 613954 1064
By fax 613 992 0887

Contact Anne McLellan
By email: <mailto:MclelA@...>MclelA@...
By phone 613 992 4524
By Fax 613 996 4516



-----------------------------------------------------------
to unsubscribe from this list, please send a blank email to
antiimf2000-unsubscribe@egroups.com

more S26 infos: http://x21.org/s26
view messages archive: http://www.egroups.com/group/antiimf2000
-----------------------------------------------------------


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 23:31:00 +0100 (MET)
From: Projekt Interkonti <interkonti@...>
To: agpweb@...
Subject: <agpweb> Liste der Aktionen gegen WTO (dt.)

9.-13. November 2001:
globale Aktionstage gegen WTO und Krieg
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/qatar

Wir haben die WTO in die Wüste geschickt - bringen wir zu Hause die
Verhältnisse zum Tanzen (Motto der Aktionstage in Frankfurt/Main)

Zum globalen Aktionstag werden in den nächsten Tagen auf allen fünf
Kontinenten Proteste stattfinden. Anlaß ist die Konferenz der
Welthandelsorganisation
(WTO) in Doha, Qatar. In Indien haben die Proteste mit einer Demonstration
in New Delhi bereits begonnen.

Selbst die Gewerkschaften machen mit beim globalen Aktionstag: siehe:
http://www.dgb.de/themen/global-aktion

Proteste sind u.a. in folgenden Ländern geplant: Aotearoa (Neuseeland),
Argentinien, Australien, Bangladesch, Bolivien, Brasilien, BRD, Dänemark,
England, Finnland, Frankreich, Hong Kong, Indien, Indonesien, Italien, Japan,
Kanada, Korea, Libanon, Niederlande, Nigeria, Norwegen, Österreich, Philippinen,
Qatar, Rußland, Schweiz, Slowakei, Slowenien, Spanischer Staat, Thailand,
Tschechische Republik, Tunesien, Türkei, USA.

Hier eine vorläufige Liste der geplanten Aktionen:

* Aotearoa (Neuseeland):
Karneval gegen Kapitalismus beginnt um 12 Uhr in Wellington mit einer
lautstarken ArbeiterInnenkundgebung mit Trommeln, Saxophonen u.a., an die um 12
Uhr
30 eine Antimilitarismus-Demo anschließt.
http://aotearoa.wellington.net.nz/ mayday/wto/fuckthewto.htm
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/sayno.htm

* Argentinien: 9.11. Demo in Buenos Aires

* Australien: Sydney: Das „Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network“
(www.aftinet.org.au), ein Netzwerk von über 50 Gewerkschaften und Initiativen
veranstaltet ein Seminar, eine Konzertnacht mit Bands und eine Kundgebung vom
11.-13. November. Die Kundgebung findet gleichzeitig mit einer Konferenz des
Internationalen MetallarbeiterInnenverbandes in Sydney statt, an der 1000
GewerkschaftsaktivistInnen aus aller Welt teilnehmen, so daß Tausende an der
Kundgebung erwartet werden. www.sydney.indymedia.org
Festival „Qatar-Solidaritätswoche November Magic“ in Perth, West Australien:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/qatar/westaustralia.htm

* Österreich: Linz: 10. November: ganztägige Veranstaltung mit Vorträgen und
Workshops zu den Themen Landwirtschaft, Gentechnik, Frauen,
Dienstleistungen).

* Bangladesch: 9.-11.11.: Bangladesh Mukto Sramik Federation (BMSF)
organisiert ein Treffen in Dhaka und eine Demo. 10./11.11.: Demonstrationen in
Chittagong, Khulna und Sylhet.

* Bolivien: massive Proteste sind bereits seit 6.11. im Gange: BäuerInnen im
Chapare organisieren Strassenblockaden gegen die Zerstörung des Coca-Anbaus
und aufgrund mehrerer Morde in den vergangenen Wochen, außerdem gibt es
Proteste gegen Privatisierung und neoliberale Politik - siehe:
http://de.indymedia.org/2001/11/10306.html

* Brasilien: 9.11.: Aktionen in São Paulo, Fortaleza, Rio, Pelatos/RS -
http://brasil.indymedia.org

* Kanada: Aktionswochen des Front Commun contre l'OMC in mehreren
kanadischen Städten wie Ottawa, Quebec, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Kingston,
usw. -
siehe: http://www.wtoaction.org/cfwto
Montréal: 9.11. Demo - CLAC (Anti-Capitalist Convergence)
16.-18.11. Ottawa: IWF-/ Weltbank-Treffen

* England: 9.11.: London Reclaim the Streets (RTS) -
http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/qatar.htm

* Finland : verschiedene Aktionen von Ya Basta Finnland
Helsinki: Demo 9.11., 18 Uhr
* Frankreich: 10.11.: Demo gegen "Locarn Institute" - Kerhunou
http://tmtm.free.fr/periph/agenda/frag011027.html
ATTAC Aktionen in Nimes, Reims, Gap, Foix, Marseille, Nimes, Grenoble,
Metz, Lille, Colmar, usw. Paris: breite Bündnisdemo 14 Uhr

* BRD:
Aktionstag am 10.11. gegen WTO:
Aachen: 10.11. Kundgebung und Aktion ab 11 Uhr auf dem Marktplatz gemeinsam
mit dem BUND.
Berlin: 10.11.: Bündnis gegen Krieg und WTO: 13:00 Demonstrationsbeginn
Hermannplatz, Neuköln, Abschlußkundgebung Frankfurter Tor.
Abends: GipfelstürmerInnen: Kaleidoskop der Unsäglichkeit
(http://www.gipfelsturm.net)
Bremen: Straßenaktion gegen die Folgen von Krieg, Überwachung und
Diskriminierung von Flüchtlingen.
Chemnitz: Attac-Gründungsinitiative, ver.di und andere informieren auf dem
Markt von 10:00-13:00.
Cottbus: Kundgebung
Dortmund: Am 12.11.2001 um 12.00 Uhr vor der Uni-Bibliothek, Aktion zur
Aufklärung von StudentInnen über GATS und Mobilisierung für EU-weite
StudentInnen- und SchülerInnenproteste gegen Privatisierung der Bildung
Frankfurt/Main: 8.-10.11.: Aktionstage „Wir haben die WTO in die Wüste
geschickt - bringen wir zu Hause die Verhältnisse zum Tanzen“:
http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/qatar/aufrufffm.htm und:
http://aktionstage.cjb.net (empfehlenswert: WTO-Broschüre!). 8.11.: Nachhaltige
Kundgebung (11.00 Uhr,
Treffpunkt: Konstabler Wache/Friedberger Strasse), dezentrale
Innenstadtaktionen und eine Reclaim the Streets Party (21.00 Uhr) geben. Gegen
Mittag:
Volxküche und evtl. Strassentheater.
10.11.: 12 Uhr Demonstration ab Merianplatz, Abschlußkundgebung um 14 Uhr an
der Alten Oper VeranstalterIn ist ein breites Bündnis aus ATTAC- Regional-
und Hochsschulgruppe, DGB-Jugend, der Arbeitsloseninitiative der IG-Metall,
medico international u. a. 13.11.: Informationsveranstaltung zur WTO
Frankfurt/Oder: "Die WTO-Politik und deren Folgen hier und überall" im
Mikado, Franz-Mehring-Straße 9
Friedberg: Demonstration und Infostand in der Innenstadt Beginn: 10:00
Kaiserstr., 12:00 Vor der Burg.
Hamburg: "WTO - Spiel mit dem Feuer" (mit echtem Feuerspucker) und
"WTO-Mauer", wahrscheinlich 11-15 Uhr auf dem Gerhard-Hauptmann-Platz
Hannover: Auf dem Kröpcke gibt es ab 11 Uhr eine kreative Aktion gegen WTO
und für Frieden und soziale Gerechtigkeit. Am 24.11. Demonstration des
hannoverschen Netzwerkes gegen Krieg.
Kassel: Aktionstag am 10.11. um 11:00 Uhr mit Infoständen eines breiten
Bündnisses zu dem auch die Attac-Regionalgruppe gehört. Stadtrundgang bei dem an
verschiedenen Orten Redebeiträge zu weltwirtschaftlichen Themen gehalten
werden. Vor und nach der Demo wird es am Rathaus verschiedene kulturelle
Beiträge
geben. Bisher ist klar das die "Schnitter" spielen werden, Dieter Dehm ein
Sozialquiz macht, angefragt ist u.a. noch eine Hip-Hop-Gruppe.
Köln: Donnerstag, 8.11., 19:30 Uhr, Bürgerzentrum Deutz (Tempelstrasse 41):
Podiumsveranstaltungen mit Referenten zu verschiedenen Aspekten der
WTO-Politik (soziale Sicherungssysteme, Bildung, Wasser-/ Agrarproblematik und
eventuell mehr). 10.11.: 10-13 Uhr: 2 kreative Aktionen zum Mitmachen und
Nachdenken: Zugang zu Gesundheit ist ein Menschenrecht - am "Hau-den-Lukas"
erfahren
sie, wie es darum bestellt ist. Und: Haben Sie die Lizenzgebühren für Ihre
Haarfarbe schon bezahlt? Mehr zu Biopiraterie am Samstag auf dem Neumarkt.
14 Uhr: gemeinsame Abschlußkundgebung der Veranstalter der dezentralen
Aktionen mit Demo auf der Domplatte
Mannheim: Anti-WTO-Kundgebung, 12 Uhr, Paradeplatz:
http://germany.indymedia.org/2001/11/10195.html
Marburg: Infostand und Aktionen zur WTO um 10 Uhr auf dem Marktplatz.
Münster: Mehrere dezentrale Aktionen im Stadtbereich , die zu einer
zentralen Abschlußkundgebung zusammenlaufen, verschiedene Themenbereiche, z.B.
Privatisierungen von Stadtwerken und Verkehrsbetrieben (Bahnhofsvorplatz,
organisiert von ver.di), Strukturmaßnahmen im Gesundheitswesen
(Dominikanerkirche,
Salzstraße), zum Bildungsbereich (Domplatz, vor dem RP-Gebäude), Soziales/Rente
(Marienplatz / Fußgängerzone), Umwelt/Wasser (Kiepenkerl). 12.30 Uhr
Kundgebung vor dem Stadthaus I, Klemensstr. Der Platz wird neben der Kundgebung
auch
für Infostände von verschiedenen Initiativen genutzt.
Oldenburg: Aktionen zur WTO vormittags in der Innenstadt Regensburg
Infotisch zur WTO von 10 bis 16 Uhr in der Fußgängerzone.
Rostock: Aktion in der Innenstadt von "widerstand international" und der
"Sozialistischen Alternative - SAV"
Regensburg: Aktion in der Fußgängerzone von 10-16 Uhr
Wiesbaden: Infostand und Aktionen aus dem Mauritiusplatz in der
Fußgängerzone von 10 bis 16 Uhr. 11.11: Informationsveranstaltung zur Kritik an
der WTO
um 12 Uhr im Pariser Hoftheater, Spiegelgasse 9. Referent: Dr. Rainer Engels
(Germanwatch).
Stuttgart: Kundgebung, Infostand, Performance und Musik Life-Telefonat mit
Joh. Lauterbach in Katar 12-15 Uhr am Platz Kronprinz- Ecke Büchsenstr.
Saarbrücken: Attac-Aktion von 10-16:00 Uhr in der Bahnhofstraße
Bremen: "Das Ringen um eine Welt für alle", WTO-Theater, 11:00 Domsheide.
Chemnitz: Am 10.11. Attac- Stand auf dem Markt, um gegen den WTO-Gipfel in
Qatar zu protestieren.
Recklinghausen: Ein Aktionsbündnis (u.a. mit ver.di) führt von 11 - 13 Uhr
eine Aktion zum Thema Wasser durch.
Bremerhaven: 11 Uhr ab Ernst-Reuter-Platz zur Großen Kirche mit
anschließender Kundgebung. Motto: Schluss mit dem Krieg! Mut zum Frieden!
Bündnispartner:
DGB, IGM, Bündnis Menschen gegen soziale Kälte, PDS Brhv., DFG/VK, SSR
(stadtschülerring), SAV und Attac
Attac plant weitere Aktionen in Schwerin, Leipzig, Nürnberg ("Wir holen uns
die Wüste nach Nürnberg"), München.

* Hong Kong: 9.-11.11.: HKCTU - "Coalition on Anti-Globalization of
Poverty": Making globalization work for people.

* Indien: Demo in New Delhi am 6.11. (Bericht:
http://india.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=243&group=webcast
indymedia india), vermutlich weitere auch im Narmada-Tal:
http://www.narmada.org und http://www.india.indymedia.org

* Indonesia: 10./11.11.: West Java BäuerInnenunion (SPJB) Qatar Aktion
geplant

* Italien: Aktionen in mehreren Städten (Rom, Alessandria, Scalfati, Novi,
Ferrara, Vittebro)

* Japan:
Tokio: Strassenkampagne geplant

* Korea: 9.11.: Demo in Seoul - http://picis.jinbo.net

* Libanon: Beirut: Weltsozialforum des Nahen Ostens:
http://www.worldforumbeirut2001.org

* Niederlande: 8./9.11.: Konferenz des Gewerkschaftsverbandes FNV, von
kirchlichen und islamischen Gruppen

* Nigeria: Proteste und Kundgebungen geplant

* Norwegen: 9.11. Großdemo

* Philippinen: 3 Demos geplant, "Landwirtschaft raus aus WTO" und "WTO raus
aus den Philippinen".

* Qatar: 8.11.: internationaler Gewerkschaftsverband ICFTU Konferenz: Making
Globalization work for People: Development and Workers' Rights at the 4th
WTO.
Greenpeace-Boot Rainbow Warrior lagert vor Qatar, indymedia-Radio sendet von
dort

* Russland: Konferenz übr Globalisierung, Gewerkschaft Allrussische
Konföderation für Arbeit

* Slowakei : Bratislava: Aktionen geplant vom "Revolucny Kolektiv 9.
Novembra"

* Slowenien : 9.11.: große Strassenparty in Ljubljana –
http://www.ljudmila.org/globala

* Spanischer Staat:
Anti-WTO Aktionen in Barcelona
Aktionen in Bilbao (Euskal Herria, Baskenland) und in Vigo (Galizien): Demo
am 10.11.

* Schweiz: Genf: 10.11. 14 Uhr, Place Neuve: Demo gegen WTO

* Thailand: Bangkok: ganztägige Demo am 9.11. von mehreren Basisbewegungen

* Tunesien: 9.11. tunesischer Gewerkschaftsverband UGTT organisiert
Teach-ins

* Türkei: 4.-9.11.: Karawane mit Bussen von Istanbul nach Ankara

* USA: 9.11.: Chicago, 8.-10.11. New York (Anti-Corporate Strategy
"Summit"), Pennsylvania, San Francisco:
www.globalizethis.org/s30/wtofeature.cfm?ID=231
9.11.: Washington DC: Deno der Gewerkschaft AFL-CIO

schickt Berichte an die indymedia-Seiten und an PGA <agpweb@...>

http://www.indymedia.org
Peoples'Global Action (PGA): http://www.agp.org


--
_______________________________
Projekt Interkonti, Berlin
http://www.freespeech.org/inter

GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 18:47:53 +0100 (CET)
From: louca jones <llerch22@...>
To: pga <caravan99@...>,
      coordination anti-wto <anti-wto@...>
Subject: <caravan99> [caravan99] Davos is dead


Good day in Switzerland. Yesterday night unoficial voices from inside the World
Economic Forum  announced (two days before their official press conference) that
the next forum of Davos would be in... New-York. In switzerland the regional and
natinal authorities had been fighting eachother on the last month, arguing on
who would pay the security bill that has exploded on the last years because of
the wide radical anti-WEF in switzerland, Austria, and other european countries.

The fact that the WEF is not even able to make shure that his own under embargo
information is not going out before their press conference is a  sign of their
weak irrational security sistem who called tanks against demontrators last year
and is not able to organize a good press conference. Remember taht this spring
credit cards numbers and personnal datas of the "global leaders" (including Bill
Gates and Bill Clinton) were available on their server and that they had to
admit it on a court while a young swiss was acused hack something that was
available with no protection. The Judge had to realease the young man.

Today is a good day in Geneva, it gives more energy for the anti-wto
demontration that is going to march to the WTO headquaers on the 10th of
November.

Please inform all the people that you know in NY...

Only the struggle is effective.

Hasta la victoria siempre

L.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:35:53 -0700
From: Starhawk <stella@...>
To: september26collective@yahoogroups.com, antiimf2000@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [S26-global] Moving forward after 911--LONG

I apologize for how long this is, but that's how it is, Starhawk

Only Poetry Can Address Grief:
Moving Forward after 911
By Starhawk


In the middle of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence march in Washington
DC last month, I found myself nose to nose with a line of police
attempting to push the crowd back.  I was facing an angry but very
short policewoman so in my case it was actually nightstick to bosom.
"Get back, get back!" she was shouting, but our line was not giving
ground.  I explained to her, calmly and I thought, quite reasonably,
that we were not going to get back, because there was nowhere for us
to go.
	 I think of that moment now as a metaphor for where what I
like to call the Global Justice movement is today.  We are facing an
array of forces telling us to get back, to disperse, to leave the
scene.  The forces of the state, the media, all the powers that
support global corporate capitalism would like to see us go away.
	 But we have nowhere to go.
	 We have nowhere to go because the conditions we have been
fighting have not gone away.  The disparity between rich and poor has
not grown less, the attempts of the corporate powers to consolidate
their hegemony have not ceased, the environment has not miraculously
repaired itself, and our economic and social systems have not
suddenly become sustainable.   We're on the Titanic; our efforts to
turn the course of the ship have just been hijacked, and we're
churning full steam ahead into the iceberg.
	 We don't have the luxury of defraying action to a more
favorable moment.  We need the movement to keep moving forward.
	 How do we do that in the face of increased repression and
much potential public opposition?

I.  Stand our ground:
First, we don't panic, and we stand our ground.  Fear is running
rampant at the moment, and every effort is being made by the
authorities to increase and play upon that fear.  While the general
public may fear more terrorist attacks, we in the movement are
equally or more afraid of what our governments may do in restricting
civil liberties and targeting dissent.  But either way, fear is the
authorities' greatest weapon of social control.  When we are in a
state of fear, we're not taking in information, we're unable to
clearly see or assess a situation, and we make bad decisions.  We're
more easily controlled.
	 We can learn to recognize fear, in our own bodies, in our
meetings, in our interactions.  When fear is present, just stop for a
moment, take a deep breath, and consciously set it aside.  Then ask,
'What would we do in this situation if we weren't afraid?'  From that
perspective, we can make choices based on reasonable caution but also
on vision.

II.  Acknowledge the grief:
911 threw us as collectively into a deep well of grief.  We have had
to face the awful power of death to intrude on our lives, to sear us
with pain and loss, to reorder all our priorities and disrupt all our
plans, to remind us that we walk the world in vulnerable, mortal
flesh.
The political task that faces us is to speak to the depth of that
grief, not to gloss it over or trivialize it or use it to further
stale agendas.  If we simply shout at people over bullhorns,
recycling the politics, the slogans, the language of the sixties, we
will fail.  The movement we need to build now, the potential for
transformation that might arise out of this tragedy, must speak to
the heart of the pain we share across political lines.
A great hole torn has been torn out of the heart of the world.  What
we need now is not to close over the wound, but to dare to stare more
deeply into it.
	 To comprehend that grief, we must look at the possibility
that it was present within us before the 11th, that the violence and
death of that day released a flood tide of latent mourning.  On one
level, yes, we mourned for the victims and their families, for the
destruction of familiar places and the disruption of the patterns of
our lives.  But on a deeper level, perhaps many of us were already
mourning, consciously or not, the lack of connection and community in
the society that built those towers, the separation from nature that
they embodied, the diminishment of the wild, the closing off of
possibilities and the narrowing of our life spaces.  This frozen
grief, transmuted into rage, has fueled our movements, but we are not
the only ones to feel it.
	 With the grief also comes a fear more profound than even the
terror caused by the attack itself.  For those towers represented
human triumph over nature.  Larger than life, built to be unburnable,
they were the Titanic of our day.  For them to burn and fall so
quickly means that the whole superstructure we depend upon to
mitigate nature and assure our comfort and safety could fall.  And
without it most of us do not know how to survive.
	 We know, in our bones, that our technologies and economies
are unsustainable, that nature is stronger than we are, that we
cannot tamper with the very life systems of the earth without costs,
and that we are creating such despair in the world that it must
inevitably crack open, weep and rage.  The towers falling were an
icon of an upcoming reckoning we dread but secretly anticipate.
	 The movement we need to build now must speak to the full
weight of the loss, of the fear, and yet hold out hope.  We must
admit the existence of great forces of chaos and uncertainty, and yet
maintain that out of chaos can come destruction, but also creativity.

III.  Develop a new political language:
Faced with the profundity of loss, with the stark reality of death,
we find words inadequate.  "What do I say to someone who just lost
his brother in the towers?" a hard core New York activist asks me.
"How do I talk to him?"
The language of abstraction doesn't work.  Ideology doesn't work.
Judgment and hectoring and shaming and blaming cannot truly touch the
depth of that loss. Only poetry can address grief. Only words that
convey what we can see and smell and taste and touch of life, can
move us.
	 To do that we need to forge a new language of both the word
and the deed.  We on the Left can be as devoted to certain words and
political forms as any Catholic was ever attached to the Latin Mass.
We incant "imperialism" or "anti-capitalist" or "non-violence" or
even "peace" with an almost religious fervor, as if the words alone
could strike blows in the struggle.
  	 Those words are useful, and meaningful.  But they're like the
cliché that the bad poet turns to.  They are the easy first answer
that relieves us of the work of real expression.
	 Lately I'm hearing some of my most political friends say, "I
can't go to another rally.  I can't stand hearing one more person
tell me in angry tones what the answers are."
	 What if we stopped in the middle of our rallies and said,
"But you know, these issues are complex, and many of us have mixed
feelings, and let's take some time for all the people here to talk to
each other instead of listening to more speeches."
	 If we could admit to some of our own ambiguities, we might
also find that we are closer than we think to that supposed
overwhelming majority of war supporters, who in reality may have
deeply mixed feelings of their own.

IV.  Propose our own alternative to Bush's war:
Defining the September attacks as an act of war rather than a
criminal act has only dignified the perpetrators.  Going to war has
turned us into Bin Laden's recruiting agency, rapidly alienating the
entire Muslim world.  Bombing Afghanistan has made us look like thugs
to the Muslim world, (and to everyone else with a heart and sense)
and bred thousands of new potential ready-to-die enemies.  The
bombing, by preventing relief trucks from delivering serious food
supplies before winter, now threatens to impose starvation on up to
seven million Afghanis.
In spite of what the polls and the media tell us, I don't necessarily
believe that the bulk of the U.S. population is frothing at the mouth
with eagerness for Afghani blood. The phrase I keept hearing is a
plaintive "We need to do something."   Bush's program is the only one
laid out for us.  The attacks are real, and devastating; simply
calling for 'peace' and singing "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"
does not address their seriousness.  If we oppose Bush's war, we need
a clear alternative.
Diplomacy does not mean weakness.  It means being smarter than the
opposition, not just better armed.  Diplomacy also does not mean
simply issuing ultimatums backed by bombs.  It means actually
understanding something of the culture of the people you're
negotiating with.  It means actually negotiating, offering a carrot
as well as a stick, being willing to let the other side come out with
something less than total humiliation.  If the goal of the war is
truly to get Bin Laden, well, the Taliban just offered to deliver him
to a third country.
This could be moment to switch our policy, to negotiate, to work with
and strengthen international institutions and the U.N., to begin to
deliver massive and meaningful humanitarian aid to the region.  Any
or all of those acts would increase our long term security far more
than our present course.

V.  Expose the real aims of the war:
We have about as much chance of doing any of the above as I have of
being offered a post in the current Administration.  All the
indications are that Bush wants a war, to establish U.S. hegemony in
Central Asia and the East, to forestall an Asian alliance that might
oppose our vested interests with interests of their own, to take
control of rich oil resources of Central Asia and provide a safe
passage for an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, to deflect from the
illegitimacy of his own presidency, to implement the entire right
wing agenda.  We need to continue educating the public about those
aims and about the real consequences of the war.  To do that, we need
to talk to people-not just at rallies and teach-ins, but in our
neighborhoods, our workplaces, our schools, on the bus, in the
street, on talk shows, with our families.  It can be easier to march
into a line of riot cops than to voice an unpopular opinion where we
live, but we've got to do it and to learn to do it calmly and
effectively.
And while we're talking about the war, we need to make the
connections to the broader issues we were working on before the
eleventh of September.  The war can be an opening to challenge
racism, and to spotlight the U.S.'s historic role of training,
arming, and supporting terrorists-including Bin Laden and the Taliban
in previous years. In an age of terrorism, does an economy entirely
dependent on oil-based long distance transport really make sense?
(Especially as it didn't make sense before, but never mind that.)
The Anthrax scares are a perfect opportunity to push for true
domestic security in the form of a well-funded, functioning public
health system, availability of hospital beds and medical care,
support for local food producers, development of alternative energy
resources, etc.  The right wing has used the attacks and the war to
justify their agenda, but with a little political judo we can redraw
their picture of reality.

VI.  Develop our vision:
Despair breeds fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism.
A world of truly shared abundance would be a safer world.
The policies of global corporate capitalism have not brought us that
world.  They've been tried-and found wanting.  We need to replace
them with our own vision.
The global justice movement has often been accused of not knowing
what it wants.  In reality, we know clearly the broad outlines of
what we want even though we have a multiplicity of ideas of how to
get there.  I can lay it out for you in five short paragraphs:
We want enterprises to be rooted in communities and responsible to
communities and to future generations.  We want producers to be
accountable for the true social and ecological costs of what they
produce.
We say there is a commons that needs to be protected, that there are
resources that are too vital to life, too precious or sacred to be
exploited for the profit of the few, including those things that
sustain life:  water, traditional lands and productive farmland, the
collective heritage of ecological and genetic diversity, the earth's
climate, the habitats of rare species and of endangered human
cultures, sacred places, and our collective cultural and intellectual
knowledge.
We say that those who labor are entitled, as a bare minimum, to
safety, to just compensation that allows for life, hope and dignity,
and to have the power to determine the conditions of their work.
We say that as humans we have a collective responsibility for the
well being of others, that life is fraught with uncertainty, bad
luck, injury, disease, and loss, and that we need to help each other
bear those losses, provide generously and graciously the means for
all to have food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, and the
possibility to realize their dreams and aspirations.  Only then will
we have true security.
We say that democracy means people having a voice in the decisions
that affect them, including economic decisions.

VII.  Develop our strategy:
We might begin by acknowledging that we have had a highly successful
strategy for the past two years.  Since Seattle, what we've done is
to oppose every summit, as a means of focusing attention on the
institutions of globalization that were functioning essentially in
secret, and delegitimizing them.  Systems fall when they hit a crisis
of legitimacy, when they can no longer inspire faith and command
compliance.  Our strategy should continue to work toward creating
that crisis for the institutions of global corporate capitalism.  In
the meantime, in spite of all appearances the government may already
be creating that crisis for itself.  For ultimately, nothing
delegitimizes a government faster than not being able to provide for
the physical or economic security of its people.
Now our strategy needs to broaden and become more complex.
Contest the summits when and where we can, but perhaps with some new
tactics that clearly embody the alternatives we represent.
Turn more of our attention to local organizing, bringing the global
issues home and making organizing and activism an ongoing, sustained
process.  And find ways to make that process as juicy and exciting as
some of the big, global actions.
Find ways to link local issues and actions regionally and globally.
Start to build the alternatives:  alternative economic enterprises on
new models, directly democratic systems of governance such as
neighborhood or watershed councils or town meetings, everything from
alternative energy co-operatives to community gardens to local
currencies.  Look for ways to let those alternatives delegitimize the
status quo.

VIII.  Organize openly:
	 In times of increasing repression, the strongest way to
resist is not to hide, but to become even more open in our organizing
and our communications.  The more out there we are, the harder we'll
be to brand as terrorists.  The more faces they photograph at rallies
and marches, the less meaningful any single face will be.  The more
information they collect, the less they'll be able to collate,
analyze and make sense of it all.  And if they read my email-they're
welcome to read my email.  Somebody ought to, and I don't have time
to read it all myself.  Maybe I could pay one of them a small extra
fee to sort it for me and send me a summary of the high pointsŠ.
	 Security culture either has to be so good you can outspook
the CIA, or it simply makes you look like you have something to hide
and attracts the attention of the authorities.  And it makes it
extremely difficult to mobilize, educate and inspire people.  Yes,
there are actions that depend on surprise, but with a little
cleverness we can figure out how to do that in a basically open
setting.  "And tonight, each affinity group spoke receives a sealed
envelope-open it at five A.M. tomorrow and it will give you two
alternative beginning points for your march.  Flip a coin to decide
which one to go toŠ"

IX.  Make our actions count:
	 Political action may well become more costly in the next
months and years.  That simply means we need to be more clear and
thoughtful in planning and carrying out our actions.  Most of us are
willing to take risks in this work and to make sacrifices if
necessary, but no one wants to sacrifice for something meaningless or
stupid.  We can no longer afford vaguely planned, ill considered
actions that don't accomplish anything-and believe me, I've done more
than my fair share of them.
	 We should never carry out an action that involves significant
risks, unless the following five points are addressed:
1.  We know what our intention is-are we trying to raise public
awareness, delegitimize an institution, influence an individual, end
an immediate wrong?
2.  We have a clear objective and know what it is--are we trying to
close down a meeting, deliver a petition, pressure an official to
meet with us, provide a service?  What are we trying to communicate,
to whom, and how?  What would victory look like?
3.  We make sure the acts we take, the symbols we use, the focus we
choose and the tactics we use reflect our intentions and objectives.
We resist the temptation to do extraneous things that might detract
>from our focus.
4.  We have an exit strategy.  How are we going to end the action?
How are we going to get out once we get in?
5.  We have ongoing support lined up for afterwards-legal, medical,
political support, people willing to offer solidarity if needed.

X.  Use tactics that fit the new strategy and situation:
	 All of us are rethinking our tactics in the light of the
current situation.  We often argue tactics on the grounds of
morality-is it right or wrong, violent or nonviolent, to throw a tear
gas canister back into a line of police?  To break a window?  We
might do better to ask, "Do these particular tactics support our
goals and objectives," and "Are they actually working?"
Those who advocate highly confrontational tactics, such as property
damage and fighting the cops, are generally trying to strike blows
against the system.  But at the moment, the system has been struck
harder than we could have imagined, and is reeling toward fascism,
not liberation.  In the present climate, such tactics are most likely
to backfire and confirm the system's legitimacy.
	 Many classic nonviolent tactics are designed to heighten the
contrast between us and them, to claim the high moral ground and
point out the violence of the system.  But many of those tactics no
longer function in the same way. Static, passive tactics become
boring and disempowering.  Symbolic, cross-the-line arrests don't
seem to impress the public with our nobility and dedication any more,
even when they are noticed at all.  Mass arrests may be used to
justify police violence, even when the arrestees were completely
peaceful.  When the police cooperate in making the arrest easy and
low risk, the process confirms rather than challenges the power of
the state.  When they don't, even symbolic actions are costing
heavily in jail time or probation.  The price may well be worth it,
but there's only so many times in a lifetime we can pay it, so our
choices need to be thoughtful and strategic.
	 We need a new vocabulary of tactics, that can be empowering,
visionary, confrontational without reading as proto-terrorist, and
that work toward a crisis of legitimacy for the system.  We also need
tactics and actions that prefigure the world we want to create, but
that do so in a way that has some edge and bite to it.
Here are a few we are already using that could be further developed:
Mobile, fluid street tactics:  Groups like Art and Revolution,
Reclaim the Streets, the Pink Blocs of Prague and Genoa and the
Living River in Quebec have brought art, dance, drums, creativity and
mobility to street actions, and developed mobile and fluid street
tactics.  Such actions are focused not on getting arrested (although
that may be a consequence of the actions) nor on confrontations with
the cops, but on accomplishing an objective: claiming a space and
redefining it; disrupting business as usual, etc., while embodying
the joy of the revolution we are trying to make. In Toronto on
October 16, snake dancing columns of people managed to disrupt the
financial district in spite of a very tense police presence.  The
Pink Bloc has sake danced through police lines.  The Pagan Cluster in
Quebec City and and DC was able to perform street rituals in the
midst of a dangerous situations, in ways that allowed participation
by people with widely varying needs around safety.  The Fogtown
Action Avengers in San Francisco combined an open, public ritual
which distracted the police from a surprise disruption of the stock
exchange carried out by an affinity group dressed as Robin Hood.
Claiming space:  Reclaim the Streets takes an intersection, moves in
a sound system and couches, and throws a party.  A Temporary
Autonomous Zone is a space we take over and then exemplify the world
we want to live in, with free food, healing, popular education, a
Truly Free Market where goods are given away or traded, workshops,
conversations, sports, theater.
Street services and alternative services:  Groups like Food Not Bombs
have been directly feeding the homeless for decades.  One of the most
successful direct actions I've ever been involved with was a group
called Prevention Point that pioneered street based needle exchanges
for drug users to prevent the spread of AIDS.  In DC in September,
during the Anti-Capitalist Convergence's Temporary Autonomous Zone
and during the Sunday peace march rally, the Pagan Cluster set up an
Emotional Healing Space that offered informal counseling, massage,
food, water and hands-on healing.  The IndyMedia Centers provide
alternative news coverage and a powerful challenge to corporate
media.  The medical and legal services we provide during an action
could be expanded.  Guerilla gardeners could be mobilized in new
ways.  Imagine a convergence that left a community transformed by
community gardens, with toxic sites healing, worm farms thriving, and
streets lined with fruit trees.
Popular education:  One of the values of mass convergences has been
the education and training we've been able to provide for each other,
>from teach-ins on the global economy to climbing instruction. Almost
every Summit has had its CounterSummit.  Most of these have followed
the rough format of an academic conference, with presenters talking
to an audience or facilitating a discussion.  But many more
interactive and creative ways of teaching and learning could be
brought into them: role plays, story-telling circles, councils.  We
could hold a giant simulation of a meeting, with people role playing
delegations and grappling with the issues on the table, but from the
starting point of our own values.
People are hungry to talk about the war, about their fears and
beliefs and opinions. The Zapatistas give us the example of the
Consulta-a process of going out to the people to both listen to
concerns and mobilize. We might halt the speeches at a rally for ten
minutes to let people talk to each other.  Or do away with the
speeches altogether, and instead ask groups to facilitate
smaller-group discussions on their issues and tactics, run short
training sessions, offer games or dances or rituals.  And we could
develop ways to create instant Public Conversations as actions and as
education.  Caravans can bring discussion and education out of the
urban centers, and could embody alternative energies and
possibilities, running their vehicles on vegetable oil, bringing
solar panels to power sound systems.

These are just a few ideas that can stimulate our thinking and awaken
our creativity.

XI.  Renew our spirits:
These are hard times.  Many of us have been working intensely for a
long time and are now seeing the possibility of our hard won
political gains being swept away.  Fear and loss surround us, and
many forces are at work trying to make us feel isolated, marginalized
and disempowered.  At best, the work ahead of us seems overwhelming.
If we are going to sustain this work and regain our momentum, we need
to allow ourselves time to rest, to go to those places we are working
so hard to save and be open to their beauty, to receive support and
love from the communities we are working for.  We need to nurture our
relationships with each other, to offer not just political solidarity
but personal warmth and caring.  Death and loss rearrange our
priorities, teach us how much we need each other, and make it easier
to drop some of the petty things that interfere with our true
connections.
Many activists mistrust religion and spirituality, often for good
reasons.  But each of us is in this work because something is sacred
to us-sacred in the sense that it means more than our comfort or
convenience, that it determines all of our other values, that we are
willing to risk ourselves in its service.  It might not be a God,
Goddess or deity, but rather a belief in freedom, the feeling we get
when we stand under a redwood tree or watch a bird winging across the
sky, a commitment to truth or to a child.  Whatever it is, it can
feed and nurture us as well.  For activists who have some form of
identified spiritual practice, now is a good time to seriously
practice it.  For those who don't, it might still be worth taking
time to ask yourself, "Why do I do this work?  What is most important
to me?  What does feed me?"
The answer might be grand and noble, or it might be small and
ordinary,  hip hop or sidewalk chalk.  Whatever it is, make it a
priority.  Do it daily, if you can, or at least regularly.  Bring it
into actions with you.  Let it renew your energy when you're down.
We need you in this struggle for the long haul, and taking care of
yourself is a way of preserving one of the movement's precious
resources.
The goal of terrorists, whether of the freelance or the state
variety, is to fill all our mental and emotional space with fear,
rage, powerlessness and despair, to cut us off from the sources of
life and hope.  Violence and fear can make us shut down to the things
and beings that we love.  When we do, we wither and die.  When we
consciously open ourselves to the beauty of the world, when we choose
to love another tenuous and fragile being, we commit an act of
liberation as courageous and radical as any foray into the tear gas.

There is nowhere left to go, but forward.  If we hold onto hope and
vision, if we dare to walk with courage and to act in the service of
what we love, the barriers holding us back will give way, as the
police eventually did in our Washington march.  The new road is
unmarked and unmapped.  It feels unfamiliar, but exhilarating;
dangerous, but free.   We were born to blaze this trail, and the
great powers of life and creativity march with us toward a viable
future.

Starhawk
www.starhawk.org
copyright  c Starhawk 2001
(This copyright notice protects me, as this piece will be published
in Spring '02  in a collection of my writings called Webs of Power:
Notes from the Global Uprising.   But please feel free to forward
this, reprint it, translate it, post it or reproduce it for nonprofit
uses.)

--

http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/genova/imcraid.htm
http://italy.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=25624&group=webcast

Raid on the Diaz School

an eyewitness Report from the IMC

I was working for the Indymedia Center when the police did raid the Diaz
School.

Meanwhile its three month ago but its still for me like it happened just
yesterday

Cause the website of indymedia was temporary down we decided in the
morning of J22 to arrange a dispatch in the street in front of the IMC. We
put a table with a map of Genoa on the street in front of the IMC (across
to the Diaz School) to collect and to spread informations about the
manifestation. We did manage as well to put out a box that people could
hear the IMC radio.

There was one suspicious event: some cars did rush through the crowd in
the street, we considered that this have been some nazis.

Already in the noon we got afraid that police will raid our place - the
demonstration was very closed to us and riot police was just a few hundret
meters away. Teargas was to smell and the people inside of the IMC where
forced to close the windows. We closed the dispach and went into the court
of the IMC building. But after a while we went outside again, it seemed
that the situation was getting more calm.

Cause in the building of IMC there was a medical station as well, and
always ambulance vans where comming with victims of police brutality, we
decided now not to put the table in front of the IMC but to put it into
the court of the Diaz school, across the street.

We kept the dispatch there until late night, when police did start the
raid. Aproximately one hour before the raid a few cars did rush through
the crowd again. A few bottles where thrown against them but we did calm
the bottle-throwers...

and then .. the Police came...

RIOT POLICE! Every wo- man for himself! was the "order" of the instance.
With me there has been a woman from italy together with her dog on the
dispach, but I did forgot them and I did run away into the IMC -
instinctually - though the way was farer than to go into the Diaz School.
IMC & GSF people which guarded the gate let in as much as possible people
until the poliche reached the gates, then we closed them. We closed any
doors and build barricades, anyone was very much afraid.

In the floor of IMC we did await what happens next. We remarked that the
Police was raiding the Diaz School. But they did raid us imediately
afterwards. They did broke all doors (this was not really a good feeling
to hear how the police did break our doors) we build barricades at the
door of the IMC floor but we kept it open until the latest moment before
the police came because there were still people which did search refuge at
our floor.

Than they came: anybody into the floor - sit down - shut up! Riot police
did walk up and down the floor, they entered the rooms and did confiscate
some "evidenciary" materials (like helms, gas masks, knifes,
computer-discs etc.)... One notice: most of the officers did wear ordinary
streat clothes below their uniforms, gym-shoes, jeans etc, like those
which have been seen on pictures together with agent-provocateurs...

After a while (Time wasn't to count for me) the situation got calmer.
People did ask police for water and for cigarets and they recived some. A
pot of food has been circulated....

And suddenly police did leave us. Afterwards I heard that a parlamentarian
has been among us who did confront the police action courageous.

We imediately went to the windows to see what was happening across the
street. We saw that a lign of police did bloc the entrance to the school
and we saw how injured people where brought outside. There where two black
bags among - we thought: two deaths!. Many cried: "assassini!" (murder!).
And at least we saw how someone did honour an officer with a tricolore (a
banderole with the colours of the flag of Italy)...

Most of us where traumathized, we took refuge with ourselves, many did cry
(me too), nothing was like before, from now on there was just an ante &
post J22 for us... a few intrepid "heroes" did continue the IMC work to
report imediately what happened.

p.s.: There was another detail which we remarked after the police left us.
At the backyard of the IMC/GSF Building there was a door wich was never
used by us and which was normally locked. But now it was open. And the
gate in front of this door was welded open...

(leicht überarbeitete Fassung gegenüber der bereits eingesandten die bei
der Erklärung von Cochabamba angehängt war).


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:22:18 +0200 (MEST)
Subject: <agpweb> Aufruf gegen WTO

PEOPLES' GLOBAL ACTION (PGA)

Aufruf zu Aktionen gegen den WTO-Gipfel in Katar

Peoples' Global Action ruft weltweit alle sozialen Basisbewegungen, lokalen
Organisationen, Frauengruppen, Flüchtlingsinitiativen, Gewerkschaften,
Studierendenorganisationen,
indianische
Gesellschaften, BäuerInnenvereinigungen, autonome Kollektive und überhaupt
alle Menschen die am
Protest teilnehmen wollen, auf,
vielfältige kreative Aktionen im Protest gegen die Welthandelorganisation
(WTO) während der
kommenden Ministerkonferenz vom 9.-13. November 2001 in Doha, Katar
durchzuführen.

Das Ziel der WTO ist einfach: alles loszuwerden, das dem Profit und dem
Freihandel im Wege steht,
verbunden mit der uneingeschränkten Freiheit von
multinationalen Konzernen, so zu handeln wie sie wollen. Die WTO, gebildet
von 142
Mitgliedsländern, erstellt und überwacht die Handelsrichtlinien und fährt
darin fort, eine Agenda aufzustellen, in der Profit mehr zählt als Mensch
und Natur.

Konfrontiert mit einem rapide wachsenden Widerstand der Menschen gegen die
kapitalistische
Globalisierung, flüchtet sich die WTO für ihre kommende Sitzung
in ein isoliertes diktatorisches Wüstenland. Bereits jetzt enthält die
Agenda der WTO drei
besonders destruktive Handelsabkommen: die Vereinbarung über
Landwirtschaft (AOA - Agreement on agriculture), die allgemeine Vereinbarung
über Handel und
Dienstleistungen (GATS - General Agreement on Trade and
Services) und die handelsbezogenen Rechte an geistigen Eigentum (TRIPS -
Trade Related Intellectual
Property Rights). Ihre Themen umfassen: Privatisierung von
Gesundheit, Ausbildung und Wasser, Patentrechte auf DNA und Entwicklung von
Gen-manipulierten Samen
und Nahrungsmitteln (GMO) in Mitgliedsländern.

SIE KÖNNEN WEGLAUFEN ABER SIE KÖNNEN SICH NICHT VERSTECKEN:
WIR SIND ÜBERALL - WE ARE EVERYWHERE!

BILDET WELTWEIT WIDERSTAND GEGEN DIE WTO DURCH DIREKTE AKTIONEN UND ZIVILEN
UNGEHORSAM, WOIMMER FÜR
FREIHANDEL GEMEINSCHAFTEN ZERSTÖRT UND ÖKOSYSTEME
GEOPFERT WERDEN!

Unabhängig davon, ob die WTO-Sitzung stattfinden wird oder nicht, sind wir
in den Straßen, weil die
Straßen unsere sind. Basisorganisationen auf der ganzen
Erde organisieren die folgenden Aktionen und rufen andere auf, dasselbe zu
tun:

1) Bewußtseinerzeugende Kampagnen gegen die WTO und die Auswirkungen ihrer
Politik auf globaler und
lokaler Ebene: regionale Konsultationen,
Gegen-Veranstaltungen, öffentliche Debatten, Veröffentlichungen.
2) Maximale Unterbrechung der Arbeit der Handelsminister, die an der
Konferenz teilnehmen:
Forderung nach Veröffentlichung der auf der Konferenz vertretenen
Standpunkte der Regierung, das Behindern von Kommunikation zwischen
Delegierten und das Blockieren
der Abreise von Delegationen, etc.
3) Koordinierte Massenaktionen auf regionaler und internationaler Ebene:
Arbeitsniederlegungen, Straßenblockaden, Besetzen der Börsen und anderer
Geldinstitute (New York,
San Francisco, Sao Paolo ...), Befreiung der
Kornvorräte (Indien) am 9. und 10. November.
4) Dezentralisierte lokale Aktionen: Landbesetzungen, kreatives
Demonstrieren von Alternativen auf
Basisebene, etc. vom 9. bis zum 13. November.

(leicht überarbeitete Fassung gegenüber der bereits eingesandten die bei der
Erklärung von
Cochabamba angehängt war).

Siehe auch: http://de.indymedia.org/2001/09/7720.html

http://www.agp.org


--
_______________________________
Projekt Interkonti, Berlin
http://www.freespeech.org/inter

GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:01:19 +0200 (MEST)
From: sergio.o@...
To: caravan99@...
Subject: <spaces> Brilliant essay on Sept 11 and anticapitalist movement

** please distribute ** apologies for cross-posting **

Hi there,

This is a great essay for local discussion in anticapitalist /
antiglobalisation networks. It is long, but DEFINITELY worth reading and
translating. It
is taken from a net-magasine called the Commoner, done by some university
people in GB and USA who consider themselves part of PGA. The email of the
author
is GCAFFENTZ@...

hopefully the web page of PGA will soon be redone in line with what was
decided in cochabamba (as a dynamic and participatory tool for debate and
planning), and it will be possible to continue the debate there.

if someone can translate the essay into other languages, please do it (and
please get back to me before you start doing it and i will let you know if
other people are doing it already, in order to avoid replication of work)

salud, s.
(thanks to olivier for passing this on)

*********************************

A Essay on the Events of September 11, 2001 Addressed to the
Antiglobalization Movement

George Caffentzis

10/6/2001

     I write this essay to participate in a discussion within the
antiglobalization movement on the events of September 11. I am anguished
about the lives lost in the bombings of that day. I am also concerned about
the scenario that is in front of us:
     *Plans for massive bombings against Afghanistan and protracted warfare
against a list of countries (perhaps sixty, according to President Bush)
presumably supporting terrorism or lodging terrorists.
     *The escalation of xenophobia especially against Arabs, but targeting
all
immigrants, and this not just in the US. In Italy the Northern League (part
of the coalition of parties that now govern the country) has already
proposed
that all undocumented workers should be treated as potential terrorists.
     *The demonization of the anti-globalization movement, accused of being
an
enemy of "western civilization."
     *New, wide-spread restrictions on civil liberties.
     What can we do in this situation?
     Our first task is obviously to stop the escalation of violence, and
mobilize against a US-led war on Afghanistan or any other country the Bush
administration picks to be a target for its "war" on "terrorism." We also
need to build solidarity with the Arab and immigrant communities in the US
now under attack physically and ideologically. But these generalized
responses, however correct, are not enough. We must gain a better
understanding of what has happened and why, since any confusion on this
point
can have the most serious consequences for the antiglobalization movement.
For the Bush administration is determined to use the hijackings and mass
murders of September 11 as a political opportunity to transform the
definition of dissent here in the US and to project the US military into the

oil-rich former republics of Soviet Central Asia. A purely generalized
politics is doomed to taking a reactive stance in this historical situation,

even when the Bush administration's contradictions begin to unravel in the
next few weeks.
     This essay is inevitably going to be tentative and hypothetical, given
our present lack of precise knowledge concerning the details of the
crimes--even now, three weeks after September 11, there is public confusion
as to the identities of some of the immediate perpetrators. Also, my aim is
classification and explanation, but not vilification. The legal and moral
facts are enough. The killings of September 11 constituted one of the worst
one-day massacres in the last decade, probably only those in the first days
of the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis can rival it in terms of numbers. The
thousands of murders are a major crime against humanity and, though the
immediate perpetrators are dead, their accomplices, if they had any, should
be captured and prosecuted in the appropriate courts without the US
government committing similar crimes against the humanity of other
countries.
That this last proposition is a matter of controversy in the US at this
moment shows how perilous are the times we are in!

Oil, Globalization, and Islamic Fundamentalism
     On a broad level, the events of September 11, 2001 can be traced back to

the economic, social, and cultural crisis that has developed in North
Africa,
the Middle East, and West Asia in the aftermath of the Gulf War and, prior
to
it, the accelerating process of globalization, starting in the late
1970s.(1)
The first aspect of this crisis has been the impoverishment of urban workers

and agriculturalists in this area, due to Structural Adjustment Programs
(SAPs) and import liberalization, dating back to Egypt’s "open door" policy
that cost the life of Anwar Sadat and saw the emergence of Islamic
fundamentalism as a new political force.(2)
     From the Cairo’s "bread riots" of 1976, to the uprisings in Morocco and
Algeria of 1988, both crushed in blood baths, to the more recent anti-IMF
riots in Jordan (and the list is much longer) the difficulties of merely
staying alive for workers has become more and more dramatic, causing major
splits within the capitalist classes from Morocco to Pakistan as to how to
deal with this rebellion from below (Midnight Notes 1992). A further element

of crisis has been the situation in Palestine. This too was made more
intense
by the Gulf War and Israel’s response to Palestinian demands with more
settlements, the attempted usurpation of Jerusalem, and escalating
repression. Regardless of their actual disposition towards the Palestinians,

this situation has become a cause of great embarrassment for these ruling
classes, revealing, as it does, their duplicity and the shallowness of their

commitment to Islamic solidarity.
     But the most important factor of crisis has been the hegemonic role of
the US in the region, as exemplified by the devastation of Iraq, the US
government’s proprietary relationship to the management of oil resources in
the Middle East, and the building of US bases right in Saudi Arabia, Islam’s

most sacred land. On all these counts, deep divisions have developed within
these ruling classes pitting pro-American governments—often consisting of
royal dynasties in the Arabian Peninsula—against a new generation of
dissidents within their own ranks who, in the name of the Koran, have
accused
them of being corrupt, of squandering the region’s resources, of selling out

to the US, of having betrayed Islam, all the while offering an alternative
"social contract" to the working classes of North Africa, the Middle East
and
West Asia and using their wealth to create a multinational network of groups

stretching through every continent and often taking on a life of their own.

     As a social program, Islamic fundamentalism has distinguished itself, in

addition to its unmitigated bolstering of patriarchal rule, for its attempt
to win over the urban populations through the provision of some basic
necessities such as schooling, healthcare, and a minimum of social
assistance. These initiatives were undertaken often in response to the
ending
of government subsidies and programs in these areas which was dictated by
the
Structural Adjustment Programs designed by the neoliberals in the World Bank

and IMF. (3) Thus, for example, it is the Islamic fundamentalist networks
that organize health care and education in the Palestinian"territories,"
almost functioning as an alternative government to the PLO at the grassroots

level.(4)
     Over the last decade as the crisis in the Middle East and
internationally
has intensified, so has the antagonism of the Islamic fundamentalist
networks
against the US and its domestic supporters in the different Islamic
countries. But this conflict has been stalemated in key countries in the
1990s. In Algeria, for example, the Islamic Salvation Front, which grew
rapidly after the anti-SAP riots of 1988 and almost took state power
electorally in 1991, was stopped by a military coup. For the last decade,
through a horrendous civil war where between 60,000 to 70,000 were killed,
the Algerian Islamic fundamentalists have been decisively weakened by
attrition and military repression. In Egypt, the Mubarak regime has used
direct repression as in Algeria as well a system of microscopic social
surveillance. For "the [Mubarak] government acted to stem the proliferation
of private mosques and associated charitable foundations and to end their
extragovernmental autonomy" (Faksh 1997: 54). The result has been a major
defeat of the fundamentalism in, perhaps, the second most important Islamic
state. These setbacks have not been dramatically reversed by fundamentalists

seizing state power in Sudan and Afghanistan, for in both countries they
inherited, and have not been able to end, long-standing civil wars.
     But stalemate does not mean defeat, and there is no doubt that Islamic
fundamentalism continues to have an attraction within the ruling circles of
the wealthiest Islamic nations. This internal contradiction has created a
tangled net of consequences which are now embarrassing and endangering many
people in the US government and in the governments of the Middle East. For
they have financed and trained the very generation of dissidents who are now

so violently turning against them. On the one side, a portion of the Middle
Eastern oil revenues has been used to finance assaults on symbols of the New

World Order, because of the divided loyalties of the Middle Eastern ruling
classes; on the other, the US government has financed and trained many
members of this dissident branch of the Middle Eastern ruling classes in its

effort to destablize the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
     The governmental and informal financial and military support of armed
Islamic fundamentalists did not end with the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan

in 1989. These militants played important economic, military and ideological

roles that forwarded US policy against Yugoslavia (in Bosnia and Kosovo) and

against Russia (in Chechnya, Dagestan, Uzbekistan) up until September 10,
2001. The deal apparently was: do the dirty work of fighting and
destabilizing secular communist, socialist and nationalist regimes in
Eastern
Europe, Caucasia and Central Asia and you will get rewarded. These "free
floating" militants did the US's dirty work for twenty years, but they
obviously increasingly were convinced that the US had not delivered. They
were not given their proper reward: taking power at the center of the
Islamic
world, the Arabian Penninsula.
     This complicity and deal-making is why, perhaps, the Bush administration

is so hesitant to do what would be natural after such a massive intelligence

and security failure attested to by the September 11 crimes: get rid of the
incompetents. That would be difficult, for many of those who have been
brought back in power into George W. Bush's administration were the ones who

were responsible, during his father's presidency, for the training and
financing of the very organizations they now hunt under the banner of
"terrorism." Therefore, the executive dynasties in both the US and Saudi
Arabia must both be worried about "family members" who have been compromised

by their past connections to the networks they now claim to be responsible
for the events of September 11. This goes up to the President's family. For
example, the Wall Street Journal (9/28/01) reported that the President's
father works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the
Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm as do other close associates

of the President like former Secretary of State James Baker.
     The crude and desperate attempts by ideologists of the Bush
administration to somehow connect, in ever more arcane ways, the
antiglobalization movement with the Islamic fundamentalists is fueled by
desire to distract public attention and hide a real anxiety on its side
which
is summed up in the question: when will the long list of real connections
between "terrorist network" the Bush adminsitration is hunting and its own
personnel be revealed? That is why, perhaps, President Bush harkened back to

his childhood memories of "Wanted Dead or Alive Posters" (with the emphasis
on "DEAD") when speaking of Osama bin Ladin and his associates. For the
administration's legitimacy would be undermined, if they ever spoke the
truth.


Why now and why so desperate?
     These generalized facts concerning the hidden civil war within the oil
producing countries from Algeria to Iran serve to describe the context of
the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. For I am assuming that
the immediate perpetrators of the attacks were committed to some branch of
Islamic fundamentalism. But these facts do not help us understand why the
attacks took place in September 2001 and why the resistance to the US took
such a desperate form. For these attacks are symptoms of desperation not of
power, as they will likely lead to a devastating US military response with
predictable results: the destruction of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist
militants along with a tremendous collateral damage on the people of
Afghanistan and many other countries in North Africa, the Middle East and
West Asia. Who on the ground can survive in such a maelstrom? Indeed, the
actual perpetrators and their accomplices, whoever they are, must have been
very desperate to take such a risk with their own network and the lives of
millions of people of the region. It is also probable that many (perhaps
most) people even in the most militant Islamic fundamentalist circles object

to the bombings in New York and Washington DC, if not for moral, then simply

for strategic reasons, knowing full well that their hard-fought for
achievements might all go up in smoke as a result these actions.
     Clearly something very important was in process of occurring  that the
perpetrators of September 11 needed desperate and inherently uncertain
measures to thwart. What was it? If my hypothesis is right, the source of
this desperation are events at the geographical center of Islam, Saudi
Arabia, which echoed throughout the Islamic world.
     My view is that the political factors motivating the mass murder and
suicides of September 11 involved the oil industry and globalization in the
Arabian Peninsula. Here is the story.
     Beginning in 1998 (after the collapse of oil prices due to the Asian
Financial Crisis), the Saudi monarchy decided, for "strategic reasons," to
globalize its economy and society beginning with the oil sector. The oil
industry had been nationalized since 1975, which means that foreign
investors
were allowed to participate only in "downstream" operations like refining.
But in September 1998 Crown Prince Abdullah met in Washington DC with senior

executives from several oil companies. According to Gawdat Bahget, "The
Crown
Prince asked the oil companies' executives to submit directly to him
recommendations and suggestions about the role their companies could play in

the exploration and development of both existing and new oil and gas fields"

(Bahget 2001: 5). These "recommendations and suggestions" were then
submitted
to a Supreme Council for Petroleum and Mineral Affairs in early 2000 (after
being vetted by the Crown Prince), and, by mid 2000, the Saudi government
began to cautiously respond to them, by ratifying a new foreign investment
law. Under the new law, "tax holidays are abolished in favor of sweeping
reductions in tax on profits payable by foreign entities, bringing them
nearer to levels that apply to local companies. Wholly owned foreign
businesses WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN LAND, sponsor their own employees and
benefit from concessionary loans previously available only to Saudi
companies" (Bahgat 2001: 6, my emphasis) [Note bene: it is obvious why "the
right to own land" would be a red flag for anyone committed to the sacred
character of the Arabian Peninsula.] The Middle Eastern experts were
literally falling over themselves in their effort to highlight the new
Investment Regulation. One described it in the following words, "Keep your
fingers crossed, but it looks as if Saudi Arabia is abandoning almost
seventy
years of restrictive, even unfriendly policy toward foreign investment"
(MacKinnon 2000). This law constituted, in effect, a NAFTA-like agreement
between the Saudi monarch and the US and European oil companies.
     At the same time as this law was being discussed, a ministerial
committee
announced that up to $500 billion of new investments would be deployed over
the next decade to change the form of the Saudi national economy. $100
billion of this investment was already promised by foreign oil companies.
     In May of 2001 the first concrete step in this stepped up globalization
process was concluded when Exxon/Mobil and Royal Dutch/Shell Group led eight

other foreign companies (including Conoco and Enron from the US) took on a
$25 billion natural gas development project in Saudi Arabia. The financial
press noted that the deal would not be very lucrative in itself, but that
"It's part of a long-term ploy of the oil companies, [which] want ultimately

to get access again to Saudi crude" (LA Times 5/19/2001).
     Thus, by the Summer of 2001, the Saudi monarchy cast the die and then
legally, socially and economically entered the Rubicon of globalization (but

with its "fingers crossed," undoubtedly). It "globalized" not because the
Saudi Arabian debt was unmanageable (as was the case with most other
countries which bent to the globalizing dictates of the IMF) but because,
faced with a intensifying opposition, the King and his circle realized that
only with the full backing of the US and European Union could they hope to
preserve their rule in the coming years. In other words, confronted with
significant social problems and an insurrectional element within its own
class that could not be defeated by open confrontation, since it took on the

garb of Islam too, the Saudi Arabian government seems to have decided that a

rehaul of its economy would defeat its dangerous opposition through
attrition
and would further solidify its alliance with US and European capital. The
strategy was aimed at reducing the large and growing unemployment rate among

its young citizens, its dependence on oil exports, and its huge foreign
labor
force (in 1993 there were 4.6 million foreign workers out of a total
population of 14.6 million; today they are approximately 6-7 million in a
population of about 22-23 million) by "getting the economy moving again."(5)

This required a radical departure from the clientelistic methods of social
control the Saudi monarchy had used in the past to keep social peace, which
was made possible until recently by its immense oil wealth. But this wealth
is not infinite and indeed was declining on a per capita basis--for example,

GNP per capital fell from approximately $13,000 to $8,000 from 1983 to 1993
and has since continued to fall (Cordesman 1997: 64). Inevitably, this
initiative would impact the economic policies of the other oil producing
governments in the region, especially the Gulf Cooperation Council
states--Oman, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
     If it works, this strategy would deal a decisive blow to the Islamicist
opposition, undermining its ability to recruit converts who would be
employed
in the upper echelons of a "globalized economy and society" instead of being

driven to despair by political powerlessness and long periods of
unemployment. But the introduction of foreign ownership of land and natural
resources, backed up by large investments, and the hiring of more
expatriates
>from Europe and the US, would force a major social change.(6) The
cat-and-mouse game that the Saudi monarchy had played with the
fundamentalist
dissidents (by which the King and his dynasty claimed to be even more
fundamentalist than them) would end. Whatever hopes the Islamic opposition
in
the ruling classes of the Arabian Peninsula had ever harbored of getting
their governments to send the American troops packing and turning their oil
revenues into the economic engine of a resurgent Islam were facing a
historic
crisis in the summer of 2001. Without a major reversal, the Islamic
fundamentalist opposition would have to face the prospect of a total civil
war in their own countries or face extinction. Certain elements--whether
they
were individuals or groups, I cannot know now--of this opposition decided
that only a spectacular action like the September 11 hijackings and
destruction of thousands of people in New York and Washington could turn
back
the tide. Perhaps they hoped that if enough turmoil and uncertainty can be
generated by the attacks in the US, they will generate a strategic US
retreat
>from the Arabian Peninsula just as the bombing in Lebanon in 1983 lead to
the
US pull out there.
     We could speculate to what extent the election of the George W. Bush
administration accelerated the timing of the attack considering that in the
eyes of the world it represents a government not ready to make any sort of
concession, a government even more likely that the one preceding it, to
claim
possession of minerals in the Middle East subsoil, a government ready to
break all treaties, to allow Israel to have its way in Palestine and so
forth.
     On the basis of this analysis, then, the September 11 attacks on New
York
City and Washington DC were the "collateral damage" of a struggle over the
fate of oil politics in its heartland: the Arabian Peninsula. Moreover, in
order to test this hypothesis in the coming weeks we should investigate the
developments in the Peninsula, which will undoubtedly be hidden from sight,
more than the sound and fury that will be directed towards Afghanistan for
more obvious reasons.

The Bush Reaction:
A "War" on "Terrorism" and the US Military Penetration of Central Asia
     It is important that we understand the political and economic aims of
the
hijackers and their accomplices, but it will be even more important for us
to
be clear about the Bush administration's agenda. For one need not indulge in

conspiracy theories to recognize that the Bush administration will use the
events of September 11 as best as it can to forward its program (while
acknowledging that the shock of the destruction of lives and property on
that
day has profoundly destablized President Bush's domestic economic and social

agenda).
     There are two clear territories which the Bush administration has
strategically used the death and destruction of September 11 to move on: a
conceptual restructuring of the political horizon and a geo-political thrust

into the former Central Asian republics of the U.S.S.R. which became nation
states in 1991. These states, especially Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and
Turkenistan, have significant oil and gas reserves. "The proven and possible

energy reserves in or adjacent to the Caspian region--including at least 115

billion barrels of oil--are in fact many times greater than those of the
North Sea and should increase significantly with continuing exploration.
Such
pleatiful resources could generate huge returns for US companies and their
shareholders. American firms have already acquired 75 percent of
Kazakhstan's
mammoth Tengiz oil field, which is now valued at more than $10 billion."
(Kalicki 2001: 121). These countries, along with the former and present
Caucasian republics, form the southern border of Russia's "Near Abroad"
which
the US has been aiming to penetrate militarily for some time both for
immediate economic purposes and for the ultimate goal of disintegrating
Russia itself into a set of pliable statelets.
     The minute President Bush named Osama bin Ladin as "the prime suspect"
and "his" camps in Afghanistan as the training ground for the terrorists
that
destroyed the Twin Towers every diplomatic move aimed at setting up forward
military bases and fly-over rights to attack bin Ladin also doubles as a
tool
for the US military occupation of Central Asia itself. After all, we are
being told equivocally by the administration both that bin Ladin is the
center of the evil and that even his capture ("DEAD or alive") will not end
the threat of terrorism from that quarter. Therefore, the military campaign
against both bin Ladin and terrorism (we are assured) will be quite
prudential and take months, even years to accomplish. Perhaps the most
damaging thing that might happen to this double-edged US government campaign

would be for bin Ladin and his circle to depart from the scene while leaving

behind a well-documented history of their involvement with the US government

over the last twenty years!
     The recognition that this US war against Osama bin Ladin and his
supporters in the Taliban government is also a way to realize one of the
main
post-Communist goals of US foreign policy was immeditely apparent to
analysts
of the oil industry and critics of the NATO war in Yugoslavia after
September
11. The new "Great Game," a.k.a. "the war for oil and destablization in
Central Asia" reading of  the Bush administration's moves, was easily
documented because much of the relevnt material required for this
interpretation had been researched in 1999 when many were trying to
understand the motivations of the Clinton administration's involvement in
the
war against Yugoslavia above and beyond its ostentationally decried (and
newly found) concern for Kosovars' human rights (cf. for example,
(Chossudovsky 2001), (Federici and Caffentzis 2000), (Talbot 2000)). It
became clear then that one of the reasons the US attacked Yugoslavia (one of

the few remaining Russian allies in Europe) was to impress on the Russians
that it will use all of its might to discourage them from interfering with
its investments in Caucasia and Central Asia. It is now a foregone
conclusion
that anyone interested in understanding Afghan-centered aspects of the Bush
administration will have to take into account the "oil factor" (especially
given the direct involvement of many members of the Bush administration in
the oil companies that are heavily invested in this area.)
     This is not to say that this geo-political thrust into Central Asia was
high up on the Bush administration's agenda prior to September 11. The
expansion of drilling rights within the US was one of its first oil-related
initiatives and preoccupied it throughout the summer of 2001. Indeed, Jan
Kalicki, a "point man" in the Clinton administration on Central Asian oil,
wrote an article for the September/October 2001 Foreign Affairs complaining
about Bush's back sliding in Central Asia. After detailing the Clinton
administration's accomplishments, he fretted that they "are now at risk of
unraveling due to inadequate attention from the Bush administration and
restrictive US policies. In contrast to the Clinton adminsitration's
vigorous
support of Caspian energy initiatives, the Bush team seems to have placed
theose issues on the back burner" (Kalicki 2001: 130). Kalicki ended his
article with the following words: "For the US to squander its past success
and future potential in the region through complacency and inattention would

be a serious mistake." He is undoubtedly now pleased by the swift end of
Bush's "complacency and inattention" to Central Asia after September 11 and
welcomes a return to oil business as usual there.
     There is another territory that the Bush administration forcefully moved

into after September 11 that is more abstract, but perhaps even more
important for our movement. It is the territory of words. By declaring the
piracy, murders and devastation in New York City, Washington DC and Western
Pennsylvania on September 11 an "act of war" and the start of its own "war
on
terrorism," the Bush administration is attempting to restructure the
conceptual future of humanity for many years to come. By imposing a false
dichotomy--you must approve my policies or you are on the terrorists'
side--on the moral conscience of majority of people on the planet who are
stunned, frightened and disgusted by the mass murder of September 11, it
hopes to take these consciences hostage, using the thousands dead in New
York
and Washington as talismans. This moral hocus pocus will fail in the long
run, of course, because the overwhelmingly large number of people on this
planet do not fit into the "us" versus "them" model that Bush's war
configuration of September 11 requires. Most reject, heart and soul, both
futures offered by either capitalist globalization or its desperate Islamic
militant opponents. There will be, in the meantime, innumerable attempts by
the administration to equate dissent from the Bush policies as complicity
in,
or condoning of, or indifference to the dead of September 11.
     These attempts at intimidation and equation of dissent with terrorism
will eventually fail, largely due to their own contradications. We did not
have wait too long for these contradictions to reveal themselves. After all,

high officials of the Bush administration financed, armed and trained the
now
decried "terrorist network" of Islamic militants, not the antiglobalization
movement! Moreover, the semantic strain between Bush's "war" description of
September 11 immediately ran into conflict with the way that these acts are
being considered by the relevant authorities, the NYC Police Department, the

courts, the insurance companies and the FBI. These acts are being
investigated as crimes. Suspects are being questioned, material witnesses
who
might flee are being kept in prison, the sites of the crashed airliners are
being treated as crime scenes and are being seached for evidence. The
suspects are not classified as prisoners of war, they are being treated as
potential criminals with rights to counsel. Nor are the insurance companies
using their "acts of war" loopholes to stop payment of claims.
     You might say, "Crime or war, is this is not just a semantic quibble?"
On
the contrary, the way in which these events are described is a "life and
death" decision. For the description of an event has implicit in it many
moral and practical consequences, some obvious and other unforeseen.
     There are important differences between crime and war. Thus, a crime is
an action done in violation of a state's laws (though not necessarily on its

territory) by particular agents. Once a crime has been committed, the
sequential consequences of investigation, indictment, apprehension, trial
and
then, perhaps, conviction and punishment are rather clear and are ruled over

by an elaborate set of rules, laws and institutions. Most importantly, this
sequence is built to be an inherently finite structure, which might,
however,
by accident, never come to a conclusion (e.g., when the agent responsible
for
the crime is never apprehended). That is why it is particularly revealing
that the first name of the US government used to refer to its effort to
apprehend the accomplices of the hijackers and many other allied terrorists
was "Operation Infinite Justice." One of the great virtues of Justice is
that
it is finite and aims to bring an end to a harm done. Consequently,
"infinite" justice can not be justice.
     War, on the other hand, is an inherently infinite structure (what we in
the US now call, "open ended," and what one 19th century theorist of war
called, "total") which might, however, by accident, come to an end, say,
with
a peace treaty or the annihilation of one or both of the opposing warring
parties. But it need not. Moreover, the rules of prosecuting war are always
open to question, since they are largely the result of agreements of states
which are not at war but which might, as matter of defending their
sovereignty, use their sovereignty to declare these rules null and void for
themselves in the midst of war.
     Why did the high ranking members of the Bush administration chose "war"
not "crime" in the hours after the crashes? At first glance this decision
might have been rooted in the particular aspects of the events themselves.
First, the quantitative dimension of the one-day killing and deliberate
property destruction is unprecedented in recent US history. Second, the
immediate perpetrators died committing the acts (one wonders what would have

been the response if the immediate perpetrators had survived and were on the

loose). Their collective suicide opened the logical possibility that they
planned September 11 by themselves and that the people who supported them
did
not even know that they had such an audacious and risky idea in mind. Under
these circumstances, if the event was categorized as a crime, then it would
be a crime without living culprits--a consequence that could hardly be
palatable to many in or out of the Bush administration. Finally, the choice
of targets was symbolically aimed at the central economic, military and, if
speculation concerning the destination of the fourth plane is accurate,
political sites of the U.S. The hijackers seemed to think of themselves as
heroic warriors striking at the heart of the US and Bush agreed with their
self-description. So the spectacular logic of hijackers was echoed by the
Bush administration in its first assessment of these acts as acts of war.
But there are other, more general reasons for the Bush administration
personnel's choice of words, I believe. They concluded very early on that
the
hijackers were not some sort of nihilistic group deciding, a la "Fight
Club,"
to go to their deaths in an abstract blaze of glorious horror nor were they
representatives of the homegrown militia movement (as the perpetrators of
the
Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 proved to be). Though the September 11
perpetrators left no formal proclamation that accompanied their act, the
Bush
administration saw that it was a political action and it was part of US
government's ongoing struggle against dissidents in Saudi Arabia and other
Middle Eastern nations which it been carrying out since the Gulf War to keep

its military and economic presence in the oil fields of the Arabian
Peninsula. Since the word "war" captures the sense of a grand struggle (even

though it is normally reserved for confrontations of nations), and since the

Bush administration is committed to keeping and/or increasing control of the

oil resources of that geographical arc from Saudi Arabia to Kazakhstan,
"war"
felt to them to be the obvious word to use in this context. The prominent
members of Bush administration might then see these acts in a poetic sense
to
genuinely be acts in a struggle they are individually and vigorously engaged

in, and so it would be quite natural for them to express themselves in such
a
language (after all, George W. Bush, National Security Advisor Rice and Vice

President Chaney were deeply and directly involved in the oil industry in
the
recent past).
     But perhaps the most important reason for use of the word "war" is that
it gives the Bush administration the right to exercise extraordinary powers
both domestically and internationally. Consider how "the war on drugs" has
been so effectively used to justify interventions in countries as varied as
Colombia, Panama and Afghanistan while the dimensions of the legal and penal

counter-revolution in the US perpetrated under the banner of "the war on
drugs" is staggering to this day. One hesitates to contemplate what a
parallel intensification of an unbounded "war on terrorism" will do to the
prison populations and civil liberties of the US.

Looking Back Carefully
     The events of September 11 and their consequences have been a tremendous

blow against the antiglobalization movement, since it has given the
governments all over the planet the opportunity to close public spaces and
to
repress dissent from whatever source in the interests of "public safety." In

order to regain the initiative we must understand our situation: the
antiglobalization movement is in a struggle against both the supranational
agencies of globalization, which are now draping themselves in US flags, and

the dissident rulers-in-the-wings of the Middle East, who drape themselves
in
Islamic flags and want a better world-class deal for themselves and their
"followers." To begin to move again we must free ourselves to resee our own
past in order to understand our future in this context.
     But the horror of the September 11 events have frozen many minds, as it
was meant to do. A first step in liberating ourselves mentally is to ask
questions and to imagine an alternative reality. Could it have been
different? Was there another historical possibility that did not lead to the

murder of thousands of people in New York and Washington? We are often told
that thinking counterfactually is a vain exercise and, like Orpheus in
Hades,
we should not look back, otherwise we will lose the future. But if Orpheus
did look back at Eurydice, carefully, he might have saved both her and later

himself.
     Let us remember our own story. From Seattle in November 1999 to Genoa in

July 2001, the antiglobalization movement expressed in the First World the
recognition that the supranational agencies (IMF, World Bank, WTO, G8) which

claimed to deal with the economic and political problems of humanity are
illegitimate on two counts: (a) they have failed to solve these problems
(e.g., the Third World debt has increased dramatically since the Debt Crisis

of the early 1980s) and (b) they have no democratic responsibility to
humanity (e.g., the IMF and World Bank are largely controlled by their
largest shareholders: the US, Japan and the EU countries). The
antiglobalization movement which had started in the mid-1980s with the
resistance against structural adjustment in the countries of the Third World

had finally surfaced in the streets of the First.(7)
     The antiglobalization movement challenged these supranational agencies
in
a nonviolent manner to change their course and to democratize themselves
before it was too late. It asked them to look carefully into the face of the

world and make a dramatic gesture, e.g., canceling the whole Third World
debt. The Seattle demonstrations in November 1999 and those that followed
were so important as we look back because they brought the demands of the
Third World into the streets of the First. They showed that the interests of

the poor and dispossessed of Asia, Africa and the Americas were taken
seriously enough in Europe and North America that hundreds of thousands of
people were willing to risk arrest, beatings and torture  to project these
interests as well as their own into the precincts of the powerful. At the
very least, these demonstrations were able to stop the supranational
agencies
>from causing further damage by passing new rules and regulations.
     But that was the problem: though the antiglobalization movement was able

to block or disrupt their meetings, the supranational agencies stonewalled
the movement's positive demands. Neither massive debt cancellation, nor
fairer trade provisions nor a "Marshall Plan for the World" nor the
abolition
of the World Bank and IMF were launched in response to the movement's
efforts
(whatever the debates within the movement about the effectiveness of these
demands). On the contrary, the economic and political crises caused by
globalization have intensified in the last two years. Moreover, the official

response to the movement has become increasingly violent and repressive.
This
violence reached a climax in Genoa in July with the police's shooting of
Carlo Guiliani, their maiming and torture of hundreds of protesters, and
their beating of thousands of others.
     At this moment, we must ask the question: What would have happened if,
instead of this repression, there was a decision to cancel all Third World
debt at the Genova G8 meetings in July 2001? Imagine.
     There were, however, not only two forces in confrontation in 2001--the
circle of globalizing capitalists and the antiglobalization movement
consisting of thousands of peasant, worker, feminist, environmental and
human
rights groups across the planet--there was a third: the military Islamic
fundamentalist, representing with arms the political demands of the
dissident
members of the Islamic ruling class This group was and is committed to
mortal
violence, patriarchy and reassertion of the Islamic ruling class's control
of
the energy resources of their region from Algeria to Indonesia against the
claims of the transnational oil companies. It stepped into the vacuum of
despair the stalemate between the antiglobalization and the supranational
agencies of globalization inevitably generated, driven by its own crisis as
outline above.
     On the basis of looking back carefully, then, I conclude that we in the
antiglobalization movement must not be caught between the huge bombs of Bush

and the smaller bombs of Islamic fundamentalism or be the grass trampled by
the lopsided struggle between the giant and the small elephants. For at the
moment, at least, our movement is the only one capable of leading an escape
>from the hellish dialectic of homicide and suicide that the forces of
global
capital and the perpetrators of the September 11 massacres have launched
into
oblivion.

Looking Forward
     According to my hypothesis, then, not only have thousands of people in
NYC and Washington DC been killed as pawns in a power struggle in the
ongoing
"oil wars" of the Middle East, the attack on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon has brought us back to the political structure that prevailed
during
the Cold War; that is, a structure where we in the antiglobalization
movement
have to confront both sides, since neither side represents the interests of
working people in any part of the world. The Islamic Fundamentalists'
misogynous treatment of women—culminating with the politics of open
enslavement embraced by the Talibans—the autocratic way in which Sharia Law
has been imposed on many unwilling citizens; the atrocity of the punishments

inflicted on those who break it (including capital punishment); and the
chauvinistic brand of Islam imposed at all social levels by self-proclaimed
Islamic fundamentalist governments like Sudan's and Afganistan's-–all speak
unequivocally on this point.
     In this context, the priority of the antiglobalization movement is to
offer an anti-war, anti-patriarchal alternative to the deadly politics of
the
fundamentalists and their globalizing adversaries by showing that we can
address the issues that have lead to this situation:

     -Control of natural resources. Why should the US and Europe claim
possession of the resources if the world as it they were their birth-right?
How can the population of North America and Europe continue to be blind to
the social cost of the oil they put in their cars, and the economic and
social inequities built upon it?

     -The construction of a Palestinian homeland. For how long will
generations of Palestinians have to grow up in refugee camps with nothing to

hope for and the burning, unquenchable anger of the terrible injustice done
to them—an injustice reaffirmed with every new Israeli settlement in what
was
once their land?

     -The politics of WB/IMF. Can we afford a glolbalization program that
reduced the people of vast regions to refugees, paupers, and immigrants? Can

we allow a world where the majority are displaced from their lands, their
basic means of survival, and are forced to migrate across the world in a new

diaspora resembling the slave trade?

     Further, it is crucial that the anti-globalization movement begin to
build a connection with the Middle East--by addressing its more urgent
demands. For it is plausible that had this process been more advanced it
would been far more difficult for the perpetrators of the September 11
massacre to portray all the people in the US as enemies of Islam, and by the

same token it would be more difficult now for the US government to
contemplate indiscriminate bomb attacks on nations in North Africa, the
Middle East and West Asia. This making of connections will present many
difficulties, logistic and otherwise; but a starting point is to make a
connection with the immigrant Middle Eastern and West Asian communities in
our own countries. The crucial point is to avoid the situation that
prevailed
during the Cold War, when for half a century the Russian working class  and
the workers of North America and Europe had nearly no contact, except
sporadically, through the mediation of communist parties with the result
that
by the 1990s, even the seemingly most militant among the Soviet Union’s
workers—the miners--could be fooled by "experts" from the AFL-CIO into
accepting privatization, as happened in the last days of the Soviet Union.
     The power of the antiglobalization movement is in its potential to build

a real, not simply ideological, political struggle of the world's working
people against the plans of globalizing capitalism. Farmers from India,
trade
unionists from Canada, students from Europe marched, talked and organized
together in the great antiglobalization events of the last two years. This
increasing unification of people across barriers of all kinds--geographical,

religious, gender, political--has challenged the agendas of both the Islamic

fundamentalists and the capitalist globalizers. The suicidal attack on
Washington and New York and the Bush administration's response, therefore,
also are attacks on the antiglobalization movement because they both are
calculated to bring increasing divisiveness and despair within a planetary
working class that was beginning to see, articulated in both words and
images, an alternative non-violent, non-chauvinist, non-racist, and
non-sexist reality taking shape. It is crucial that we do not let the war
drums and increasing restrictions on civil liberties and the freedom to move

across borders succeed in erasing the movement's organizing achievements.


Notes
(1) There have been many problems in describing the unbroken succession of
nations states which, according to naive political geography, begins with
Morocco in the west and ends with Pakistan in the east. It is not Arab, but
is it Islamic? Doesn't such a description succumb to orientalism? After all,

we do not describe the arc of nations from Chile to Russia through Ireland
and Iceland as "Christendom," even though the dominant religious affiliation

of their populations (if they have any) is some brand of Christianity. But
if
not Arab and not Islamic, then what? I have chosen as nominalist a path as
possible in this essay, with the full recognition of its problems.

(2) Again, a definitional problem rears its head: what is Islamic
fundamentalism? Given that there are many groups and movements claiming to
be
Islamic fundamentalists or being described as Islamic fundamentalists, the
definitional effort is difficult. For the purposes of ideological
categorization, the Islamic fundamentalists seek to establish an Islamic
state which is to be modeled on the way of life of the early Muslim
community. Of course, we must remember Marx's old consumer advice: be wary
of
the words of the tailor who is trying to sell you a coat! For an excellent
analysis of Islamic Fundamentalism and its political and ideological
limitations see (Faksh 1997).

(3) Ironically enough, this conjuncture of a "faith-based" provision of
social services with neoliberalism found in Islamic Fundamentalism is
paralleled by the rise of "compassionate conservatism" championed by George
W. Bush which promised a new "faith-based" deal to the workers in the US in
the late 1990s. As he said in his campaign speech on July 22, 1999: "We must

apply our conservative and free-market ideas to the job of helping real
human
beings--because any ideology, no matter how right in theory, is sterile and
empty without that goal." He planned to do it by disbursing federal funds
"not just to states, but to charities and neighborhood healers" in such a
way
that "we will never ask an organization to compromise its core values and
spiritual mission to get the help it needs" (Quoted in (Olasky 2000: 221).
To
continue the analogy, compassionate conservatives, like Islamic
fundamentalists, are some of the last, hardcore defenders of the death
penalty on the planet and indeed both are interested in bringing back
corporeal punishment into the penal regime as well.

(4) For the role of Hamas, the major Islamic Fundamentalist organization in
Palestine, in the social reproduction see (Nusse 1998).

(5) For an trenchant description of the crisis the long-term social,
demographic and economic trends forebode for the Saudi monarchy, published
on
the eve of the decision to go forward on the path of globalization, see
(Cordesman 1997: 47-76).

(6) A little noticed development in Saudi Arabia might indicate the
surprising
  tangents produced by the new legislation. In November of 2000, two car
bombings in Riyadh left one British man dead and five other foreigners
injured. Was it a the result of Islamic dissident action? Perhaps that was
the first reaction, but in February of 2001 Bill Sampson, a Canadian,
confessed to the crime along with Alexander Mitchell, a Briton, and Raf
Schyvens, a Belgian. The Saudi government claimed that the three murdered
and
maimed their victims as part of a turf war over the country's illegal
alcohol
trade. Whatever the truth of this accusation, the alcohol business in Saudi
Arabia is a very lucrative business--"a litre bottle of locally brewed wine
or beer costs $60, a case of Budweiser $259, and a bottle of Johnny Walker
Black Label Scotch goes for $225" (Fennell and Snider 2001: 18)--and will
get
more lucrative now that the new Investment Regulation has given foreign
companies headquartered in non-Islamic countries a green light to bring in
their own employees.

(7) For a discussion of the slow growth of the antiglobalization movement
>from the Third World to the First, see the "Introduction" of (Midnight
Notes
2001).

Bibliography
Bahgat, Gawdat 2001. Managing Dependence: American-Saudi Oil Relations. Arab

Studies Quarterly, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 1-14.

Chossudovsky, Michel 2001. Who is Ousmane bin Ladin? Posted at
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Cordesman, Anthony H. 1997. Saudi Arabia: Guarding the Desert Kingdom.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Faksh, Mahmud A. 1997. The Future of Islam in the Middle East:
Fundamentalism
in Egypt, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Federici, Silvia and Caffentzis, George 2000. "War and Globalization in
Yugoslavia." Radical Philosophy Review, Vol. 2, No. 1.

Fennell, Tom and Snider, Michael 2001. Prisoner of Riyadh. Maclean's,
6/25/2001, Vol. 114, Issue 26.

MacKinnon, Colin 2000. Saudi Arabia: Major Change in Investment Climate.
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. 19, Issue 6, p. 72-73.

Midnight Notes 1992. Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992. New York:
Autonomedia.

Midnight Notes 2001. Auroras of the Zapatistas: Local and Global Struggles
in
the Fourth World War. New York: Autonomedia.

Nusse, Andrea 1998. Muslim Palestine: The Ideology of Hamas. Amsterdam:
Harwood Academic Publishers.

Olasky, Marvin 2000. Compassionate Conservatism: What It Is, What It Does,
and How It Can Transform America. New York: The Free Press.

Talbot, Karen 2000. Chechnya: More Blood for Oil. Covert Action Quarterly,
69. Posted as: http://www.covertaction.org/full_text_69_03.htm

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 14:55:20 +0200
From: el desaparecido <desaparecido@...>
To: caravan99@..., pga@...
Subject: <caravan99> PGA caravan update from ecuador

> from <aggy@...>

this is a quick report on da caravan so far... pls fwd ...
ciao!

______________________________________________________________________


Magical Mystery Tour......

The third international gathering of the Peoples Global Action (PGA) network
has formed a peoples caravan which is crossing the Latin American continent.

Starting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, the caravan, made up of people from over 15
countries, has arrived in Ecuador after visiting a number of peasant
communities across Peru.

The third conference of PGA was attended by over 400 delegates from more
than 50 countries. Discussions ranged from North/South solidarity to Plan
Columbia, indigenous peoples struggles, gender struggles, and many more. In
addition, two international days of action have been called, the first to
coincide with the WTO's next meeting in Doha, Qatar November 9th-13th 2001,
and the second to coincide with the FTAA meeting in Quito, Ecuador March
2002.

The aim of the caravan is to exchange information regarding our respective
campaigns and issues and to witness first hand the impacts of neo-liberal
and military expansion in Latin America. Its not hard to pose as tourists at
the almost hourly police and army checks we are being subjected to, when the
contingent comprises of delegates from South Africa, New Zealand, Germany,
Ecuador, Bolivia, Honduras, USA, Australia, Mexico, Spain, Basque Country,
India, Nepal and Columbia.

With the imminent expansion of both the Free Trade Area of the Americas
treaty (FTAA) and Plan Columbia throughout this region it is pertinent to
witness the devastating effects policies of this kind have already unleashed
here.  In addition to the negative effects of capitalism we are learning
about the positive elements of widespread and diverse resistance being
mounted by people across this continent.

Unfortunately after leaving Cochabamba and battling for visas in La Paz two
Bangladeshi and one Sri Lankan delegate were forced to leave and were unable
to continue with the caravan. Next stop was Puno, on the border of Bolivia
and Peru where a bus of delegates was stopped a week earlier en route to
Cochabamba. After the happy reunion we continued north.

A bus load of tired people arrived at Cusco, the Southern
Peruvian town and gateway to the infamous Machu Pichu ruins. We were warmly
welcomed by the FDCC - the Peruvian Peasants Federation - and put up in one
of their training centres, a cosy and amusing scene of thirty bunks in one
room!

Some of the more gung-ho among the crew embarked on a late night tour of
local Inca ruins, pricey, guarded and over run with tourists during the day,
by the almost-full-moon-light the five hour trek was by all reports quite
magical.

The next morning after a 6am rise we set off on a two hour ascent to over
3900 metres to visit the peasant communities of Jabomayo. Five years ago
these communities had to travel miles to get food and relied on pesticides
and chemicals for limited local production. Now they have organic green
houses,fields of alfalfa and and increased variety of vegetables. The health
of the community has increased markedly and techniques of sustainable
chemical free agriculture are being shared throughout neighboring
communities.

Started in 1994 aided by the Institute for Alternative
Agriculture, the training project, which has already involved over 1500
families, is wide ranging and includes a number of different areas including
conservation, organic agriculture, agricultural techniques, business
management, leadership skills, civic education and communication skills. All
training is organised locally through a model of skill sharing. Once
trained, families pass on the knowledge to others in the community, to other
communities, districts and so on.

The curriculum was developed in consultation with the communities and
comprises of a blend of traditional inca agricultural models and modern
techniques. The agricultural practices of the Cusco area are being viewed as
a test-case, if successful agricultural reform of this kind could be
implemented across the country.

The IAA is completely independent from the government and emerged from the
grass roots, largely funded by 'The Fund for Social Development', a Belgian
NGO. Training is completely free and has two main aims. Firstly democracy
and organisational training and secondly land management and agricultural
skills.

For these communities the fundamental thread running through all of this
training is that of food sovereignty. Under former President Fujimori food
imports were increased from $250M USD to $1.4B USD despite the rich
agricultural industries of Peru. In response to this, and the push towards
big agro-businesses, small peasant farmers are organising through Peasant
Federations and setting up sustainable local alternatives and thus becoming
more autonomous.

Furthermore the increased production in the Cusco area since the shift in
agricultural practice feeds in to a 'Food Aid' program, whereupon after
individual families and local communities are fed, excess production is used
to feed over 30M people through schools etc.

The forty strong group were invited for breakfast and lunch at the home of
Theodore and Segundina. This family were one of the first to undertake the
training and now have organic vegetable gardens and produce organic dairy
products. It was with much pride that they give us a tour of their stables,
from which manure is transformed to garden fertisliser by worm farms,
allowing them to do away with chemical fertilisers.

That evening we had a slumber party of sorts at the IAA back in Cusco, and
were treated to a late night meeting with Carlos Paredes of the FDCC. He
informed us about the history of the peasants movement in Peru, an inspiring
and rich history of stuggle from feudalism to neo-liberalism, which has had
a profound impact on Peruvian politics. He outlined the idea of
participatory democracy being practiced in Limatambo and the Act of
Committment which they are developing to influence government policies. This
'act' is essentially a contract where the FDCC commits its members to voting
for a particluar candidate based on their commitments to instigate
favourable policies once in office.

Another early rise, with little sleep for some who chose to party on in
Cusco and share the celebration with others upon their return at 4am! At 6am
we piled in to the bus and headed for Limatambo where we were introduced to
their model of participatory democracy which they have been developing since
1991.

This model allows for the 10,500 (est.)members of the community to set the
agenda for public works to be undertaken by the council and gives them full
rights to oversee local council budgets and the councilors themselves.
Alejandro Toledo, the recently elected President of Peru, who prior to his
election signed an Act of Committment with the FDCC, is set to visit
Limatambo in early October with a view to enacting this model of local
community autonomy across Peru.

After leaving Cusco we travelled non stop by bus to Lima, a mad overnight
trip through the awesome mountains of Peru, sometimes reaching over
altitudes of 4500 metres!

Delayed by a stuck bus blocking the road we unfortunately arrived in Lima
only to catch the final half and hour of the Third Annual Peruvian Peasants
Conference, where Toledo had been the day before. We were treated to lunch,
shook lots of hands, expressed solidarity and took lots of photos, it was a
shame we arrived late, but we were greeted warmly nonetheless.

Furter complications ensued when the four russians and other
travelling companions did not arrive in Lima as expected and we were forced
to leave minus another of our comrades who stayed in Peru to look for them!

The rest of us continue en route for Quito and Sucumbias,
unfortunately we had to cancel our trip to the Peasant community in Saragayu
as once again we are running behind schedule.

Much time is spent on the bus, the Australians can be seen
practicing yoga at any opportunity and there are some cosy
relationships being developed. Surprisingly, given the bumpy
roads, lack of showers and the levels of tolerance required to live with
forty people on a bus for weeks straight, the morale is high. Furthermore
the long days on the bus are spent with presentations on local struggles
from Plan Columbia to the Landless Peoples Movement in South Africa, and
some amusing karaoke sessions to boot!

>From here the caravan will travel to Sucumbias far north Ecuador and then
through Columbia with a view to learning more about Plan Columbia, arriving
in Bogota around the 12th October.

More in depth reports on the PGA conference, Jabomayo, Limatambo and
different peasant communities across Latin America are being collated,
hopefully a caravan reader will be published in Spanish and English in
several months, in the mean time we plan to put out a few more reports from
the road...

More later,
alexk +
the bus kids,
PGA Caravan October 1st 2001.

------------------------------------
caravan99@...
subscription:
mail to caravan99-request@...
with command in body of mail: subscribe/unsubscribe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:09:41 +0200
From: Jeff Juris <aleph@...>
To: caravan99@...
Subject: <caravan99> Fwd: [PGA na organizing committee] Results of 3rd PGA
     Conference in Cochabamba, a personal account (fwd)



>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 03:35:26 +0200
>From: OdM <red-red2@...>
>Subject: Results of 3rd PGA Conference in Cochabamba, a personal account
>
>         Short personal account of the 3rd PGA Conference in Cochabamba
>
>Knowing that it will take a little while for the many things decided in
>Cochabamba to be put in form, on the web page, etc. (many people are still
>traveling on the caravan to Colombia), I propose a personal and provisional
>synthesis.
>
>The conference was a great step forward for PGA in several ways, despite
>the very difficult conditions created by the events in New York. A large
>number of people of course arrived late (some not at all) and this quite
>disorganised the first days. However, this reunion of amazing movements and
>people had a  common  purpose and a great common will to go forward. The
>dynamic of the meeting became more and more intense as things got organised
>and as mutual understanding and confidence developed. The last day of the
>conference, an incredible number of agreements were reached in a marathon
>of meetings in which working together seemed to be more and more efficient
>and agreable. At 2 AM Monday morning ( !), we finished the agenda in high
>spirits, topping it off with " chicha " (a traditional indigenous beer made
>from fermented corn) and a collective dance ! On a human level, this was
>perhaps the warmest PGA meeting yet : what are now old friends from across
>the world meeting again, and the pleasure of seeing that dozens of new ones
>feel immediately at home - simply because so many grassroots movements seem
>to share our practices and dreams.
>
>The airline chaos stopped all United States participants except one from
>coming and caused many others to arrive late. Worse, the new repressive
>world order that the USA plans to justify by the attack in NY was
>immediately evident. Already, there had been some police pressure on people
>organising the conference, but after the attack, the Bolivian government
>practically sealed the border for PGA. Delegates with valid visas were
>turned back or detained (sometimes for days !) at the frontier, the
>immigration authorities stating that " visas for PGA people are no longer
>valid ". Several persons who had already passed the frontier were rounded
>up in a police sweep of the airport and threatened with expulsion. The bus
>from Colombia, with delegates of Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and several other
>countries was stopped at the frontier. The arrival of nearly all the asian
>delegation was retarded for days. When finally forced (by political
>pressure) to grant visas, immigration demanded prohibitive prices for a "
>business " visa. Meanwhile, the governor of the province declared to the
>press that the PGA delegates were all " potential terrorists " and had
>organised the riots in Europe and North america. The US ambassador actually
>publicly threatened Evo Morales, the leader of the host organisation (the
>Cinco Federaciones del Tropico de Cochabamba, Bolivia's most powerful
>farmer's movement) for having dared to condemn together the terrorist
>attack and the state terrorism practised by the USA in Iraq, Colombia, etc.
>The first day of the conference was a little tense…
>
>Fortunately, political pressure from our hosts and from the bolivian human
>rights organisations finally had its effect. In the end, about 170 foreign
>delegates made it, but 25 (essentially from the caravan on the border) were
>excluded. They improvised their own discussion table with the local
>Peruvian farmer's movement, while awaiting the caravan that is now
>returning from Bolivia to Colombia, via Peru and Ecuador.
>
>With the Bolivian participants, the conference thus brought together about
>230-250 people from (from what I can remember) Argentina, Chile, Colombia,
>Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Panama, Peru, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala,
>Mexico, USA, Canada, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Switzerland,
>Netherlands, Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, South Africa, India, Nepal,
>Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Papoua New Guinea, Aorotea
>(New Zealand) and Australia.
>
> >From Canada there were representatives of the CLAC (Comité de Lutte
>Anti-Capitaliste), PGA convenors for North America and organisers of the
>highly successful direct action against the Quebec summit of the Americas,
>and a delegate of CUPE (Canadian Union of Public Employees), the largest
>and one of the most progressive unions.
>
> >From India, there were representatives of NAPM (National Alliance of
>People's Movements) and of BKU (the national farmers' federation), who
>brought with them news from a movement that is more and more powerful and
>unified (apparently thanks in part to the dynamic initiated by the
>InterContinental Caravan). The movements take turns organising huge
>demonstrations once a month, with as many as 50,000 people arrested at a
>time in non-violent direct action. Prof. Nanjundaswamy could not come, as
>the KRSS was organising a rally of 500,000 people for the 2nd of October.
>The whole indian farmers federation has already served notice to the
>government that they must distribute the 20 million tons of grain in their
>stocks by the 5th of November or the farmers will do it themselves for the
>opening of the WTO summit in Qatar !
>
>  Among the new arrivals, there were three representatives of the huge
>Indonesian farmers federation,  a representative of the Nepal farmers
>federation and four enthusiastic and inspiring delegates from the new
>popular movements of South Africa (landless peasants, Forum Against
>Privatisation, urban struggles against evictions and service cut-offs).
>(Unfortunately, the other african delegates failed to get visas.)
>
> >From Latin America, there were representatives of some of the most powerful
>movements : the Cinco Federaciones, the ecuadorean peasants (CONFEUNASC)
>and indigenous (CONAI), the Zapatistas of Chiapas, the MST of Brazil. From
>Colombia there were representatives of the two peasant federations, the
>afro-colombians (PCN), the national indigenous organisation (ONIC) and the
>national women's movement. There were also representatives of various
>indigenous peoples : of Guatemala,  the Kuna of Panama, the Mapuche
>(Chile-Argentina), the Meskitos of Nicaragua and of course a strong
>presence of the Aymara and Quechua of the Andean region. There was also a
>good number of delegates from Argentina and Brazil, who (like the delegates
>in the bus from Colombia) traveled up to six days each way to get there.
>
>Many of the brazilians and argentinians were from a new network of young
>mostly urban organisations that had specifically organised for the Global
>Days of Action of May 1, for Prague or against ALCA. Their presence
>highlighted the echo that the new anti-globalisation movement in the North
>has had in the South. In the beginning of PGA, southern struggles (in
>particular civil disobedience from India)  inspired the northern activists.
>Now, the circulation of forms of struggle is also bringing ideas from north
>to south. Groups are linking up in horizontal networks to take action
>together. Indymedia sites exist in Brazil and Argentina, and delegates from
>Bolivia, Ecuador and other countries were asking for help to set up their
>own.
>
>The presence of delegates from northern groups like Reclaim the Streets, Ya
>Basta from Italy, CLAC of Canada, MRG of Catalonia, the swiss Anti-WTO
>coordination - groups which were responsible for the victories of direct
>action in London, Prague, Genoa, Quebec, Barcelona and Davos - of Swedes
>who had organised for Goteborg or Australians from anti-WEF demos in
>Melbourne, also marked the incredible advances made by the movement in the
>North since the last PGA Conference. These young movements can hardly be
>compared to the massive southern organisations, but they have earned their
>place in the discussion. Everyone at last understands that northern groups
>have their own struggles and perspectives and do not exist only in
>solidarity with southern struggles.
>
>Turning to the actual content of the conference :
>
>- A call for Global Days of Action was of course issued against the next
>WTO minsterial summit in Qatar (November 8-12th), including proposals to
>block the departure of trade ministers in each country, to block stock
>exchanges and financial centers and to use popular consultations or other
>means to mobilise the huge majorities that sympathise with our action. (see
>call below)
>
>-  A call was also issued to mobilise the Americas against the next meeting
>of the Free Trade of the Americas Accords (FTAA) in Ecuador next March and
>the simultaneous meeting of the Interamerican Bank in Brazil.
>
>-  The Global Sustained Campaign against militarism, paramilitarism and
>state terrorism, already launched with respect to " Plan Colombia " (tours
>of Europe and North America, demonstrations, etc., have been going on since
>the end of 2000) will be continued and enlarged, not only to the whole
>Andean region, but also to the general problem of repressive violence that
>social movements the world over have to face - and more than ever after the
>events of New York and Washington.
>
>- Two other proposed Global Sustained Campaigns, one on water and the other
>on land, were finally brought together under one larger heading of "
>Territory and Sovereignty ". This was largely due to the input of the
>indigenous delegates who pointed out that such themes were much richer if
>taken together. The questions are not only those of land reform versus
>expropriation by the multinationals, or of privatisation of water. The
>larger question is that of the right of communities to freely organise
>their societies, livelihoods and relation to nature. This can include
>options that stem from their particular cosmovision, for example.
>
>This campaign can thus include opposition to all kinds of privatisations of
>public services - or much more generally of global or local " commons ". In
>particular reference was made to climate change and the rejection of carbon
>trading and other market based " solutions " which are de facto a
>privatisation of the right to clean air.
>
>A particularly rich round table concerned the struggles around water, with
>the exemplary struggle of the people of Cochabamba, who rose up last year
>and threw the US multinational Bechtel (which had taken possession of the
>city's water supply) out of the country, at the same time blocking the
>general privatisation of all water (including agricultural uses !) being
>pushed by the World Bank. (Their beautiful, inspired texts are in appendix
>4). Similar struggles are going on in Canada, Sri Lanka, South Africa,
>Spain, etc. A coordination of these resistances can be an important task
>for PGA.
>
>And of course, huge extents of land are being taken over - directly or by "
>subcontracting " agroindustrial enterprises to locals - by multinationals
>world over : Brasil, Colombia, Mexico, Africa, Asia…, in particular with
>coercion from the IMF/WB and treaties such as NAFTA which makes the
>privatisation of traditional communal lands of the indigenous and of the
>black communities of Africa a condition for financial " aid ". (To some it
>seems that a huge speculative bubble is happening in agriculture. This
>could be compared to the urban land speculative bubble of the early
>'90ties. But of course if it deprives hundreds of millions of small farmers
>of their subsistence it will have incomparably more serious consequences.)
>Here too, sharing experiences (for example those of the landless of
>Bangladesh, Brazil, India and South Africa) and coordinating struggles
>could be decisive.
>
>- A third Global Sustained Campaign of a different type was proposed for
>the construction of grassroots alternatives to the capitalist system and
>included popular education campaigns and popular consultations (" Consulta
>") among the tools envisaged. (A consultation was in particular proposed at
>least in the European region by the MRG of Catalonia.)
>
>- Other round tables and working groups developed their own projects. Among
>them the strong indigenous group, which decided to organise a specific
>latin american indigenous meeting next year.
>
>The conference also took important decisions concerning PGA's
>organisational principles, its political hallmarks and the manifesto.
>
>- Hallmark 1 was modified to read :
>
>"A very clear rejection of feudalism, capitalism and impèrialism; all trade
>agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive
>globalisation."
>
>  "Un rechazo muy claro del feudalismo, del capitalismo y del imperialismo;
>todos acuerdos comerciales, instituciones y gobiernos que promueven una
>globalizacion destructiva."
>
>In the Bangalore Conference the opposition to " free " trade had already
>been extended to capitalism in general, but the change was made in the "
>goals " of PGA, less often cited than the principles. At the same time, the
>Nepalese and Indian delegates asked that feudalism should be added as it
>remains the immediate form of domination for many in that area.
>
>- The hallmark number 4 was modified to read :
>
>  "A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social
>movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect
>for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of
>local alternatives to global capitalism."
>
>  "Un llamado a la accion directa y a la desobediencia civil, al apoyo a las
>luchas de los movimientos sociales, proponiendo formas de resistencia que
>maximizen el respeto a la vida y a los derechos de los pueblos oprimidos,
>asi como a la construccion de alternativas locales al capitalismo global."
>
>This change removes the word " non-violent " from the principle. This was
>considered a change of verbal form more than of political substance. The
>problem with the old formulation was first that the word " Non-violence "
>has very different meanings in India (where it means respect for life) and
>in the West (where it means also respect for private property). This basic
>misunderstanding has proved quite impossible to correct in media - or
>indeed in the movement itself. The north american movement felt that the
>term could be understood to not allow for a diversity of tactics or even
>contribute to the criminalisation of part of the movement. The latin
>american organisations had also objected to the term in their regional
>conference, saying that a " call to civil disobedience " was clear enough,
>whereas " non-violence " seemed to imply a rejection of huge parts of the
>history of resistance of these peoples and was as such badly taken by large
>parts of the movement.
>
>This point of view was particularly put forward by the movements of Ecuador
>and Bolivia, who at the same time have actually been practicing civil
>disobedience by the hundreds of thousands these last years, although they
>may throw some rocks when the army kills with bullets (as it regularly does).
>
>In fact, there was always an understanding in PGA that non-violence has to
>be understood as a guiding principle or ideal which must always be
>understood relative to the particular political and cultural situation.
>Actions which are perfectly legitimate in one context can be unnecessarily
>violent (contributing to brutalise social relations) in another. And vice
>versa. Precisely to make this clear, the zapatista army (EZLN) was invited
>to be among the first generation of convenors. The wording finally found
>seemed to respect this fundamental stance, since it explicitly advocates
>MAXIMISING respect for life.
>
>- The PGA manifesto was extensively reworked by a working group that sat
>for a large part of the conference to incorporate a gender perspective
>throughout. (Consult the web page www.agp.org in a little while for all the
>changes, too many to include here.) The gender group also worked out the
>declaration below (see Appendix 3).
>
>- The manifesto was also modified to include a paragraph relating to
>climate change. The section on the environment now refers not only to the
>effects of WTO, WB, etc., but also says :
>" The global commons´ is being appropriated....this now includes the
>atmosphere. Climate change is a result of capitalist resource exploitation.
>  It reinforces existing global inequalities initiated by colonialism. As
>the climate warms, essential resources with further become the privilege of
>the elite, who will use increasingly militarised force to acquire them.
>Also, the very problem of climate change is being seen as a profit making
>opportunity. Market based ´solutions´ include carbon trading) in which
>governments and TNC´s buy and sell their ´rights to pollute, and carbon
>sinks appropriated forest areas or GM plantations which theoretically
>absorb carbon pollution) to avoid reducing their own emissions´. "
>
>The organisational principles of PGA were also extensively modified to
>bring the theory into line with actual practice and experience. It was
>generally admitted that three successive convenors committees had not been
>able to assume many of their tasks, lacking either the necessary means,
>time or information to do so. At the same time, PGA has been scoring
>amazing successes due to a much more decentralised, spontaneous form of
>organisation. Solutions must therefor be looked for in that direction.
>
>- The choice of convenors and the convening method will be left to regions
>to decide in their continental meetings : one convenor or more, collective
>convenorship (Eurasian proposal), sub-regional assemblies (North American
>option), etc. The only imperative is to have a contact point for
>circulating information, practical work, decisions, etc., from one
>continent to the rest.
>
>- Adapting to the actual practice (Indymedia, for instance, being the way
>by which in fact infos about Global Days of Action circulate), information
>will be open, decentralised and have no " official " PGA stamp. The web
>page will be restructured in a series of open " Indymedia-type " pages for
>information or discussion of different campaigns and themes. Bulletins will
>be printed (using this information or others) by participants in the
>network on their own responsibility.
>
>- Of conferences and caravans.
>There was generally agreement that anti-globalisation actions should be
>more grounded in local struggles. First, in order to continue to widen the
>mobilisations and make the link with the day to day struggles that are the
>real resistance to capital. Second, to avoid the isolation and
>criminalisation that threatens after Genoa and New York.
>
>But localising means risking losing unity and general perspective unless we
>can better analyse and communicate the common aspects of our different
>struggles. And PGA has been as bad at stimulating debate and communication
>as it has been brilliant in inspiring action across the globe. So how can
>we make sure this happens, and that the next conference is preceded by a
>real debate on strategies, alternatives, etc. ? Or, in the worst case, how
>to assure that PGA can continue to grow even if repression (visa
>difficulties, etc.) and the drying up of institutional funding for
>anti-globalisation movements (aggressively organised now by the
>multinationals) make future conferences impossible - or much smaller ?
>
>Several ideas were approved :
>
>The first was to not necessarily have the next conference in two years
>(that is before the next WTO summit), although a conference within two to
>three years seemed necessary.
>
>Debate and communication in the whole network could be stimulated by a new
>variant of the " caravan " formula. The idea would be to have for example
>one participant from each continent in a small group that would tour one
>continent or region with a mandate to investigate and debate on certain
>clearly defined subjects. The  results of these exchanges would be
>regularly broadcast to the whole network via email lists, webpages, etc.,
>as the caravan advanced. This contact at the grassroots would also be a
>much more effective way of getting to know movements and making known PGA,
>thus preparing a richer convening process.
>
>This formula implies taking MUCH more time, say a minimum of two or three
>months, with at least several days in each place, to be able to discuss in
>depth, take time to write up results, etc. This in turn implies that it
>could not involve movement leaders but people less centrally involved or
>younger people who can take the time to fill this role of " movement
>reporters ". It could be much more efficient, less costly and easier to
>organise than conferences or regional meetings. Smaller conferences could
>possibly be just as effective and representative if the delegates could
>thus come having already debated the questions at home.
>
>Other ideas included finding more volonteers for the support group
>(particularly in the South), including some with a precise committment to
>communication and debate facilitation. Making sure that convenors and other
>southern partners have real access to email (not just an expensive hotmail
>account in a café).
>
>- On the next to last day, the whole conference boarded four buses to make
>the incredible descent (more than 3000 meters in a few hours !) from
>Cochabamba to the Chaparé region, stronghold of the cocaleros of the Cinco
>Federaciones del Tropico. A demonstration organised to welcome us (and to
>protest against the yanqui army base) gathered 20,000 peasants from all
>over the region in an impressive show of strength. Men, women and children
>of all ages, gathered under dozens of the rainbow colored huipil banners,
>responded with enthusiasm to speaches from spokespersons of the asians,
>africans, maoris, europeans, north americans and divers latin american
>countries and peoples. There own slogans and banners (" El pueblo unido,
>lucha sin partido ! ", " El pueblo unido vive sin estado ! ") showed that
>PGA had found appropriate partners there. A strong and moving response to
>the post-NY media hysteria.
>
>- And the next conference ? We will have to choose. PGA is invited to
>Russia and South Africa !
>
>Well, I guess this wasn't finally so short, but there would still be so
>much to tell. What is impossible to communicate is the richness and warmth
>of an international meeting of popular, grassroots organisations. In this
>space so many very different human beings and cultures can so quickly find
>so much in common, sharing enemies, but also so many visions, hopes,
>questions and practices.
>
>Amandla ! ! Power to the people !
>
>Olivier
>
>Appendix 1
>The PGA call to action against the WTO summit in Qatar
>
>Peoples Global Action calls on all grassroots social movements, community
>based organisations, trade unions, student organisations, indigenous
>peoples, farmers organisations, autonomous collectives and everyone who
>wishes to participate around the world to carry out actions against the
>World Trade Organisation (WTO) during the next ministerial summit in Doha,
>Qatar, November 9th-13th, 2001.
>
>The WTO´s aim is very simple: to remove anything that gets in the way of
>big business and free trade, upholding the freedom for multinational
>companies to act as they please. Made up of 135 member countries, the WTO
>polices international trade rules and continues to set an agenda that
>places profit above people and the planet.
>
>Faced with a rapidly expanding grassroots resistance to capitalist
>globalisation, the WTO has fled to an isolated desert dictatorship for its
>next meeting. Already built into the agenda are three immensely
>destructive trade agreements: the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA), the
>General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) and the Trade Related
>Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Between them, they cover issues like:
>the privatisation of health, education and water, forcing GMO foods and
>seeds on member countries and patents on life forms.
>
>THEY CAN RUN BUT THEY CAN`T HIDE: WE ARE EVERYWHERE!
>
>RESIST THE WTO THROUGHOUT THE WORLD THROUGH DIRECT ACTION AND CIVIL
>DISOBEDIENCE  WHEREVER COMMUNITIES ARE DESTROYED AND ECOSYSTEMS SACRIFICED
>FOR THE SAKE OF FREE TRADE!
>
>Regardless of whether the WTO meeting is maintained or not, we will be in
>the streets, because the streets are ours. Grassroots organisations all
>over the world  are organising the following kinds of actions and call on
>others to do the same:
>
>1) Awareness-raising campaigns against WTO and the effect of their policies
>on a global and local level: community based consultations,
>counter-meetings, public debates, publications.
>2) Maximum disruption of the work of the trade ministers attending the
>conference: demands for the publication of national positions, blocking of
>communications or of departures of delegations, etc.
>3) Mass coordinated actions on a national and international level: work
>stoppages, road blocks, occupation of stock exchanges and other financial
>institutions (New York, San Francisco, Sao Paolo...), liberation of grain
>stocks (India) on Nov. 9th.
>4) Decentralised local action: land occupations, creative demonstrations of
>grassroots alternatives... Nov. 9th-13th.
>
>
>
>Appendix 2 :
>
>Declaración de Cochabamba
>
>Un día de septiembre del año 2001, solsticio de primavera en el territorio
>continental de Abya Yala (Latinoamerica), mujeres y hombres de varias
>culturas reunidos en Cochabamba nos dirigimos a los pueblos del mundo. En
>estos días de incertidumbre y calma tensa, de anuncios de guerra y caza de
>brujas, queremos hablarles de la esperanza y el afecto, del miedo y el dolor.
>
>Hemos visto el horror y la desesperación en los rostros de gente común
>afectada por azar en los ataques de Nueva York y Washington. Conocemos este
>dolor, tenemos la memoria y la experiencia cotidiana del terror y la
>violencia innecesarias.
>
>Minuto tras minuto, hora tras hora, día tras día, millones de víctimas
>inocentes y anónimas reflejan la misma mirada de horror al sufrir en su
>propia piel la violencia irracional en medio del silencio y la indiferencia.
>
>Desde los albores de la humanidad, la lucha por el poder y el dominio de
>unos pocos ha sumido a los pueblos en batallas sangrientas y crueles. Nos
>duele ver que no han aprendido a vivir en paz, justicia y respeto mutuo, y
>siguen regando la tierra de sangre inocente.
>
>La memoria histórica de nuestros pueblos sometidos nos ayuda a comprender
>la magnitud del dolor, el horror y la angustia que invade a las familias de
>las víctimas inocentes, por lo que les expresamos nuestra más profunda
>solidaridad.
>
>Tenemos la esperanza de que la experiencia del horror vividos por nuestros
>hermanos norteamericanos les ayude a comprender lo cruel y absurdo del
>abuso de poder militar y a cultivar su solidaridad frente a todo tipo de
>atropellos a la población civil.
>
>Es por ello que condenamos crímenes tales como los bombardeos anunciados
>por el gobierno de los EE.UU. y sus aliados a la población civil. Estas
>reacciones apresuradas sólo alimentan el odio, la violencia y el terror,
>acelerando la destrucción sistemática del planeta.
>
>Nuestra filosofía está opuesta al militarismo y la dominación. Amamos la
>libertad y el equilibrio entre los pueblos hermanos, la fuerza vital de
>nuestra lucha es defender la vida, por lo que nos opondremos a través de
>acciones globales a la guerra absurda anunciada por los Estados Unidos.
>
>Cochabamba, 23 de Septiembre de 2001
>
>Appendix 3 :
>
>Declaración de las y los participantes a la Conferencia de la
>Acción Global de los Pueblos, reunid@s el lunes 17 de septiembre
>del año 2001.
>
>Nosotras y nosotros declaramos que la Acción Global de los
>pueblos es un movimiento, que esta trasvasado por la perspectiva
>de género por lo tanto dentro de nuestras líneas de acción están
>incluidas las reivindicaciones de las mujeres, reivindicaciones
>que hablan de la discriminación de género, clase y etnia, por que
>discriminación es un fenómeno social ligado al poder, que permea
>la cultura, la economía, la política.
>El poder representando fuertemente por la economía de
>globalización ha empobrecido a las mujeres que han tenido que
>asumir la doble y triple jornada, por esto se habla de la
>feminización de la pobreza, en todos los espacios incluso en los
>espacios institucionales como son la ONU, OMS, OIT.
>En el sector laboral las mujeres no somos tratadas con equidad,
>no tenemos el mismo salario, aunque tengamos un cargo igual al de
>un hombre, en los despidos masivos somos las primeras afectadas,
>tenemos que soportar acoso sexual y hasta el abuso o violación
>sexual de los jefes y compañeros para conservar el puesto.
>En nuestros espacios de organización, las mujeres también
>sufrimos de discriminación, ya que esta se formó desde nuestras
>concepciones culturales que la han hecho tan cotidiana,
>pensándose que es natural, hostigar, maltratar, desconocer,
>someter y cualquier tipo de discriminación.
>Desde los compañeros y hasta las compañeras que no se escapan a
>esta concepción cultural del machismo como una forma de
>dominación, y se disfraza de machismo sutil, cuando uno es el
>discurso que se da y otras son las prácticas.
>Por lo tanto se requiere politizar la lucha de sexos en el marco
>de la confrontación al capital por que es inútil convertirla en
>confrontaciones personales que lo que crean son roces, que hacen
>que se nos considere a las mujeres que defendemos nuestros
>derechos humanos, y de humanas, como indeseables.
>Por esto declaramos que lo privado es público, y lo personal
>político. Por que lo otro nos lleva a romper nexos con nuestras
>familias y grupos de trabajo el cual nos aleja del resto de la
>población que esta en la lucha y el silencio nos ha socavado la
>dignidad y el autoestima.
>
>En la Acción Global de los Pueblos reivindicamos dentro y fuera
>la lucha de las mujeres como parte integral de la lucha popular,
>estamos reclamando la construcción de una sociedad justa, para
>todos mujeres y hombres, porque al ganar las mujeres gana la
>sociedad.
>Por lo tanto creemos que debemos empezar al interior de la AGP en
>el logro de desterrar cualquier tipo de hostigamiento sexual y
>discriminación hacia las mujeres, dando los primeros pasos en la
>construcción de la equidad, que decimos reivindicar en la AGP.
>Las mujeres y los hombres estamos juntos en esta lucha, que nos
>crea un compromiso, personal, como organización y en las acciones
>conjuntas de la AGP.
>
>     Seguras y seguros que saldremos como el sol
>  ha conquistar un nuevo amanecer para todas y todos.
>
>Cochabamba Bolivia  a 19 de septiembre de 2001
>
>Appendix 4
>
>Appendix 4
>
>Texts of the Coordinadora del Agua of Cochabamba
>
>(Texts of the "Water Coordination" which came together last year to resist
>the privatisation of all water in Bolivia, and in particular the city water
>of Cochabamba, imposed by the World Bank and obsequiously organised by the
>Bolivian government.
>
>After days of street blockades involving practically the whole population
>and street battles (in which the police were firing live ammunition), the
>US multinational Baechtel was thrown out of the country, parliament was
>obliged to revoke the privatisation law. In Cochabamba the "coordinadora"
>is now self managing the water of the city. First result, the water company
>is for the first time making a tidy profit, while charging a tiny fraction
>of the rates that Baechtel wanted!)
>___________
>
>"We have been the object of a great robbery, we are owners of nothing.
>Therefore, we, bus and taxi drivers, workers and neighbors together, sign
>this agreement and public statement  in order to defend ourselves, in order
>to no longer permit this drunken spending spree of luxuries - of the good
>life for some, and suffering and privation for almost everyone else.
>
>Because behind the deceitful government "dialogue", they impose upon us
>…The workers and the community listen, respectfully pay attention, and
>suffer.
>
>We unite because we are fed up with the simulation of democracy which only
>renders us obedient and impotent, and turns us into obliged voters and tax
>payers for the benefit of the rich; because it is urgent to begin to take
>action together… each sector does not have sufficient strength to resist
>alone… There is no individual salvation, we will improve everyone's well
>being or no one's.
>Communication of the Coordinadora, December 1999
>
>Hemos sido sujetos de un gran robo, ya somos dueños de nada. Por eso los
>transportistas, trabajadores y vecinos firmamos este acuerdo y comunicado
>conjunto para defendernos unos a otros, para no permitir más esta
>borrachera neoliberal de gastos, lujos, buena vida para unos y sufrimiento
>y carencia para casi todos.
>
>Porque tras el falaz "dialoguismo" gubernamental se nos impone una y otra
>vez la misma película: el poderoso habla, dice, promete, impone y goza… los
>trabajadores y el pueblo escuchamos, acatamos y sufrimos.
>
>Nos unimos porque estamos hartos de la simulación de la democracia que lo
>único que hace es convertirnos en obedientes impotentes, en votadores
>obligados y en pagadores de tarifazos de impuestos para los gustos de los
>ricos. Porque es urgente comenzar a desplegar acciones conjuntas… cada
>sector no tiene la fuerza suficiente para resistir por separado… No hay
>salvación individual, o conseguimos mayor bienestar para todos o no se
>consigue para nadie.
>Comunicado de la Coordinadora, diciembre de 1999
>_________________________________
>
>The Bolivian government would rather respond to the directives of the World
>Bank than take into account what the people themselves consider to be their
>needs.  The heart of the problem is this: who decides about the present and
>the future of the people, resources, work and living conditions.  We, with
>respect to water, want to decide for ourselves:  this is what we call
>democracy.
>Communication of the Coordinadora, January 28, 2000
>
>El gobierno de Bolivia prefiere ajustarse a lo dicho por el Banco Mundial
>en vez de tomar en cuenta lo que la población considera conveniente para sí
>misma. Este es el problema de fondo: quién decide sobre el presente y sobre
>el destino de la población, los recursos, el trabajo, las condiciones de
>vida.
>
>Nosotros, en relación al agua, queremos decidir por nosotros mismos: a eso
>le llamamos democracia.
>Comunicado de la Coordinadora, 28 de enero de 2000
>___________________
>
>The other great success of this movement is that we have lost our fear.  We
>left our houses and communities in order to talk amongst ourselves, in
>order to get to know one another, in order to learn to trust one another
>again.  We occupied the streets and highways because we are their true
>owners.  We did it counting only on ourselves.  No one paid us, no one sent
>us orders or fined us.  For us, urban and rural workers, this is the true
>meaning of democracy:  we decide and do, discuss and carry out.  We risked
>our lives in order to complete what we proposed, that which we consider
>just.  Democracy is sovereignty of the people and that is what we have
>achieved.
>Communication of the Coordinadora. Sunday, February 6, 2000
>
>El otro gran logro de esta movilización es que perdimos el miedo. Salimos
>de nuestras casas y comunidades para hablar entre nosotros, para
>conocernos, para aprender nuevamente a confiar unos en otros. Ocupamos las
>calles y los caminos porque somos los verdaderos dueños. Lo hicimos en base
>a nuestra propia fuerza. Nadie nos pagó, nadie nos dio ficha ni nos multó.
>Para nosotros, población trabajadora de la ciudad y del campo, este es el
>auténtico significado de la democracia: decidimos y hacemos, discutimos y
>ejecutamos. Arriesgamos la vida para cumplir lo que nos proponemos, lo que
>consideramos justo. Democracia es soberanía del pueblo y eso es lo que
>hemos hecho.
>Comunicado de la Coordinadora, domingo 6 de febrero de 2000
>_________________________________
>The cost of the repression: A six month supply of tear gas was used, 3,840
>tear gas grenades, on the first day of the repression.  Each grenade costs
>between $5 and $10.  It can be deduced that on Friday, $28,800 was spent on
>tear gas grenades alone.
>
>The second day of the repression, fewer tear gas grenades were used because
>their reserves had been depleted.  It can be presumed that 5,600 grenades
>were used over the two days of conflict, at a cost of approximately
>$42,000.  480 police officers arrived from La Paz, each having received $7
>per day for food and other needs.  From this, it can be calculated that the
>government spent $15,480 over five days.  It cannot be confirmed but it is
>supposed that each police officer who participated in the repression
>received a bonus of $35.  The government also incurred costs for a small
>plane and for the leaflets which were distributed by this means during the
>first days of the conflict.
>
>Los Tiempos, Tuesday, February 8, 2000
>
>El costo de la represión: en un día uso el stock de seis meses. El primer
>día de la represión se gastó la dotación de granadas de gas de Cochabamba
>para seis meses.
>
>El primer día se utilizaron 3.840 granadas de gas. Cada granada de gas
>lacrimógeno cuesta entre 5 y 20 dólares. Se deduce que el día viernes, solo
>en granadas de gas se gastó 28.800 dólares  sin tomar en cuenta las
>granadas de mano.
>
>El segundo día de represión se gastó menos granadas de gas porque sus
>reservas habían disminuido. Se presume que 5.600 granadas fueron gastadas
>en los días de conflicto, siendo su precio aproximadamente 42.000 dólares.
>
>Los policías que llegaron de La Paz fueron 480, cada policía recibió 7
>dólares de viático por día. Se calcula que el gobierno invirtió 15.480
>dólares en 5 días. No se pudo confirmar pero se supo de un bono de 35
>dólares que recibió cada policía que participó durante el conflicto. El
>gobierno también gastó en una avioneta y la impresión de volantes que
>fueron repartidos por este medio durante los días del conflicto.
>
>Fuente, los tiempos, martes 8 de febrero del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>After 15 years of neoliberalism, when we all believed that the model had
>snatched away the most important human values, such as solidarity,
>brotherhood, trust in one self and one another; when we believed that we
>were incapable of losing our fear, of having the capacity to organize
>ourselves and unite; when they had imposed upon us with all their strength
>a culture of obedience, of following orders; when we no longer believed in
>the possibility of being able to offer our lives and die for our hopes and
>dreams, to be heard, to make  our words be taken into account; our humble,
>simple and industrious working people, composed of men and women, children
>and seniors, showed the country and the world that it is still possible.
>
>Communication of the Coordinadora, April 2000
>
>Después de 15 años de neoliberalismo, luego de que creíamos todos que el
>modelo nos había arrebatado los valores màs importantes de los seres
>humanos, como son la solidaridad, la fraternidad, la confianza en uno mismo
>y en los demás; cuando creíamos que ya eramos incapaces de perder el miedo,
>de tener la capacidad de organizarnos y de unirnos; cuando nos han ido
>imponiendo con mayor fuerza la cultura a obedecer, a ser mandados; cuando
>ya no creíamos en la posibilidad de ser capaces de ofrecer nuestras vidas y
>morir por nuestros sueños y esperanzas, por ser escuchados, por hacer
>posible que nuestra palabra sea tomada en cuenta,, nuestro humilde,
>sencillo y laborioso pueblo trabajador, compuesto por hombres y mujeres,
>niños y ancianos, demuestra al país y al mundo que esto aún es posible.
>
>Comunicado de la Coordinadora, abril del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>There is a sort or rebirth of  people's capacity to believe.  People want
>to have faith in themselves again something that neoliberalism had taken
>from us.  Before, we had to believe in the "expert", in the sort that
>barely speaks Spanish, who speaks English instead, in the sort that comes
>from Harvard.
>
>A. Garcia in Pulso, May 2000
>
>Hay una especie de retorno de la gente a la capacidad de creer. Hay una
>búsqueda de volver a creer en nosotros mismos, algo que nos quitó el
>neoliberalismo. Antes había que creer en el "enternado" , en el tipo que
>dificilmente hablaba el castellano y hablaba mejor el ingles, en el tipo
>que venía de Harvard.
>
>A. Garcia en Pulso, mayo del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>What can we do when they charge us so much for water that does not even
>reach our houses?  We had to fight in whatever way we could.  Of course,
>what we have seen is that we are fighting between brothers, but they have
>not left us any other option.
>
>Neighbor quoted in Opinion, Friday, February 7, 2000
>
>Qué podíamos hacer si nos cobraban tanto del agua cuando ni llega a
>nuestras casas? Había, necesariamente, que luchar como sea. Claro, lo que
>hemos visto es que nos peleamos entre hermanos, pero no nos han dejado otro
>camino.
>
>Vecino en Opinion, viernes 7 de febrero del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>Men and women of Cochabamba, rights cannot be begged for, they must be
>fought for.  No one is going to fight for ours.  We will fight together for
>what is just or we will tolerate the humiliation of bad government.
>
>Declaration to Cochabamba from the Coordinadora, Monday, January 10, 2000
>
>Cochabambino, cochabambina, Los derechos no se mendigan. Los derechos se
>conquistan. Nadie va a luchar por lo nuestro. O luchamos juntos por lo
>justo o toleramos la humillación de los malos gobernantes.
>
>Manifiesto a Cochabamba de la Coordinadora, lunes 10 de enero del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>They want to make us believe that the privatization of water is going to
>save us, that it is a lifesaver.  As if we don't have experience with
>privatization?  Privatization is total chaos, privatization has failed in
>Bolivia.  Now we see that the corporations, the corrupt and the politicians
>work together against the people.
>
>A neighbor on the radio, Saturday, February 5, 2000
>
>Nos quieren hacer creer que la privatización del agua nos va a salvar, que
>es un salvavidas, por favor señores!, acaso no tenemos la experiencia de la
>privatización? La Privatización es un caos total, la privatización ha
>fracasado en Bolivia. Ahora vemos que los empresarios, los corruptos y los
>políticos trabajan juntos contra el pueblo.
>
>Vecino por la radio, sabado 5 de febrero del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>We aren't going to forget what they have done to us.
>
>Citizen cited in Pulso, February 11, 2000
>
>Nosotros no nos vamos a olvidar lo que nos han hecho.
>
>Ciudadano citado en Pulso, febrero 11 del 2000
>_________________________________
>
>After having been passive, almost accomplices, in the selling off of 60% of
>our economy, we have finally reacted.  What we have done means that we have
>redeemed our honor, in order to construct a common home with our own ideas
>and our own hands…
>
>Editorial in Opinion, Saturday, April 8, 2000
>
>Después de haber observado inermes, casi complices, la enajenación del 60 %
>de nuestra economía, por fin hemos reaccionado. Lo que hemos hecho
>significa haber rescatado nuestro honor para construir un hogar común con
>nuestras propias ideas y nuestras propias manos…
>
>Editorial de Opinion, sabado 8 de abril del 2000
>_________________________________
>We are enlarging our blockade.  We are entire families. Perhaps the
>government thinks that with each passing day we are getting tired, but it
>is mistaken.  With each day that passes, the people lose more patience and
>when the people lose patience [the situation] is much more dangerous.  The
>government is mistaken if it thinks that it is making us tired, we have
>more enthusiasm and more people.
>A Neighbor in Quillacollo on the radio, April 2000
>
>If there isn't an agreement that benefits the 27,000 retired people in
>Cochabamba after the robbery committed by Aguas del Tunari, we reserve the
>right to seize all the installations of this mafiosa company that steals
>from the poor.
>Declaration of the Federation of Retired Workers of Cochabamba, February 2000
>
>We have won.  We came to the plaza and here we are.  We said "no" to the
>new water rates and they have been frozen.
>
>Communication of the Coordinadora, February 2000
>
>Hemos ganado. Vinimos a la plaza y aquí estamos. Dijimos "no" a las nuevas
>tarifas del agua y han sido congeladas.
>
>Comunicado de la Coordinadora, febrero del 2000
>_________________________________
>We are defending our water… Communities have the right to defend and manage
>their resources and don't need corporate management.
>Citizen cited en Nawpaqman, May 2000
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>PGA mailing list
>PGA@...
>http://lists.riseup.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pga

------------------------------------
caravan99@...
subscription:
mail to caravan99-request@...
with command in body of mail: subscribe/unsubscribe

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 21:27:36 +0100
From: Katharine Ainger <katainger@...>
To: caravan99@...
Subject: <caravan99> FW: [StopWTORound] "The time has come to label rioters as
     terrorists"


----------
From: Erik Wesselius <erik225@...>
Reply-To: erik225@...
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 18:37:35 +0200
To: StopWTORound <StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [StopWTORound] "The time has come to label rioters as terrorists"

A very worrying article from last week's European Voice
-- a well-respected paper that is widely read in the EU
institutions.

After heaping rioters with the terrorists perpetrating
the S11 attacks, it will be a logical step to accuse
opponents of corporate-led globalisation that take it
to the streets of siding with terrorists.

Erik Wesselius
Corporate Europe Observatory / Transnational Institute

----

EUROPA: The time has come to label rioters as terrorists

Gareth Harding

FOR once, last Friday's extraordinary European
Council meeting really was extraordinary. To begin with, the whole
thing was organised in four days flat, which is no mean feat for a
body which normally moves with all the speed and agility of an
ocean liner trying to avoid an iceberg.

In fact, the summit was arranged so quickly that the Belgian
presidency didn't even have time to do a spell-check on the podium
backdrop, which read: "Informal Extraordinary Meeting Of De
European Council".

Looking informal and extraordinary is a difficult task, but somehow
French President Jacques Chirac and his Prime Minister Lionel
Jospin pulled it off. The country's two most famous cohabiters
usually look as though they've just signed their divorce papers, but
this time they fluttered their eyelids like newly-weds.

However, the most eerie part of the 21 September meeting was the
complete absence of protesters. Remember, this was the first time
European heads of state had met since rioters turned the centres
of Göteborg and Genoa into war zones and ever since the media
has been full of speculation about the fate that awaits Ghent next
month and Laeken in December.

With the western world on the verge of launching its biggest
military operation since the Gulf War you would have thought that
the usual rent-a-mob crowd of demonstrators would have been out
in force. Instead, the streets around the Council's Justus Lipsius
building were silent on Friday night, save for the drunken whoops of
young Eurocrats. It would be tempting to think that the anti-EU/anti-
globalisation/anti-everything protesters stayed away out of respect
for the victims of the terrorist attacks.

But these are people who, by and large, despise everything the US
stands for and have shown little respect for the sanctity of human
life before.

Anyone who doubts this should have been in Göteborg on 15 June
and witnessed the way in which certain black-clad hooligans set
about police officers with sticks and stones.

At their mini-summit, EU leaders agreed to draw up a common
definition of terrorism and to streamline extradition procedures by
introducing a European arrest warrant. Both of these measures are
essential tools in the fight against the slaughterers who carried out
the atrocities in New York and Washington.

But they could also prove useful in the struggle against violent
punks who have caused blood to flow on Europe's streets once
again. When trying to define fuzzy words, EU leaders could do a
lot worse than reach for their dictionaries.

Mine describes terror as "revolutionary violence" and a terrorist as
"anyone who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive
intimidation".

The adoption of such a catch-all definition could spell trouble for riot
ringleaders whose idea of protesting involves burning down shops,
setting alight vehicles and beating police unconscious.

It would also send a powerful message to trouble-makers that in
seeking to silence democratically elected politicians through
coercion they risk being black-listed as 'terrorists' rather than
receiving a slap on the wrist for promising to behave better in future.

Many of the protesters in Göteborg and Genoa believe that the EU
is an oppressive club of capitalist states which bleeds the Third
World dry and rapes the planet in the process. Maybe another
reason why no-one showed up last Friday is that they realised how
ridiculous these claims would sound in the middle of a war against
fanatics who are prepared to slaughter thousands of innocent
civilians.

And when the government suspected of harbouring these criminals
is prepared to starve its people, behead its opponents and treat its
women like slaves, any cries of heavy-handedness tend to ring a
little hollow.

European Voice

Volume 7 Number 35 27 September 2001

Copyright 2001 The Economist Newspaper Limited. All rights
reserved.

**********************************
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
finalURL =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=17050639
85:HM/A=799560/R=0/*http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/clink?overstock3+sho
pping:dmad/M=168643.1620686.3168692.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705063985:HM/A=79
9560/R=1/1002042990+http://us.rmi.yahoo.com/rmi/http://www.overstock.com/rmi
-framed-url/http://www.overstock.com/cgi-bin/d2.cgi%3Fcid=12715"; var
flashFileURL = "http://java.yahoo.com/a/1-/flash/misc/osyahooswf_0925.swf";
var noFlashImg =
"http://java.yahoo.com/a/1-/flash/misc/osyahooalt_0925.gif"; function
makeNewWindow(url) { var newWindow = window.open(url); }
You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 11:19:24 +0200
From: Corporate Europe Observatory <ceo@...>
To: Suppressed:  ;
Subject: TABD IN TROUBLED WATER

TABD in Troubled Water


Following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the Transatlantic Business
Dialogue (TABD) has de facto cancelled its annual ‘CEO Summit’, scheduled to
take place in Stockholm October 11-12. [1] Instead of the planned gathering of
around 300 business leaders and some 100 high-level government representatives
from the EU and the US, only the 12-person TABD Leadership Team will meet with
a small number of officials in Washington D.C.. In a recent announcement, the
TABD stated that it intends to “move forward” and “ensure that its
recommendations
are incorporated into the trade policy agenda”,  [2] and in a stunning example
of
corporate newspeak, described itself as “an important element of our democratic
system”. [3]

The Stockholm Conference would have been the sixth major annual TABD event,
and was gearing up to provide new momentum to the TABD process. This has been
characterized by the downward harmonization of EU and US regulations to the most
business-friendly common denominator, through a close working relationship
between business and government. However, despite the continued far-reaching
commitment and involvement of the European Commission and the US
government, the TABD’s ‘success rate’ has diminished in recent years. Among the
reasons for the loss of momentum is the growing opposition against key TABD
goals such as free trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and a new
round
of trade and investment deregulation talks in the World Trade Organisation
(WTO).


Public-private Partnership in Transatlantic Policy-making

Established in 1995, the TABD is undoubtedly the most far-reaching international
corporate-state alliance. With a mandate from the US government and the
European Commission, the 150 large corporations that make up the TABD work
meticulously to identify “barriers to transatlantic trade”. In effect, this
means any
regulation or policy proposal that does not fit the corporate agenda on either
side of
the Atlantic. While the TABD’s demands closely resemble those of corporate lobby
groups, it is far more than just another industry group seeking political
influence for
its member corporations. The deep engagement of the US government and the
European Commission in the TABD process sets it apart – and makes it dangerous.
Says Lisa Schroeter, Executive Director of the TABD US, “The TABD is a unique
process, based on the personal involvement of CEOs working with officials from
the
highest levels of EU and US government”. [4] These high-level government
officials
are active participants at the TABD’s major events – the annual CEO Summit and
the Mid-Year Meeting – and officials cooperate with the TABD’s many working
groups on a daily basis to implement their demands. [5]

This is why academic scholars describe the TABD as a new form of governance: a
“public-private partnership” in decision-making. [6] US academic Maria Green-
Cowles points out that “the TABD blurs the traditional distinction between
public and
private governance, with businessmen effectively negotiating in quadrilateral
forums alongside their governmental counterparts”. [7] The TABD’s immensely
privileged position as an integrated part of the EU-US negotiating process on
trade
and regulatory policies pays off. According to Cowles, the TABD “has been highly
influential, shaping the agenda, participating in official negotiations, and
keeping
governments accountable for the effective implementation of agreements”. [8]
These meetings take place behind closed doors and many essential documents are
not made available to the public. Earlier this month, European Ombudsman Jacob
Söderman decided to look into a complaint by Corporate Europe Observatory
against the secrecy surrounding the European Commission's involvement in the
Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). Söderman has asked Commission
President Prodi to respond to the critique before the end of November. [9]

The TABD operates in the framework of the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda and
the 1998 Transatlantic Economic Partnership, both highly neoliberal policy
documents focusing on constructing an integrated EU-US market. Major TABD
successes were booked in the first 3-4 years of its existence, including the
1997 EU-
US Mutual Recognition Agreement (allowing corporations to market a wide range of
products in both the EU and the US if they have been tested on either side if
the
Atlantic). [10] Other successes include, the WTO’s 1997 Information Technology
Agreement (ITA) and the EU-US Early Warning System (a structure to converge
conflicting EU-US regulations before they emerge as visible trade conflicts). US
Vice President Al Gore at the TABD’s 1998 CEO Summit stated that “I know that
you are proud of the fact that of the 129 recommendations TABD has made in the
past three years, over 50 percent have been implemented into law. I wish we had
that same level of success with Congress!” [11]

After the wave of early successes, the TABD’s main impact in the last few years
seems to have been “defensive” - delaying, weakening or even dismantling a wide
range of existing and proposed regulations, most of which aimed to protect the
environment, consumers and workers. A recent example is the planned EU ban on
marketing of animal-tested cosmetic products, which the TABD has opposed since
its 1999 Berlin Conference. The TABD brought the proposal into the EU-US Early
Warning system, claiming that a ban would violate WTO rules. The European
Commission first decided to postpone the ban until June 2002, and then proposed
to replace it with a reduced testing ban only within the EU. This would mean
that
cosmetics that are tested on animals in countries outside the EU could still be
marketed within the EU. The European Parliament is meanwhile trying to defend a
combined testing and marketing ban. [12] The TABD has also successfully
pressurised the European Commission into watering down a draft directive on
Electrical and Electronic Equipment that has now entered the final stages of EU
decision-making. [13] Mirroring demands of Brussels industry lobbyists, the TABD
wants to reduce the scope of proposed bans on toxic materials as well as to
limit
producer’s responsibilities for take-back and recycling of products.

“Of course we know what business wants. That’s our job. What’s so sinister about
that? Maybe our members have more power than some. But we’re only one among
many. We’re a non-governmental organisation, an NGO. I really can’t see what the
fuss is about.” Chris Duffy, former TABD EU director [14]

“We are not a lobby group, but invited advisors. That contributes to the fact
that the
TABD has made great progress and in the course of the years has succeeded in
pushing many of our priorities into practical policy.” Michael Treschow, TABD
co-
chair 2001 [15]


Faithful Governments

While the TABD enjoyed full support from the Clinton government (which co-
initiated the body), the arrival of the even more business-biased Bush
administration has presented further opportunities to reach their targets. New
US
chair James J. Schiro of PriceWaterhouseCoopers commented in early 2001: “We
believe they are very interested in working very closely with business on the
Transatlantic corporate agenda”.[16] A few months later, when attending the
TABD’s Mid-Year Meeting, US Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans confirmed his
commitment to the TABD process and to implementing the business dialogues
recommendations.  “To achieve our mutual goals”, said Evans, “the Bush
Administration and the TABD have common interests”. [17] “We should approach
trade and commercial policy from the same perspective… that is, as an extension
of a business plan,” he explained.

During the EU-US Summit in June 2001, the two TABD-chair persons met President
Bush, Swedish Prime Minister Persson and EU Commission President Prodi. [18]
The main demand of three outlined by Schiro and European co-chair Michael
Treschow (Electrolux) at the meetings was for the launch of a new WTO round at
the Qatar Ministerial Meeting in November. [19] The TABD leaders also demanded
a more effective system to prevent transatlantic trade wars “in a more
business-like
manner” and called for harmonising anti-trust procedures. Afterwards, a jubilant
Treschow commented, “We are as happy as can be. We got confirmation that we
are doing an important job and the top leaders support us in promoting the right
issues. We could not have achieved more.” [20]

The TABD has a particularly faithful supporter in European Trade Commissioner
Lamy, himself a former TABD participant. [21] At a TABD dinner speech last year,
Lamy assured the industrialists that the Commission was “pressing on with the
work
to implement your recommendations in the framework of the Transatlantic
Economic Partnership.” [22] Lamy continued to list issues where the TABD wants
existing or proposed government regulations postponed, watered down or removed.
“Good progress has been made on the precautionary principle, biotechnology, the
animal testing ban for cosmetics, recreational marine and refrigerants”. [23] As
an
example of the EC-TABD partnership, Lamy highlighted the TABD’s role in shaping
the EU’s negotiations with China on WTO membership saying, “you can never have
too much confidence-building and information-sharing between business or
governments. That’s how we got a good deal on China, and that’s what the TABD is
all about”. [24] The example illustrates how the EC works in tandem with the
business dialogue to promote their joint trade agenda, with the corporations
assisting the EC through lobbying directed at national governments. “A good
deal”,
in Lamy’s view, does not mean achievements in human rights or social progress
for
the most vulnerable people in China. It means far-reaching concessions from the
Chinese government for high-speed opening of hitherto sealed off markets to
ultra-
competitive EU-based corporations, which is likely to have serious social
impacts.

Partly on advice from within the EC, the new TABD leadership has embarked on a
restructuring of the business dialogue. [25] When Schiro and Treschow took over
as
CEO chairs in January 2001 they decided to focus on a smaller set of priority
issues
that would be “actionable within the year”. This means issues “where something
can
be accomplished at the TABD CEO conference, where CEOs can meet with
government officials to bring policy initiatives to a successful closure.” [26]
Work on
these issues is coordinated by a leadership team of 12 CEOs. Among them are
Paolo Fresco of Fiat and Harry Kraemer of US-based Baxter Health Care, who are
responsible for TABD demands regarding Regulatory Policies. Jean-Pierre Rodier
of French aluminium producer Pechiney coordinates the TABD’s WTO-related
demands. Although the information on the TABD website is not complete, it seems
that many of the over 45 issue groups that had emerged in the last six years of
TABD work have been eliminated, their issues being bundled into a new ‘Experts
Group’. [27]


What is at Stake?

While the agenda of the scaled-down TABD event in Washington D.C., has not
been fully revealed, many of the main issues are known. In May, the TABD held
its
annual Mid-Year Meeting in Washington D.C., attended by TABD managers as well
as high-level government officials. The conference aimed to “assess the progress
made on the CEO Recommendations” from the November 2000 Cincinnati
Conference as well as to set new priorities for 2001. [28] Top of the agenda was
the
call for the EU and US to agree on strategies for launching a new WTO round of
trade liberalisation measures. The TABD warned of “a serious risk of
back-sliding on
global trade liberalisation” if a new round is not launched at the WTO
Ministerial in
Doha.

Other “CEO Priority Issues” include the resolution of outstanding EU-US trade
disputes, including disagreements over the EU ban on hormone-treated beef and
US tax rules subsidising US-based exporters. The TABD calls for increased and
more effective use of the Early Warning system, in which officials negotiate
changes in proposed rules and regulations in order to prevent new open trade
conflicts from arising. Issues that the TABD has brought into the Early Warning
system include restrictions on EU market access for genetically modified
agricultural products, and the plans for phase-out of HFCs (greenhouse gas used
in
refrigerators) as well as the aforementioned ban on animal testing for cosmetics
and
the proposed EU legislation on recycling of electronic and electric waste. To
further
tighten corporate control, the TABD demands that trade interests are further
'upstreamed' in the decision making process, for instance through 'trade impact
assessments' for all new regulatory and legislative proposals. [29]

The TABD’s call for a beefed-up Early Warning system has strong support in the
US
government, which in June proposed to turn the existing mechanism into a full-
blown ‘dispute management procedure’. [30] Instead of bringing conflicts to the
WTO dispute settlement system, which more often than not leads to open trade
wars (beef-hormone, bananas, etc.), the US wants a “bilateral, pre-WTO” system
in
place in the transatlantic arena. [31] Certainly a second layer of WTO-style
‘dispute
settlement mechanism’ would strike a blow against progress on environmental and
social issues. Lamy welcomed the proposal, but also warned against too high
expectations, reflecting the EU’s desire to avoid new controversial proposals
that
could further trouble the run-up to the next WTO Ministerial Conference in early
November in Doha, Qatar. [32] The EU-US summit statement eventually only made
a reference to a desire to “improve the WTO dispute settlement mechanism”. [33]


More TABD Targets

The 2001 Mid-Year Report, which was the basis of the May talks in Washington
D.C., also calls on governments to speed up the approval process for
Transatlantic
and global mergers. While anti-trust investigations are hardly a luxury in the
light of
the flood of mega-mergers, the TABD finds these “too time-consuming”. The report
moreover demands a “closer integration of capital markets”, including removal of
US restrictions on funds buying foreign shares and what the TABD considers
discriminatory tax rules favoring investment in national companies in the EU.
[34]
The TABD also demands the end of the EU ban on advertising for pharmaceutical
products, arguing that such advertising is allowed in the US and that EU
consumers
“should have the same access to health information”. [35] Based on experiences
in
the US, Health Action International calls the industry demands “a major threat
to
global public health”. [36]

The TABD also planned to use the CEO Summit to demonstrate to EU and US
officials its concerns over plans to limit corporate tax evasion. [37] Progress
in talks
within the OECD on narrowing the possibilities of using so-called tax havens to
escape paying corporate taxes is painstakingly slow, but the TABD is nonetheless
worried. “Tax competition should be preserved as a useful counterweight to
political
pressure for more government spending and excessive taxation”, the TABD insists.

While the TABD wants to focus on priority issues, the most recent Mid-Year
Report
is no less bulky than previous years. It reiterates a long list of ‘old’ TABD
demands
targeting consumer and environment protection. Since the 1999 Berlin conference,
the TABD has put pressure on the EU to limit its definition of the
‘precautionary
principle’. [38] The TABD wants to reduce the use of this principle and the
corresponding regulatory action designed to protect people and the environment.
At
last year’s summit in Cincinnati, the TABD called for a transatlantic regulatory
framework for dietary supplements (vitamins, etc.), which would, in effect, mean
less stringent criteria for determining a product’s safety. [39]

Another priority is to block efforts made to phase out hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs),
one of the most potent greenhouse gasses, used in refrigerators. [40] The Danish
government has decided to implement a ban that will take effect in 2006,
preceded
by a tax to encourage earlier phase-out. The TABD fears that other EU Member
States will follow the Danish example. The business dialogue already established
a
special working group to obstruct or at least postpone the decision in 1999,
when
plans for phasing out HFC gasses were in an early phase. [41] The TABD brought
the issue into the Early Warning system, describing it as “a potential trade
barrier
that will restrict the free flow of trade”. [42] At last year’s Cincinnati
conference, a
special “break-out session” of the TABD Refrigerants Group took place. “For
nearly
two hours, the Refrigerants Group briefed Peter Horrocks, the EU's Environment
Head of Sector, and Gerhard Lohan, the EU's Enterprise Head of Unit, on the
merits
of long-term HFC use,” writes an industry observer. [43]


Biotech Breakdown?

Despite its privileged role in transatlantic policy relations, there are
fortunately real
limits to the TABD’s powers. This has become clear for instance in the case of
biotechnology. Market access for genetically modified products has been top of
the
TABD’s agenda since the start in 1995, but despite continued support from the EC
and US government the business dialogue has failed to find an effective response
to snowballing consumer opposition.

In the TABD’s Agri-Food Biotechnology group, US and EU industry has been united
in striving for ways to overcome restrictions imposed by European governments.
While often described as a battle between US and Europe, the real struggle is
between the transatlantic business-friendly elite, and consumers in Europe and
in
the US. Together, the EC and the US government, with the biotech industry, have
been working to find ways around hostile public opinion. Throughout the process,
EU and US officials have adopted many of the TABD’s proposals, such as the pilot
project on biotechnology approvals (a step-by-step process, starting with
harmonised EU and US data requirements for new GM products). [44] The results,
however, have been rather limited.

As US academics Pollack and Shaffer point out in their analysis of EU-US talks
on
GMOs, a “panoply of transatlantic biotech working groups have been spawned. Yet
the disputes over regulatory approval of genetically modified varieties and
mandatory labeling of genetically modified products have moved beyond the
control
of intergovernmental political elites and more technocratic transgovernmental
networks.” [45] The TABD’s latest attempt to turn the tide on biotech is to
demand
an “Early Warning System for new regulatory requirements for individual product
approvals”. [46] The long-term objective remains “centralised and compatible
approval procedures on both sides of the Atlantic”. In the TABD’s new
organisational structure, the Agri-Biotech Working Group seems to have been
disbanded, suggesting that the corporate ambitions on biotech are not
“actionable
within the year”.

Until now, the US government has decided not to bring the EU’s restrictions on
trade in GM products to the WTO’s system, despite the fact that the WTO’s
corporate-biased rules would almost certainly lead to a US government victory in
the matter. If however the US did win a WTO case on GMOs, Pollack and Shaffer
point out, “the EU, for domestic political reasons, would surely refuse to
comply with
the decision, once more triggering US retaliation and further undermining the
WTO
rule-based system.” [47] Apart from dealing a blow to the already bruised image
of
the WTO, the case would further politicise the debate and strengthen public
opinion
against GMOs, also in the US itself.

There are now, however, signs of a more hard-line stance by the new US
government. In the summer of 2001, the Bush government formally protested
against the EU’s new draft rules on GM products, which include limited
‘traceability’
and labeling requirements. The Bush administration threatened to take the EU to
the WTO’s dispute settlement panel to enforce market access for US GMO
products. [48] According to media reports, “every effort is being made to lobby
European governments and the EU institutions to block the proposal”. [49]
President
Bush personally raised the issue at the G8 meeting in Genoa in July. The depth
of
the gap between US and EU political realities is illustrated by the rejection,
by the
European environmental movement, of the EU’s new draft rules for being too weak.
The new rules will for the first time allow food with traces of unauthorised
GMOs to
enter EU markets. [50] They were watered down after intervention by Trade
Commissioner Lamy, who opposed stricter regulation, arguing that it could
further
damage trade relations with the US. [51]

Together for a New WTO Round

Earlier this year, the TABD announced the planned Stockholm meeting as "an
excellent opportunity to present a consensus business agenda in preparation for
Qatar".  The TABD’s main demand is for the launch of a broad new round of talks
on trade and investment deregulation. Meeting for two days with top trade
officials
(including Commissioner Lamy, his US counterpart Zoellick and possibly WTO
Director-General Mike Moore) less than a month before this crucial WTO event,
the
industrialists would have been in a perfect position for fine-tuning EU and US
negotiating positions. Despite the scaling down of the meeting, Qatar remains a
top
priority and the TABD will make the most of its meeting with government
officials in
Washington D.C.. Commenting on the reformatted annual event, TABD
spokesperson Marija Borenius said that “the most important thing is not to have
a
conference, but to make sure the politicians get the recommendations as a
background to the WTO meeting in Qatar. [52]

The corporate-government partnership on WTO issues is not just for the benefit
of
industry – it goes two ways. Transatlantic business consensus is used by the EU
and US to overcome differences in their own WTO negotiating positions. The
result
is that large corporations are able to effectively pre-cook the outcome of WTO
negotiations, taking advantage of unequal power relations within the WTO, an
organisation dominated by the large Northern trade blocs. As the EU's External
Relations Commissioner Chris Patten said in May 2001: "When the US and the EU
work together, we set the international agenda. If we are divided, the
opportunity for
international progress is often lost."[53] Seattle showed that more
self-confident
Southern negotiators could challenge this undemocratic model of pre-cooked and
Northern-dominated trade negotiations. For the EU, however, old habits seem very
hard to break.

At the November 1999 TABD conference in Berlin, governments and business tried
to settle strategic differences of opinion before the Seattle Ministerial a few
weeks
later. The attempts were only partly successful and the EU and US went to
Seattle
split on whether a new WTO round should continue until a package deal on all
issues had been achieved or whether deals could be completed on separate issues
when the chance was there (the “early harvest” approach promoted by the US
government and business). The European Commission and EU business did not
manage to convince their US counterparts that a new round should include
controversial new issues like investment deregulation.

These and other EU-US splits were an important part of the failure of the
Seattle
Ministerial Meeting. However, compared to the situation at the time of the
Seattle
Ministerial, differences between the US government and the EU now seem to be
narrowing rapidly. Commerce Secretary Zoellick is clearly warming up to
negotiations on investment deregulation and the round approach in general. [54]
Lamy was particularly pleased with the joint statement from the EU-US Summit in
June 2001, which he said “went further than any previous one as it put an
emphasis
on the kind of comprehensive round the EU has campaigned for”. [55] Differences
do remain over issues like eco-labeling and the precautionary principle, but in
recent months the EU has signaled that it will be flexible in its demands on
these
‘soft’ issues during the Doha talks. As well as the Bush government’s general
support for a new WTO round, the personal friendship between Lamy and Zoellick
plays a role in the growing consensus. Despite their different political
affiliations (a
member of the French Socialist party and Republican free-trader), the two have
been friends from the early 1990s when they served as advisors to Bush senior
and
Jacques Delors respectively. [56]

The TABD’s demands for Doha are an entirely predictable fusion of well-known EU
and US business positions. For instance, in the ongoing talks on services (GATS)
the TABD calls for “maximum liberalisation… across the widest possible range of
services, as soon as possible”. [57] The TABD fiercely opposes any attempt to
correct the unbalanced, corporate-biased WTO agreements that came out of the
Uruguay Round. As part of talks on implementation, numerous Southern
governments insist on changes to make the agreements fairer. The TABD calls on
the EU and US “to resist such tendencies”. [58] The TABD is similarly inflexible
on
the issue of any weakening of the WTO’s controversial intellectual property
rules
(TRIPS). Southern governments demand a more flexible system that could, for
instance, allow them to ensure access to essential medicines at affordable
prices.
[59] The TABD will also be present in Doha during the WTO Ministerial itself, 
[60]
where they are likely to take an influential position in the process. In Seattle
they
appear to have played a coordinating role for European and US business, with
daily
meetings in a downtown hotel. [61]


The Other Dialogues

When replying to a critique of the influence of the TABD over EU and US trade
and
regulatory policies, officials tend to refer to the existence of other civil
society
dialogues: the Transatlantic Labour, Consumer and Environmental dialogues. The
reality however is that these dialogues in no way counter-balance the impact of
the
TABD, which enjoys a tremendously privileged position.

The strongest of the three is the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD),
established in September 1998 and involving consumer groups from the EU and the
US. [62] To some extent mimicking the TABD, the Consumer Dialogue holds annual
meetings and formulates recommendations to the governments. The TACD has
made strong statements defending European restrictions on marketing of GMOs.
The annual TACD conferences were attended by EC and US government
delegations. The number of officials, and the extent of their participation has
been
much lower than in the TABD, reflecting the difference in government commitment.
[63] The US and EU have promised to take the TACD’s recommendations into
account, but concrete examples of this are very hard to find. As academic
scholars
Bignami and Charnovitz conclude: “the promise of a formal role for consumers in
the transatlantic policy-making process has been largely unfulfilled”. [64] The
history
of the Transatlantic Environment Dialogue (TAED), established in May 1999, is
very
similar to the TACD, but is short-lived. [65] In late 2000, the TAED suspended
its
activities after the US government failed to renew its financial support for the
body,
due to a block by the Republican majority in Congress. [66]

The unequal status of the dialogues shows clearly during the bi-annual EU-US
Summits. The TACD and TAED were not invited to the June 1999 Summit, whereas
the TABD chairs met with US and EU leaders and were photographed with them.
[67] Since the WTO Ministerial in Seattle, governments have invited both TACD
and TAED to present their demands at EU-US summits several times, starting with
the December 1999 meeting. At this event, the TAED sharply criticized
governments for their lack in progress in “addressing critical environmental
issues”.
[68] At the last EU-US summit in June 2001, it was again only the TABD that was
represented. The TACD protested in an open letter, pointing out that “once
again,
while business was present at the summit, there was no representative of the
civil
society.” [69]

The Transatlantic Labor Dialogue, finally, is the weakest of the three
challengers to
the TABD. TALD has no staff and the handful of meetings that have taken place
have been in combination with international labour conferences that happened
anyway. According to academics Knaus and Trubek, “the dialogue has had no
discernible influence on EU or US policy”. [70] The problem, Knaus and Trudek
conclude, lies in the fundamental neoliberal premise of the New Transatlantic
Agenda (NTA). “That a TALD exists does not imply any serious attention to labour
issues in the NTA (or any real progress in moderating its neoliberal
tendencies).
Real energy in the process is dedicated only to negative integration, through
deregulation of markets, further lowering of tariffs, and reduction of alleged
non-
tariff barriers”. [71]

A similar conclusion seems appropriate for the environment and consumer
dialogues. The virtual absence of concrete influence achieved by the civil
society
dialogues reflects the fact that the mandate given to the TABD is of an entirely
different order. The EC and the US government have supported the civil society
dialogues in order to give the impression of a more balanced transatlantic
process,
but without changing the neoliberal agenda that is the fundament. At the same
time,
it is clear that establishing civil society dialogues consisting of leaders of
EU and US
NGOs is hardly an effective way to mend the democratic abyss in EU-US relations.
Many of the NGOs involved are international umbrella organizations, which only
in
a very abstract manner represent the members of the groups affiliated. Very few
grassroots consumer, environment or labour activists will be aware of the
existence
of Transatlantic citizens dialogues speaking on their behalf. Both national and
European parliamentarians, whose powers are being systematically undermined by
the corporate-technocratic complex operating through the TABD, with few
exceptions, remain more or less silent.


Cincinnati: the TABD Meets its ‘Seattle’

While the civil society dialogues have hitherto not been able to effectively
challenge
the TABD’s influence, mobilisation by activist groups has caused the TABD
serious
legitimacy problems. Protests against the TABD’s CEO Meeting in Cincinnati last
November resulted in a serious PR defeat for the business dialogue.

Before and during the Cincinnati Summit, NGOs and grassroots groups held
demonstrations, teach-ins and other counter-events to protest against
corporate-led
globalisation. [72] The protests, organised by the Coalition for a Humane
Economy
(CHE), Public Citizen and the Cincinnati Direct Action Collective, to mention a
few,
attracted world-wide media coverage. The 200 CEOs and government
representatives inside a luxurious hotel were surrounded by large contingents of
riot
police throughout the meeting. Forty-seven protesters were arrested during the
non-
violent demonstrations.

“The protests have clearly rattled the confidence of both political and business
leaders”, the Financial Times concluded afterwards. [73] The Cincinnati protests
may also have had a direct impact on EU-US relations, for instance further
delaying
the Mutual Recognition Agreement. According to an European official, US
hesitancy
on implementing the agreement “is heavily influenced by the opponents of further
trade liberalisation. ‘They are terrified of the NGOs, they are terrified of
Public
Citizen’”. [74] “We have a selling job”, Pascal Lamy reacted after Cincinnati,
and
“we need to find new ways of getting across the benefits of globalisation”.

The TABD has not forgotten the Cincinnati experience. At their first meeting
after
taking over in January 2001, the new TABD Chairs “expressed concern about
ongoing NGO demonstrations against international trade-related activities” and
decided that the Stockholm summit would “discuss how business leaders could
address this.” [75] Also in response to the growing movement against corporate
globalisation, Swedish employers’ organisation Svenkt Näringsliv, which was the
host of the planned TABD summit in Stockholm, has recently started an
information
campaign on globalisation, targeting Swedish high-school students.


Cutting the Ties

While it is hardly surprising that large corporations remain enthusiastic about
the
TABD process, it is remarkable that the political support for the business
dialogue
remains largely unchallenged. The European Commission, which has embarked on
a charm offensive since Seattle and claims to want to “harness globalisation”
and
give it a “human face’, continues to empower the TABD, working to implement its
recommendations. It refuses to see that shaping its regulatory and international
trade polices around corporate priorities is fundamentally at odds with
environmental and social progress, let alone democratisation of decision-making.

Despite the continued support from the European Commission, the TABD’s future
looks uncertain. Widespread opposition to GM food is only one example of the
enormous potential of grassroots activism to interfere with the corporate trade
agenda. As campaign groups pursue progress in social, environmental and
consumer protection and defend their achievements against corporate counter-
campaigns, government officials will be increasingly unable to respond to the
TABD’s calls for implementation of business demands. The effect will be to
further
slow down the TABD’s momentum and effectively undermine the process. Activist
groups mobilising against the Cincinnati conference last year showed the
effectiveness of directly challenging the legitimacy of this disturbing
corporate-
government alliance. The time has come for a consistent effort by progressive
grassroots groups, NGOs and critical parliamentarians to strip the TABD of its
undemocratic privileges and powers.



Notes:

1: Among the reasons for the change of plans mentioned by the TABD is the fact
that US Trade Representative Zoellick cancelled his attendance and also flight
restrictions for US CEOs (who only use private jets in the aftermath of
September
11th).

2: ‘TABD Reformats Conference Due to Political and Economic Uncertainties’,
EABC Abstracts, September 21 2001.

3: Ibid.

4: “Involved companies work throughout the year to follow through with
government
on the implementation”. ‘Boosting US-EU Trade – TABD Brings Together Business,
Government to Expand Trade Relationships’, Lisa Schroeter, Semiconductor
Magazine, May 2000, Vol. 1, No. 5.

5: For a more detailed analysis of the involvement of government officials in
the
TABD process, see ‘TABD: Putting the Business Horse Before the Government
Cart’. CEO briefing, October 1999,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/tabd/berlinbriefing.html

6: ‘Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy’, Pollack and Shaffer, Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, 2001.

7: “The TABD is intrinsically part of the transatlantic regulatory negotiating
process
itself”, says Cowles. ‘The Transatlantic Business Dialogue: Transforming the New
Transatlantic Dialogue’. Maria Green Cowles. Ibid., p. 214. European-American
Business Council.

8: ‘Transatlantic Governance in Historical and Theoretical Perspective’, Ibid.,
p. 38.

9: The European Commission refuses to give insight to the official briefing
notes
prepared for the EC representatives attending TABD conferences. In CEO's view,
making these prepared speeches public is crucial for improving transparency
around the business dialogue's role in the EC's decision-making on international
trade policies. After having exhausted all other possibilities (through the EU's
"Access to Information" rules) to get hold of the EC's briefing notes for the
TABD's
1999 conferences, CEO appealed to the European Ombudsman. A final decision
might take up to a year, but the Ombudsman's initial support for our complaint
is
encouraging. The European Ombudsman's letter to CEO is available on
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo

10: For more on the MRAs as a low-profile strategy for creating a Transatlantic
single market, see ‘TABD: Putting the Business Horse Before the Government
Cart’.
CEO briefing, October 1999) http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/tabd/berlinbriefing.html

11: Al Gore in his speech to the TABD Conference in Charlotte, November 6 1998.

12: TABD Mid-Year report 2001, page 29-30.
http://www.tabd.com/about/2001/mym01.html

13: In the ‘Commission Services Response’ prepared for the TABD Cincinnati CEO
conference, the EC explained how its revised proposals for directives to “take
into
account a number of points made by the TABD”, for instance by postponing the
phase-out of substances (from 2004 to 2008) and by removing design guidelines
and other requirements for products. ‘Key Deliverables and Early Warning Issues
for the TABD Cincinnati CEO conference - Commission Services Response’, page
23. On file at Corporate Europe Observatory.

14: “Big business” New Internationalist, Internet Special Edition, May 2001,
http://www.oneworld.org/ni/issue334/big.htm

15: “It is relatively easy for us to get time together with top politicians and
they listen
to us. It is important that they know they have our support when for instance
they
want to launch a new trade round. We help to push them in the right direction” –
European Co-chair, Michael Treschow. “Electroluxchefen lade främ storforetagens
råd till lederna”, Dagens Industri, June 15 2001.

16: “We are very optimistic about the new Bush administration coming with a
fresh
perspective on business and our issues.” – James J. Schiro, US Chair. “Se upp,
Bush och Persson”, Dagens Industri, January 31 2001.

17: Evans also met with the TABD CEO Leadership Team the day before the Mid-
Year Meeting to discuss the specific issue priorities. ‘TABD Calls on
Governments
to Agree on WTO Round Agenda by June Summit, Stresses New Priorities’,
Abstracts, May 18 2001. European-American Business Council.

18: Treschow and Schiro met first with Prodi, then with Bush, Persson and Prodi.
“Electroluxchefen lade främ storforetagens råd till lederna”, Dagens Industri,
June
15 2001.

19: Ibid.

20: Treschow added “Bush made a very positive impression. He underlined the
need for a new WTO round to give new energy to business. He also agreed that
trade conflicts should be solved in a more business-like manner”. Ibid.

21: Before becoming the EU’s Trade Commissioner Lamy attended TABD
conferences as the CEO of a French bank.

22: “I think that the vibrancy of this mid-year meeting shows that both business
and
government are serious about TABD”. Speech by Pascal Lamy, Transatlantic
Business Dialogue (TABD) dinner, Brussels, May 23 2000, Speech/00/190.

23: Ibid. Also see ‘Doing Business in Berlin’. CEO Briefing, November 1999,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/tabd/berlinbusiness.html

24: “It is no surprise that you have wielded a major influence over the
outcome.” –
Pascal Lamy. Ibid.

25: In May 2000, for instance, Lamy asked the TABD to “please keep on doing what
you are doing”, but also to, “focus and prioritise your recommendations so that
we
can concentrate our energies on the issues most important for you”. Ibid.

26: ‘2001 Chairs to Streamline TABD, Focus on Priority Deliverables, Eliminate
Working Groups’, Abstracts, February 9 2001. European-American Business
Council.

27: Issue groups in which there have been few developments or no substantial
progress would be made part of the TABD’s “standing recommendations” and not
addressed at the conference. US Working Chair Allen Weltman (Pricewaterhouse
Coopers), reporting back from a meeting of the TABD chairs in Stockholm in
January 2001. Allen Weltman in briefing to EABC representatives. Ibid.

28: ‘TABD Calls on Governments to Agree on WTO Round Agenda by June
Summit, Stresses New Priorities’, Abstracts May 18 2001 European-American
Business Council.

29: TABD Mid-Year Report 2001, page 8.

30: ‘EU Welcomes US Plans for Resolving Trade Disputes but Expresses Some
Concern’, International Trade Daily, June 8 2001. 31: Senator Max Baucus in a
speech to the European-American Business Council proposed a four point plan
including “a high-level initiative to resolve current outstanding disputes” and
a
“bilateral, pre-WTO dispute settlement process that would attempt to resolve
trade
issues, making the WTO the court of last resort”. ‘Zoellick Visits Strasbourg as
Congress Probes his Trade Plans’, European Information Service, May 11 2001.

32: ‘EU Welcomes US Plans for Resolving Trade Disputes but Expresses Some
Concern’. International Trade Daily, June 8 2001.

33: The EU resisted as this might “send the wrong signal to developing countries
in
the run-up to the WTO ministerial meeting”. ‘EU, US Discuss Mediation of
Disputes,
Availability of AIDS Drugs at One-Day Summit’. International Trade Daily, June
19
2001.

34: ‘Corporate Chiefs Call for Cheaper Antitrust Process’, Financial Times, May
17
2001.

35: TABD Mid-Year Report 2001, page 46.

36: Among the effects are increased demand for medicines, higher prices as well
as
misinformation causing serious health problems. “After years of experience with
Direct to Consumer Advertising (DTCA) - and expenditure now well over US$2.5
billion/year - not a single study has been published to back industry claims of
health
benefits from prescription drug advertising campaigns,” HAI writes in a press
release of July 17th 2001. ‘HAI Europe Criticises EC Move Towards DTCA and
Calls for Evidence of Health Benefit’, July 17 2001.

37: TABD Mid-Year Report 2001, page 53.

38: See for instance the CEO briefing ‘Doing Business in Berlin’, November 1999,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/tabd/berlinbusiness.html

39: “Companies Pursue Uniform Regulations”, Cincinnati Enquirer, November 12,
2000.

40: HFCs, one of six greenhouse gasses included in the Kyoto Protocol, are
estimated to contribute 2% of global warming effects, compared to 85%
contributed
by CO2.

41: “The refrigerants group was formed largely out of concern about a proposed
European regulation on substances that deplete the ozone layer (EU Directive
3093/94).” Abstracts, TABD Special Issue, October 1999. European-American
Business Council.

42: TABD Mid-Year Report 2001, page 52.

43: Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute newsletter, "Koldfax", Vol. 27,
Nr. 12,
December 2000. http://www.ari.org/koldfax/2000/kf1200.pdf

44: “At the Berlin meeting, the Agri-Food Biotechnology group will press US and
EU
governments to move forward with the pilot project on biotechnology approvals.
The
pilot project, which was launched following a recommendation of the TABD last
year, could be the first step toward harmonized data requirements. The group's
recommendation will stress that centralised, respected regulatory authorities
are
necessary to a functioning approval process”. Abstracts, TABD Special Issue,
October 1999. European-American Business Council. 45: Examples include the
Agrifood Biotech Group and the TEP Biotech Group. ‘The Challenge of Reconciling
Regulatory Differences: Food Safety and GMOs in the Transatlantic Relationship’,
Pollack and Shaffer, published in Pollack and Shaffer, ‘Transatlantic Governance
in
the Global Economy’, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 173-174.

46: Cincinnati Recommendations, TABD, November 16-18 2000,
http://www.tabd.com/conference/2000/index.html

47: Referring to the WTO’s Agreement on Santitary and Phytosanitary Measures,
the US would likely win a WTO dispute case. ‘The Challenge of Reconciling
Regulatory Differences: Food Safety and GMOs in the Transatlantic Relationship’,
Pollack and Shaffer, in Pollack and Shaffer (ed.), “Transatlantic Governance in
the
Global Economy”, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 170.

48: “I think an action under the SPS Agreement is an option if we don’t get
results
that are acceptable over time”, US Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman said in
May. ‘US Protests New EU Biotech: Says They May Violate WTO Agreement’,
BioTech Watch, June 4 2001. The US protest came on behalf of a coalition of 19
US business groupings with interests in biotech food, including the Grocery
Manufacturers of America (GMA). The lobby groups claimed that the EU’s
restrictions on biotech trade costs them up to 4 billion US$ per year in lost
sales.
The groups claim the EU proposal discriminates against American products.

49: ‘Tension rises over EU plan on GM foods’, ENDS Environment Daily, August 28
2001.

50: ‘Greens Cry Foul Over New GM Marketing Rules’, ENDS Environment Daily,
July 30 2001.

51: Lamy’s role as ‘Trojan horse’ was mentioned in numerous news reports,
including ‘Shake-up planned for EU rules on GM products’, ENDS Environment
Daily, July 26 2001.

52:  ‘Toppmöte I Stockholm ställs in’, Dagens Nyheter, September 25 2001.

53: ‘US/EU Relations, the Inaugural Bush Visit’, Abstracts, June 15 2001
(European-
American Business Council).

54: Lamy after talks with Zoellick on new round: “On investment, we are nearly
there”. Interview with Pascal Lamy in World Trade Agenda, 30 July 2001.

55: ‘EU, US Discuss Mediation of Disputes, Availability of AIDS Drugs at One-Day
Summit’, International Trade Daily, June 19 2001.

56: ‘Zoellick Visits Strasbourg as Congress Probes his Trade Plans’, European
Information Service, May 11 2001.

57: TABD Mid-Year Report 2001, page 20.

58: Ibid., page 19.

59: See for instance the Statement by the Africa Group at TRIPS and Public
Health
Informal Session of the WTO TRIPS Council July 25, 2001, signed by over 50
developing country governments, http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/gc2.htm

60: The TABD will be one of many business lobby groups in Doha: more than half
of
non-government representatives accredited represent business interest groups.
For
a preliminary list of groups accredited for the Qatar Ministerial, see
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/gatswatch/fr_whatsnew.html

61: “European Industry in Seattle”, Corporate Europe Observer, Issue 6, April
2000,
http://www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/observer6/europeanindustry.html

62: http://www.tacd.org

63: ‘Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogues’, Bignami and Charnovitz, in Pollack
and
Shaffer (ed.), ‘Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy’, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 273.

64: ‘Transatlantic Civil Society Dialogues’, Bignami and Charnovitz, in Pollack
and
Shaffer (ed.), ‘Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy’, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 269. “They have not yet been able to obtain any
policy change”, p. 279.

65: http://www.taed.org

66: As a result, the EC could not provide funding either (since that would be
against
its co-funding rules) and the TAED was without income. The TAED was invited to
attend the EU-US Summit in Gothenburg, but declined. The body might re-band if
US NGOs manage to raise new funds. ‘Transatlantic NGO Network Bites the Dust’,
ENDS Environment Daily, November 21 2000. “It was a difficult decision to take.
We see how the Transatlantic Business Dialogue is influencing the bilateral
relations. We need to provide for some balance. Without the TAED this will be
more
difficult”, says the TAED’s John Hontelez. ‘Leading European NGO Group suspends
Role in Transatlantic Environment Dialogue’, International Environment, December
6 2000.

67: Pollack and Shaffer, Pollack and Shaffer (ed.), “Transatlantic Governance in
the
Global Economy”, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 281.

68: ‘Environmentalists ‘flunk’ governments during meeting with Clinton, Prodi’,
TAED press release, May 31 2000. http://www.tiesweb.org/taed/press/index.html

69: http://www.tacd.org

70:  ‘The Transatlantic Labor Dialogue: Minimal Action in a Weak Structure’,
Knaus
and Trubek, published in Pollack/Shaffer p. 236. Pollack and Shaffer, in Pollack
and
Shaffer (ed.), ‘Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy’, Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2001, p. 247.

71:  Ibid., p. 251

72: See for instance http://www.che-2000.org,
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=550

73: ‘Protests Make a Mark on World Trade Leaders’, Financial Times, November 20
2000.

74: Ibid.

75: “2001 Chairs to Streamline TABD, Focus on Priority Deliverables, Eliminate
Working Groups”, Abstracts, February 9 2001. European-American Business
Council.

S29 - Summary and pics (english)
www.indymedia.org
by db 5:56pm Sun Sep 30 '01 (Modified on 6:11am Mon Oct 1 '01)

Eventually, the rally turned into a march toward the Capitol building. By
now, there were 15,000-20,000 protesters, all shouting and banging drums.
One activist on a megaphone led the chants with 'War is not the answer!'
and 'Money for schools, not for war! Money for housing, not for war!'.

2001-09-29

Thousands of protesters marched in Washington, D.C. today in opposition to
U.S. war plans. Marches were organized by the Anti-Capitalist Convergence
(ACC), the International Action Center (IAC) and International ANSWER.

At 9am, the ACC gathered near Union Station. There were several hundred
demonstrators, carrying signs and beating drums. Already, there was a
heavy police presence, in full riot gear. Several hundred police carried
guns, clubs and bags filled with unknown contents, and wore face shields,
helmets, body armor, and leg and arm guards.

Initially, the police were not going to permit the march from proceeding.
However, it was clear that the demonstrators were going to do so anyway,
so the police formed a line on either side of the street, enclosing the
marchers as they moved. The police pushed several protesters out of the
way, and were very hostile.

Leading the march was a banner that said "No War But The Class War". Most
of the demonstrators were students and youth, and there were many
anarchists among them. The main focus of the march was opposition to the
upcoming war. Some of the other slogans were "Hey hey, ho ho, Capitalism
Has Got To Go!" and "The Enemy is Profit!". As the police stepped up their
stand against the marchers, other slogans started up, like "2, 4, 6, 8,
Fuck the police state!" and "Whose streets? Our streets!". As the march
continued the numbers grew, and there may have been 1000 to 1500 people as
the demonstration approached the IMF buildings.

Once in front of the IMF buildings, the protesters where surrounded by a
ring of police. Soon, police on horses and motorcycles showed up, blocking
all exit from the area. Other chants went up: "Let us go!". The police
gave no reason for detaining the marchers.

There was some discussion of breaking through the police blockade, but
they had too much artillery. Eventually, after about an hour, the police
opened a small hole, and forcibly pushed all the demonstrators out using
their clubs.

The march proceeded back toward Union Station. A few construction workers
hailed the protesters as they passed by (see photos)(although, one news
source claims that there were workers opposed to the anti-war stance of
the marchers). As I watched them, many of the construction workers clearly
supported the marchers. I also saw one worker in an office building
signalling the demonstrators with the peace sign.

There were several incidents of pepper spray being used by the police, and
there where a few arrests. The protesters where very non-confrontational,
although they verbally attacked the police for their aggression. One
protester shouted, "You are making the Taliban look good!" while two
demonstrators where being arrested.

Eventually, the march joined another rally already in progress. There were
around 10,000 demonstrators here. They were very loud and spirited. The
speakers at the platform were from different progressive parties or church
organizations, and the message was, "War is not the answer!". The speakers
encouraged everyone to "Unite for peace", and "End racism", and there
where several calls for "Justice!". One speaker said, "Don't wage war
abroad -- end the race war at home!". There were many more youth and
students, but a large part of the crowd was composed of working class
people. One banner (the JMU Students For Peace) said, "No War - No Racism
- No Capitalism". However, the speakers and organizers of the rally
stopped short of condemning capitalism, and instead focused on stopping
the impending war, and calling for an end to racism both here and abroad.

There was a small pro-war contingent that demonstrated on the sidewalk at
one point. They carried signs that said "Support the Troops" and
"Traitors" (referring to the protesters). The demonstrators shouted them
down, and continued the march.

Eventually, the rally turned into a march toward the Capitol building. By
now, there were 15,000-20,000 protesters, all shouting and banging drums.
One activist on a megaphone led the chants with "War is not the answer!"
and "Money for schools, not for war! Money for housing, not for war!".

There was another rally when the marched reached the Capitol building. The
protesters where very spirited, even after some of them had been driving
from as far away as Ohio and Illinois to join this Washington protest. The
police presence for this larger group of demonstrators was smaller, and
was without the body armor (either because they did not want to antagonize
such a large crowd, or they were concerned about media coverage).

Overall, the march in Washington, D.C. against the war was very positive.
There seems to be broad opposition to the U.S. policy of permanent warfare
in response to the attacks on Sept. 11. There where also other marches in
other parts of the country today, as well as internationally. See
indymedia for coverage of these events.

There are more anti-war marches planned for October 27th in New York, and
around the country.


www.mosey.org

----- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -----
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001

anbei die Übersetzungen von dem "Call for Action" und der "Declaracion de
Cochabamba". Bitte lies sie doch mal durch und wirf dabei ein kritisches Auge
auf den Text. Bitte lass mich verbesserungen wissen, denn wir wollen ein  paar
davon Auslegen. Und vor allem bitte weitergeben...


1:

PEOPLES´ GLOBAL ACTION (PGA)

Declaración de Cochabamba
Erklärung von Cochabamba


An einem Tag im September des Jahres 2001, Sonnenwende des Frühlings vereinigten
sich in der kontinentalen Gegend von Abya Yala in Cochabamba (Lateinamerika)
Frauen und Männer verschiedener Kulturen und wandten sich an alle Welten. An
diesen Tagen der Ungewißheit und der angespannten Ruhe, der Ansage von Krieg und
Hexenjagd, möchten wir mit ihnen über die Hoffnung und die Betroffenheit, die
Furcht und den Schmerz sprechen.

Bei den Angriffen von New York und von Washington haben wir die Grausamkeit und
die Verzweiflung in den Gesichtern der zufällig betroffenen Menschen gesehen.
Wir kennen diesen Schmerz, haben wir doch die Erinnerung und die tägliche
Erfahrung des überflüssigen Terrors und der Gewalt.

Minute zu Minute, Stunde um Stunde, Tag für Tag, reflektieren Millionen
unschuldige und anonyme Opfer den gleichen flüchtigen Blick der Grausamkeit,
wenn sie in eigener Haut irrationale Gewalt erleiden mitten in Ruhe und
Teilnahmslosigkeit.

Seit der Dämmerung der Menschheit ist die Dominanz von wenigen und der Kampf um
Macht durch blutige und grausame Schlachten in alle Welten eingedrungen. Es
verletzt uns zu sehen, daß sie nicht gelernt haben in Frieden, Gerechtigkeit und
gegenseitigem Respekt zu leben und damit fortfahren den Boden mit unschuldigen
Blut zu wässern.

Die historische Erinnerung des Lebens in unseren Welten hilft uns, die Größe des
Schmerzes, der Grausamkeit und der Angst zu verstehen, die in die Familien der
unschuldigen Opfer eindringt, weshalb wir unsere tiefe Solidarität mit ihnen
bekunden.

Wir haben die Hoffnung, dass die grausame Erfahrung unserer nordamerikanischen
Brüder und Schwestern ihnen hilft, die Grausamkeit und Absurdität des Mißbrauchs
von militärischer Gewalt zu verstehen und sich eine Solidarität gegen jegliche
Gewalttätigkeit gegen die Zivilgesellschaft kultiviert.

Genau aus diesem Grund verurteilen wir auch Verbrechen wie die Bombardierungen,
die durch die Regierung der USA und ihre Verbündeten der Zivilbevölkerung
angekündigt wurden. Diese übereilten Reaktionen ziehen nur mehr Haß, mehr Gewalt
und mehr Terror nach sich und beschleunigen die systematische Zerstörung des
Planeten.

Unsere Philosophie ist dem Militarismus und jeglicher Dominanz entgegengesetzt.
Wir lieben die Freiheit und die Gleichberechtigung aller Brüdern und Schwestern.
Ziel unseres Kampfes ist es das Leben zu verteidigen. Daher sind wir gegen die
von den Vereinigten Staaten verkündete globale Aktionen eines absurden Krieges.

Cochabamba, 23. September im Jahr 2001

2:

PEOPLES´ GLOBAL ACTION (PGA)

call for action:
Aufruf zu Aktionen gegen den WTO-Gipfel in Katar

Peoples Global Action  ruft weltweit alle sozialen Basisbewegungen, lokalen
Organisationen, Gewerkschaften, Studierendenorganisationen, indianische
Gesellschaften, ImmigrantInnengruppen, BäuerInnenvereinigungen, autonome
Kollektive und überhaupt alle Menschen die am Protest teilnehmen wollen, auf,
vielfältige kreative Aktionen im Protest gegen die Welthandelorganisation (WTO)
während der kommenden Ministerkonferenz vom 9.-13. November 2001 in Doha, Katar
durchzuführen.

Das Ziel der WTO ist einfach: alles loszuwerden, das dem Profit und dem
Freihandel in den Weg kommt, verbunden mit der uneingeschränkten Freiheit von
multinationalen Konzernen, so zu handeln wie sie wollen. Gebildet von 135
Mitgliedsländern, erstellt und überwacht die WTO Handelsrichtlinien und fährt
darin fort, eine Agenda aufzustellen, in der Profit mehr zählt als Mensch und
Natur.

Konfrontiert mit einem rapide wachsenden Widerstand der Menschen gegen die
kapitalistische Globalisierung, flüchtet sich die WTO für ihre kommende Sitzung
in ein isoliertes diktatorisches Wüstenland. Bereits jetzt enthält die Agenda
der WTO drei besonders destruktive Handelsabkommen: die Vereinbarung über
Landwirtschaft (AOA – Agreement on agriculture), die allgemeine Vereinbarung
über Handel und Dienstleistungen (GATS – General Agreement on Trade and
Services) und die handelsbezogenen Rechte an geistigen Eigentum (TRIPS – Trade
Related Intellectual Property Rights). Ihre Themen umfassen:  Privatisierung von
Gesundheit, Ausbildung und Wasser, Patentrechte auf DNA‘s und Entwicklung von
Gen-manipulierten Samen & Nahrungsmitteln (GMO’s) in Mitgliedsländern.

SIE KÖNNEN WEGLAUFEN ABER SIE KÖNNEN SICH NICHT VERSTECKEN:
WIR SIND ÜBERALL – WE ARE EVERYWHERE!

BILDET WELTWEIT WIDERSTAND GEGEN DIE WTO DURCH DIREKTE AKTIONEN UND ZIVILEN
UNGEHORSAM, WOIMMER FÜR FREIHANDEL GEMEINSCHAFTEN ZERSTÖRT UND ÖKOSYSTEME
GEOPFERT WERDEN!

Unabhängig davon, ob die WTO-Sitzung stattfinden wird oder nicht, sind wir in
den Straßen, weil die Straßen unsere sind. Basisorganisationen auf der ganzen
Erde organisieren die folgenden Aktionen und rufen andere auf, dasselbe zu tun:

1) Bewußtseinerzeugende Kampagnen gegen die WTO und die Auswirkungen ihrer
Politik auf globaler und lokaler Ebene: regionale Konsultationen,
Gegen-Veranstaltungen, öffentliche Debatten, Veröffentlichungen.
2) Maximale Unterbrechung der Arbeit der Handelsminister, die an der Konferenz
teilnehmen: Forderung nach Veröffentlichung der auf der Konferenz vertretenen
Standpunkte der Regierung, das Behindern von Kommunikation zwischen Delegierten
und das Blockieren der Abreise von Delegationen, etc.
3) Koordinierte Massenaktionen auf regionaler und internationaler Ebene:
Arbeitsniederlegungen, Straßenblockaden, Besetzen der Börsen und anderer
Geldinstitute (New York, San Francisco, Sao Paolo ...), Befreiung der
Kornvorräte (Indien) am 9. November.
4) Dezentralisierte lokale Aktionen: Landbesetzungen, kreatives Demonstrieren
von Alternativen auf Basisebene, etc. vom 9. bis zum 13.November.



--

_______________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free!
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143



----- Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht -----

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 00:08:55 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: Bauer getoetet in Bolivien

Bauer getoetet in Bolivien

Blockaden drohen in Cochabamba

Der 40jaehrige Bauerngewerkschafter Ramon Perez, der eine Gruppe
von JournalistInnen durch Chapare fuehrte, ein militarisiertes
Gebiet oestlich von Cochabamba, wurde am 27.9. durch Gewehrkugeln
ermordet. Bereits zu Jahresbeginn war es im Coca-Anbaugebiet
Chapare zu Konflikten mit Militaer- und Polizeikraeften gekommen,
die versuchen, die Anbaufelder zu vernichten. Die BaeuerInnen im
Chapare wehren sich gegen die Zerstoerung ihrer Lebensgrundlagen.
Sie haben fuer den 1. Oktober die Blockade der Strasse von
Cochabamba nach Santa Cruz, der groessten Stadt Boliviens, und
anderer Transportwege angekuendigt. Vor einem Jahr dauerte ein
landesweiter Streik 1 ½ Monate. Die Coca-PflanzerInnen plannen
nun eine nerneute Radikalisierung der Mobilisierung.
Gegenueber einer lokalen Zeitung stellte Regierungsminister
Leopoldo Fernandez in einer gnadenlosen Ueberschaetzung des
Netzwerks eine Verbindung her zwischen der soeben beendeten
Konferenz von Peoples’ Global Action und dem erneuten Ausbruch
der Konflikte im Chapare. Als Teil der Konferenz hatten die
Teilnehmenden die Coca-PflanzerInnen im Chapare besucht und einer
Demo mit 25000 Leuten beigewohnt. Sie mussten dazu mehrere
Kontrollen im militarisierten Gebiet pasieren.
Bei dem militaerischen und polizeilichen Hinterhalt in der Naehe
eines Militaerlagers am 27.9. schossen die Soldaten ohne
Vorwarnung und warfen Traenengas. Die JournalistInnen schrien sie
seien von der Opresse, doch erst als ein Bauer von einer
Gewehrkugel getroffen wurde und ein Journalist eine weisse Fahne
hochhielt und um Hilfe fuer den Verletzten bat, hoerten die
Schuesse auf. Die Soldaten riefen einen Helikopter herbei, doch
Ramon Perez verstarb beim Transport.
Evo Morales, Leiter der Coca-PflanzerInnen und Abgeordneter,
machte Regierungspraesident Jorge Quiroga und dessen Kabinett
fuer den Tod des Bauern verantwortlich. Er warf dem Praesidenten
vor, gleichzeitig um sozialen Waffenstillstand zu bitten und mit
Gewehrkugeln den Protest der Coca-PflanzerInen zu
unterdrucken. “Wir hatten die Hoffnung, dass ein ziviler
Praesident anders ssei als ein Militaerpraesident und Dikator
(der ehemlaige Praesident Hugo Banzer Suarez). Wir dachten dass
es Loesungen fuer die Forderungen der Bauern geben wuerde. Aber
wir werden durch Hunger und Kugeln getoetet”, sagte Morales.
Die BaeuerInnen fordern einen Stopp der Zerstoerung der Coca-
Pflanzen und die Freilassung von drei Bauern, denen die
angebliche Ermordung von Soldaten und Polizisten vorgeworfen wird.
Das Cocablatt selbst ist im Gegensatz zum Kokain keine Drige,
sagen die BaeuerInnen. Unter dem Vorwand der Drogenbekaempfung
wurde das Gebiet des Chapare mit US-amerikanischer Unterstuetzung
militarisiert und der Coca-Anbau bekaempft. Die beliebte
Kaupflanze wird fuer die Herstellung von Tee und Medizin
verwendet. Der Preis anderer Anbaupflanzen ist derart tief, dass
die BaeuerInnen nur mit dem Anbau von Coca ueberleben koennen,
dessen Preis stabil geblieben ist. Sie haben nun aus Protest
fuenf Militaerlager umzingelt, mit Macheten bewaffnet, um die
Zerstoerung der Coca-Pflanzen zu beenden.

Indymedia.de
Von: we are everywhere
25.09.2001 01:14


1. Bericht aus Bolivien

Dies hier ist jetzt erstmal ein relativ trockener Konferenzbericht aus
Cochabamba, etwas unverstaendlich fuer jene die PGA-Strukturen nicht so
kennen, sorry - mehr allgemeine Konferenzeindruecke folgen vielleicht Ende
der Woche.

"McDonald';s, Telefonica, aber kein Wasser" steht als Graffiti an der
uebergrossen Christusstatue hoch ueber dem bolivianischen Cochabamba,
Schauplatz des "guerra del agua" (Wasserkrieges). Die gesamte
Wasserversorgung Boliviens wurde an einen US-amerikanischen Konzern
verkauft, der zugleich eine immense Wasserpreiserhoehung ankuendigte
(zunaechst nur 20 Prozent, mit weiteren Erhoehungen (inklusive der Fluesse
und Brunnen auf die LandarbeiterInnen angewiesen sind). Mit
Strassenbarrikaden und anderen Aktionen wehrten sich die BaeuerInnen gegen
die Wasserprivatisierung, und die Proteste legten das gesamte Land lahm.
Die RegierungsvertreterInnen konnten Cochabamba nur noch ueber den Luftweg
erreichen und warfen Flugblaetter aus dem Helikopter mit der Bitte um
Beendigung des Protestes. Damit war erfolgreich die Wasseruebernahme durch
den US-Konzern verhindert worden und heute ist die Wasserversorgung unter
kommunaler Verwaltung der BaeuerInnen.  An diesem geschichtstraechtigen
Ort fand nun vom 16. bis 23. September die 3. Konferenz des Netzwerkes
Peoples' Global Action statt. Ueber 250 Teilnehmende aus fuenf
Kontinenten, von Argentinien bis Ukraine, versammelten sich in Cochabamba,
drittgroesste Stadt Boliviens mit angenehmem Bergklima. Eigentlicher
Auftakt der Konferenz wurde am 19. September gefeiert, und gleich zu
Beginn wurde eine Erklärung zu Gender verlesen, die zuvor in einem
Arbeitskreis erarbeitet worden war. Mehrere Arbeitskreise fanden vom 16.
bis 18. September statt, zu den Themen Plan Colombia/ Plan Dignidad
(Bolivien)/ Plan Pueblo-Panama (Mexiko), Hintergrundberichte zum guerra
del agua, Landrechte, usw.

Bei mehreren Konferenzteilnehmenden wurden aufgrund des Zusammenbroeselns
der World Trade Tuerme in New York und der weiteren Angriffe die bereits
existierenden Visas zurückgezogen. Erst nach heftigem Ringen konnte die
Konferenz doch noch stattfinden. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt war einer der
Konferenzteilnehmenden aus Afrika aber bereits abgeschoben. Die Karawane
aus Bogota wurde bis zum Konferenzende keine Einreise erlaubt, so daß die
Konferenz dezentralisiert wurde: viele der Delegierten aus Ecuador, Peru
und Kolumbien hielten ihre Konferenz unfreiwillig an der Peruanischen
Grenze in Puno ab.

In Cochabamba wurden drei wesentliche Themenbloecke behandelt: die Planung
weiterer globaler Aktionen und neuer Aktionsformen, die Dezentralisierung
der Organisationsprinzipien des Netzwerkes sowie Verbesserung des
Manifests und der fuenf Eckpunkte des Netzwerks. In bezug auf die
bevorstehenden Aktionstage wurde festgestellt, dass diese durch
langfristige globale und regionale Kampagnen ergaenzt werden sollen, da
das vielkritisierte summit-hopping (Gipfelhuepfen) aus verschiedenen
Gruenden an Grenzen stoesst, etwa weil die Konferenzen abgesagt werden
(Washington) oder die Repression massiv zunimmt bis hin zu den Schuessen
und Pruegelszenen von Goeteborg und Genua. Ausserdem sehen insbesondere
Basisbewegungen aus dem Sueden in langfristigen Kampagnen zu konkreten
Themen eine groessere Notwendigkeit als zu spektakulaeren Protesten zu
abstrakten Gipfeln. Geplant werden Kampagnen gegen Staatsterrorismus,
Militarismus und Paramilitarismus (Plan Colombia und andere neoliberale
Plaene), eine Kampagne zu Landrechten, Biopiraterie und Autonomie,
Kampagne gegen alle moeglichen und unmoeglichen Privatisierungen (Wasser,
Gesundheit, usw.) sowie eine zum Aufbau von Alternativen zum
kapitalistischen System mittels alternativer Aus- und Weiterbildung.

Hinsichtlich der fuenf Eckpunkte des Netzwerkes wurde die deutliche
Ablehnung von Kapitalismus und Imperialismus verstaerkt und das Wort
gewaltfrei ersetzt durch die Akzeptanz aller Aktionsformen, allerdings
verknuepft mit Respekt vor Leben. Gerade vor dem Hintergrund der Angriffe
in den USA und der Zunahme der Repression ist es notwendig, eine Spaltung
der Bewegung in gute und boese Demonstrierende zu verhindern und die
Vielfalt der Aktionsformen zu wahren. In diesem Zusammenhang wurde auf der
Konferenz auch eine Erklaerung verfasst, welche ebenfalls und vor allem
den Staatsterrorismus und den geplanten Krieg der USA verurteilt.

Das gesamte Manifest wurde massiv ueberarbeitet, dringend notwendig war
der Einbau einer Genderperspektive, ausserdem mit dem Thema Klimawandel
eine Ergaenzung des Umweltbereichs. Die Kritik der Rolle des Staates im
Kapitalismus wurde wie auch schon bei der zweiten Konferenz im indischen
Bangalore, auf eine Diskussion nach der Konferenz verschoben.

Zu den Organisierungsprinzipien des Netzwerkes wurde Dezentralisierung,
Dezentralisierung und nochmals Dezentralisierung eingefordert. Es wurden
einige strukturelle Aenderungen vorgenommen, um diesem Ziel naeher zu
kommen. Entscheidungen und Koordinierung sollen noch mehr auf regionaler
Ebene erfolgen. Bezüglich des Konzeptes von Convenors wurde beschlossen,
die Convenors zukünftig auf den regionalen Konferenzen zu nominieren
anstatt auf der PGA Konferenz, was den Prozess der Dezentralisierung
verdeutlicht. Auch der Modus der Nominierung wird den regionalen
Konferenzen überlassen.

Im Gegensatz zur vorhergehenden Konferenz in Indien, bei der die hehren
Dezentralisierungsplaene hinterher leider nicht nachhaltig umgesetzt
werden konnten, sehen die Perspektiven jetzt viel besser aus.

Ueberhaupt war die Stimmung auf der Konferenz weitaus besser als in
Bangalore. Es wurde abends ausgiebig gefeiert und getanzt. Die Anzahl der
Teilnehmenden aus dem Norden war relativ gering, die ueberwiegende
Mehrheit kam aus Lateinamerika.


     eMail: agpweb@...
     Homepage: http://www.agp.org

TAKE IT AS A RUMOR!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 10:53:44 +0100
From: "David McKnight" <david@...>
Subject: [StopWTORound] Anti-globalisation and Global Terrorism

So the anti-globalisation movement is right wing, overwhelmingly bent on
violence and has links with the terrorists ? or is that the CIA and the
Italian State ?

Below I have pasted a couple of articles from todays Guardian which might
be of relevance to anyone who wants a better world...

1. Belgian PM stings anti-globalisers
2. Berlusconi breaks ranks over Islam
3. G8 summit may have been Bin Laden target

Peace and solidarity,
David

<snip>

G8 summit may have been Bin Laden target

Rory Carroll in Rome, Jon Henley in Paris and Brian Whitaker
Thursday September 27, 2001
The Guardian

Two months before the attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden
may have been contemplating an aerial attack against world leaders
assembled in Genoa for a G8 summit.

Rumours that the terrorist suspect planned to pack an aircraft with
explosives and launch it at the Ducal palace containing George Bush have
been given weight by the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak.

He said Islamist suicide pilots were originally intended to launch an
attack on the Italian riviera.

"On June 13 of this year, we learned of a communique from Bin Laden saying
he wanted to assassinate Mr Bush and other G8 heads of state during their
summit in Italy. It was a well-known piece of in formation," said
President Mubarak.

On a state visit to Paris, the president told French media that Egypt's
intelligence services had intercepted plans for "an aeroplane stuffed with
explosives" to plunge into Genoa. A warning was passed to the US, he said.

When they installed a missile defence system at Genoa's airport in July
and enforced a no-fly zone, the Italian authorities were derided, but now
they feel vindicated.

After President Mubarak went public, Italy's deputy prime minister,
Gianfranco Fini, confirmed that his own intelligence services had briefed
him about the threat. They were expecting a small civilian aircraft with
the range to fly from dozens of European airports, not a passenger jet.

"Many people joked about the Italian intelligence force. But actually,
they had information that in Genoa there was the hypothesis of an attack
on the American president with the use of an aeroplane. That is why we
closed the airspace above Genoa and installed anti-aircraft missiles.
Those who joked should now reflect," Mr Fini said.

In addition to President Bush and Vladimir Putin, the July 20-22 summit of
the seven most industrialised countries plus Russia gathered the leaders
of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan.

Days before the summit the head of Mr Putin's personal protection force,
General Yevgeni Murov, told the Russian news agency Itar-Tass that the US
and Russian presidents were at risk. "Bin Laden utters threats to the US
president," he was quoted as saying.

Italian media at the time also reported that Germany's intelligence
service had relayed to Rome notice of a Bin Laden plot. That prompted the
former CIA chief, Vincent Cannistrano, to hypothesise about an attack at
the time deemed fanciful: "It would be simple to put explosives in a toy
plane and fly it into a room full of dignitaries."

The Egyptian president told Le Figaro that his knowledge was based on a
video made by Bin Laden on June 13. "It spoke of assassinating President
Bush and other heads of state in Genoa. It was a question of an aeroplane
stuffed with explosives. These precautions then had been taken."

However, in a twist which casts doubt on President Mubarak, the New York
Times reported that people who have viewed the tape said there was no
reference to stuffing an aircraft with explosives or killing Mr Bush.

The British government was unable to confirm that there had been a threat
to attack the Genoa summit.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:32:11 +0200
From: Erik Wesselius <erik225@...>
To: StopWTORound <StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: erik225@...
Subject: [StopWTORound] Supachai proposes to postpone WTO summit

Some newswires on the statements that designate WTO director general Supachai
Panitchpakdi
made yesterday:

New WTO trade round vital after Seattle, says Supachai
New Zealand Herald; Sep 25, 2001

BY BRIAN FALLOW, ECONOMICS EDITOR

25.09.2001 It is essential that the world's trade ministers "keep their date" to
launch a new multilateral trade round at Doha, says the Director-General
designate of
the World Trade Organisation, Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi.

Dr Supachai, who takes over from Mike Moore as WTO Director-General in September
next
year, is in New Zealand for talks with the Government and to address a
conference on
Asia in Auckland today.

Trade ministers are due to gather in Doha, capital of the Gulf state of Qatar,
on
November 9 to launch a new negotiating round - having failed to do so in Seattle
in
late 1999.

"If ever there was a time that a global conference was needed it is such a time
as
this, a time of great fear and uncertainty, when people have doubts about the
consequences of globalisation," Dr Supachai said.

In Geneva, ambassadors to the WTO and its secretariat under Mr Moore had been
doing
their best to rebuild confidence, after the failure in Seattle.

"I think we are close to achieving our goals. We should eliminate most of the
brackets [representing areas where agreement has not yet been reached] out of
the
text before the Doha meeting, leaving the final touches for the ministers." It
was
important the round was not open-ended. It should be concluded within three
years, Dr
Supachai said.

That might mean that some areas, such as drafting international rules on
competition
policy and investment, needed to be pursued down a different track, allowing
negotiators to focus on market access issues.

Stickiest of the remaining sticking points is the issue of trade and
environment,
which developing countries see as a threat of backdoor protectionism. The
European
Union had already adjusted its position, but further clarification was needed,
Dr
Supachai said.

Incentives, rather than trade sanctions, were needed for countries to improve
their
environmental performance.

On agriculture, New Zealand and other agricultural exporting countries are
pressing
for agreement to curb the use of export subsidies.

"The EU fully understands the need to move on implementing their reforms [to the
common agriculture policy]," Dr Supachai said.

In a compromise solution to a fiercely fought race, Dr Supachai succeeds Mr
Moore for
the second half of the Director-General's six-year term.

----------------------------------------------------------

Call for full turnout at WTO meeting

Business Times (Malaysia); Sep 25, 2001

BY SITI HAJJAR SULAIMAN IN WELLINGTON

WELLINGTON, Mon: Full attendance at the World Trade Organisation's (WTO)
Ministerial
Conference in Doha, Qatar in November is needed for a show of solidarity in
light of
the terrorist attacks in the US and amid talks of global recession.

WTO director-general designate and former Thai Deputy Prime Minister Dr Supachai
Panitchpakdi said, "if there is ever a time to attend a global conference, the
fourth
Ministerial Conference in Doha is it".

"When faced with the tragedies of events such as anti-globalisation protests,
the
recent alarming terrorist actions and the disintegration of some modern
societies, it
is best that we try to get our act together," he said at a press conference here
after holding meetings with New Zealand Cabinet ministers including Prime
Minister
Helen Clark and Trade Negotiations Minister Jim Sutton.

Supachai said delegates to the upcoming WTO November 9-13 conference in Doha
could
not afford to have a second Seattle.

Trade talks failed at the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle in 1999.

Asked what sort of effects the terrorists' attacks might have on globalisation,
Supachai said the impact is likely to be short-term.

"Immediate reaction by those affected is that they have initiated measures that
would
cement stability and confidence domestically such as tighter security in
airports."

However, WTO could not predict the long-term effects of the actions taken by
different governments due to the attacks, Supachai said.

"But we could help counter the attacks by sticking to our respective agendas.
Even
WTO members must stick to that," he added.

Supachai was also asked about whether the Doha Ministerial Conference would pose
a
security threat to delegates.

"Location-wise, Doha is in a dangerous locality due to recent tragic events.
Nevertheless, we should not change the venue of the conference. If anything is
to be
changed, my personal opinion is that the conference dates should be set at a
later
date," he said.

Supachai, who will succeed New Zealand's Mike Moore as WTO director- general on
September 1 next year, is on a four-day visit to New Zealand on the invitation
of the
Asia-focused agency called Asia 2000 Foundation of New Zealand.

Supachai is one of the international speakers at the one-day Asia Forum in
Auckland
tomorrow, including former Prime Minister of South Korea, Lee Hong Koo; Credit
Suisse
Boston (Singapore) managing director Pote Videt; and Alan Carroll, executive
chairman
of the Pacific Rim Forum.

The Forum, organised for the third time by Asia 2000, will bring together
business
and government leaders to look at where Asia stands today.

Prime Minister Helen Clark will attend and chair a session on corporate
strategies
for dealing with emerging trends in the region, and following the day's
discussion,
there will be a dinner, which Miss Clark will co- host, for around 300 invited
guests
at which Dr Supachai, also an Honorary Advisor to Asia 2000, will be a keynote
speaker.

Earlier, Jim Sutton, who is also Minister of Agriculture, said Supachai's role
as the
next WTO leader will be of significance and bring benefits to Thailand, New
Zealand
and the developing countries particularly on the subject of the reduction and
elimination of export subsidies of agricultural products that will only come
with the
initiation of a new Round.

"We believe the WTO Ministerial Conference in Qatar scheduled this November must
take
place as planned and needs to be successful. We also believe that it is
important for
the WTO to address the concerns of developing countries and ensure their
effective
and active participation in the work of the WTO," he said.

----------------------------------------------------------

WTO summit in Qatar still set to proceed No changes in venue, agenda or
schedules

Bangkok Post - Thailand; Sep 25, 2001

BY SARITDET MARUKATAT AND AGENCIES

The World Trade Organisation summit scheduled for Nov 9-13 in Qatar will go
ahead as
planned, with more than 100 ministers expected to attend, deputy
director-general
P.H. Ravier said yesterday.

The ministerial conference would take place in Doha on schedule as long as no
members
suggested a change of plan, he said.

''It's only [up to] the members to decide,'' he told a representatives of
developing
countries preparing for the conference yesterday in Bangkok.

Security concerns in the wake of the attacks on the United States had led to
talk
about the possible postponement of the talks in the Middle Eastern country.
There is
also a growing concern about the fate of the new global trade round expected to
be
declared in Qatar.

Thailand joined the co-organisers of yesterday's gathering, the United Nations
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, and the UN Conference
on
Trade and Development (Unctad), in calling for better treatment for poorer
countries.
Failing that, the international community could see attempts to introduce the
new
round of trade talks collapse.

''Negotiations, starting with their launching, will succeed or fail essentially
on
the basis of two crucial issues: agriculture and implementation,'' Unctad
secretary-general Rubens Ricupero warned in a speech read by a representative.

Mr Ricupero cited textiles and market access among the issues from the previous
Uruguay Round that had yet to be implemented.

Commerce Minister Adsai Bodharamik said failure to launch the new round would
jeopardise the WTO and international trade confidence.

Success in its launching, he added, would require WTO member states to ``do our
utmost to make sure that the agenda will fully and effectively address the
existing
global imbalances and that it will be nothing less than a Development Round''.

Kim Hak-su, the Escap executive secretary, called for more opportunities for
less-developed members in the world trade regime and more unity among them.

''All too often in the past, common interests gave way to narrowly focused
national
interests, thus resulting in divided and weak negotiating positions among
developing
countries,'' he said.

The Bangkok meeting coincided with the announcement that the drafting of a
ministerial declaration was under way in Geneva.

Delegates from Hong Kong, which currently chairs the WTO general council, and
director-general Mike Moore are expected to complete the document by
mid-October,
sources said.

Representatives of Thailand and India stressed the need for the draft
declaration,
which could be an indicator of whether the new round is possible, to be clear,
with
no hidden agendas.

Thailand wanted to see a clear and concise document, with an appropriate balance
of
issues, said Boontipa Simaskul, director-general of the Business Economics
Department.

Mr Ravier said the WTO was trying to avoid repeating the mistakes made in
Seattle _
where the previous ministerial meeting flopped _ by leaving too many issues but
too
little time for ministers to sort out their differences.

Supachai Panitchpakdi, who will succeed Mr Moore as the WTO director-general in
September next year, agreed that the attacks in America would make launching the
new
round more difficult.

Speaking in Wellington, he said the unpredictable environment was eroding
political
will for sweeping new trade talks.

''It [the attack] has made the launch of the round more difficult but at the
same
time has made the launch of the round more relevant, much more needed than
before,''
Dr Supachai said.

Thailand's former deputy prime minister said instability sparked by the attacks
had
made nations look inward _ focusing on domestic matters such as security, energy
supply and banking solidity _ rather than outward to creating a stronger trading
system.

''It will make it more difficult because you need political consensus,'' Dr
Supachai
said.

Copyright © Asia Intelligence Wire



You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:35:59 +0200 (MEST)
From: Juergen Knirsch <Juergen.Knirsch@...>
To: anro0002@...
Subject: [StopWTORound] Doha Postponement ???

Dear all

Please find enclosed the reaction of a WTO Spokesman regarding  Supachai's
statement of a postponement of the WTO Ministerial.
Greetings, Juergen


Ministerial Meeting in Qatar, Push For New Round Still on, WTO Says

BRUSSELS--No country has called for the postponement of the upcoming World
Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar where efforts will be
made to launch a new round of trade liberalization, WTO Spokesman Keith
Rockwell stated Sept. 24.

Speaking at a press conference here, Rockwell, in response to a statement
by the next WTO director-general Supachai Panitchpakdi that the Doha
meeting could be postponed by a month, said that no WTO member country has
asked that the planned meeting in Qatar be postponed because of the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

"No one has said they will not be coming," said Rockwell. "As far as we are
concerned, the Doha meeting will take place as planned. The consensus is
that we should go forward. No one has said in a formal way to the
director-general that the meeting should not take place as planned.

"The chances for a successful launch might even be enhanced," added
Rockwell. Later in the press conference, he said: "while all countries have
one problem or another with various aspects or issues for launching a
round, no has said they do not want to go forward with a new round."

The WTO spokesman also said that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the
United States have raised awareness of the need for easier access of
developing countries goods to the markets of more developed countries and
forother measures to help developing countries export more.

European Union

Speaking of the European Union's hope for a comprehensive round, Rockwell
said the EU has won a lot of support for the idea of principles rather than
rules to be agreed when it comes to competition and investment.  "However,
much work is still needed when it comes to issues such as anti-dumping,
agriculture and textiles," Rockwell said, the EU supports a comprehensive
round.

One of the most sensitive issues in the agriculture sphere concerns EU
export subsidies as well as EU  demands for measures to support animal
welfare. When it comes to environment issues, the most problematic issue
concerns the EU insistence that the precautionary principle be accepted by
all WTO members.

WTO Reporter, 25/09/2001, Copyright © 2001 by The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.

====================================================
Juergen Knirsch

Greenpeace
Internationaler Handel/International Trade & WTO

Grosse Elbstrasse 39
D-22767 Hamburg

Tel. +49 (0) 40  / 306 18 - 393 (oder/or - 0)
Fax + 49 (0) 40 / 306 31 - 284 (oder/or 306 18 130)

Email: juergen.knirsch@...
www.greenpeace.de
====================================================




You can post messages to StopWTORound at this e-mail address:
<StopWTORound@yahoogroups.com>

No attachments (Word documents etc.) are allowed on this list.

This is a moderated list.
It may take some time before your posting is distributed.

You can unsubscribe from this group by sending an empty email to:
<StopWTORound-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 04:35:36 EDT
From: SIUHIN@...
To: actionla@...
Subject: [S26-global] National Anti-Capitalist Anti-War Protest Sept 29,
Washington DC.

National Anti-Capitalist Anti-War Protest Sept 29
From: Chuck@...
Please forward!
For immediate release
September 20, 2001

For more information: info@...

Anti-Capitalist Convergence Issues New Call to Action

The Anti-Capitalist Convergence is continuing our mobilization in
Washington DC September 24 through October 1.  We are calling for a
march against the growing capitalist war on Saturday morning September
29th and invite all those interested in creating a world free from
terror, hate, racism, poverty and war to demonstrate our unity and
vision for a better world.

For the past 5 months we have been organizing a mass mobilization
against the fall meetings of the IMF and World Bank because of their
role in enforcing global capitalism.  In the process of this organizing
we have been working to strengthen our community by making the
connections between capitalism and issues local to dc.  We had been
planning a large, diverse and beautiful protest and were optimistic that
these demonstrations would be a groundbreaking step for the
Anti-Capitalist movement.

Like most people we were shocked by the events of September 11th and
stopped mid-action, mid-thought, our lives interrupted and forever
changed. The enormity of this crisis has affected us all.  The IMF and
World Bank have cancelled their meetings and many groups have called off
their events. The political climate in the United States has severely
changed, emotions are running high and the country is extremely tense.
In recent days we have seen the militarization of our city, increasingly
blatant racist attacks and blind patriotism. Media hysteria and
government rhetoric are pushing people to unite through religious
bigotry and nationalism.  Security, particularly here in Washington, DC,
has been heightened as the country prepares to go to war.

The US government has failed to recognize the nterconnectedness of all
the forms of violence.  Bombing, encouragement of dictatorships,
sweatshops for benefit of US corporations, third world debt, world
hunger or lack of shelter and healthcare are all forms of violence.  The
fear and desperation that grows from poverty and oppression is crucial
to any understanding of violence throughout the world.  35,000 people
die from starvation each day even though there is enough food to feed
all.   Terror is still terror whether it is from death from starvation,
fear of enslavement by corporations or fear of bombs or airplanes
falling.  Until we understand the violence of our economic, military and
foreign policies, we will continue to foster the conditions that make
this kind of terrorism possible.

We demand that no more terror or violence be perpetrated in our name. We
are a movement devoted to social justice. There is no justice to be
found in retribution, war, racism, corporate globalization or capitalism
itself. We condemn any and all retaliation and religious persecution of
Arab, Arab American and Muslim peoples and we oppose any attack on our
constitutional rights. We will not hand over our civil liberties to the
greater good of
the State.

We strongly see the need to come together and act on our visions of the
world we want to create and not on our fears.  Though we came together
against the Bank and Fund what we came together for is even more
important now. We want to continue to mobilize, though we are all
uncomfortable carrying forth in the way we planned. The tactics that
were ideal to the original situation will not have the same effects at
this time.  We are no longer calling militant blocs or actions.  We will
take action to inspire, motivate and demonstrate that a world based on
needs not profit; a world of mutual support; a world free from
oppression is possible. This is a time to come together in true
solidarity, in a way that supports all those working for a better world.

Our plans include a convergence week starting with the opening of the
Anti-Capitalist Convergence Welcome Center on Monday, September 24.  All
week long we will engage in skill shares, art, organizing meetings and
outreach.  At a time when many people think that war is the answer to
violence talking to our neighbors will be a revolutionary act. We plan a
Community Dialogue with people about what is happening in the world by
asking them Why?  We will continue to make connection between critical
local issues like the lack of housing and healthcare and global
capitalism.

On Saturday morning we will hold Anti-Capitalist March Against Hate.
That afternoon we will establish our Temporary Autonomous Zone to
support and provide for ourselves in a caring and inclusive way.  It
will be a hate free zone, a war free zone, and a capitalist free zone.
We encourage everyone to make a contribution whether it be a class for
the free school, offering basic medical support, drumming, clothing
swap, skill shares, performance, strategic discussions, food and more!

Saturday evening we are extending an invitation to friends and neighbors
to join together in a “Food Not Bombs� Community Dinner.  When the
state’s pro-war rhetoric claims that "America takes care of it's own"
yet spends billions on a war when many of its people go to sleep hungry
and homeless it’s time for a change.  We want to model that change.

We urge people to take action together in Washington DC.   Taking action
at home is equally important, however.   If you cannot come to
Washington, organize an action, talk to people in your neighborhood or
set up your own autonomous zone.  People are rising up everywhere saying
no to hate and no to war.  Join with anti-capitalists and other around
the world as we take action for justice!

Website: http://www.abolishthebank.org/

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:            "Black Overalls" <tute_nere@...>
To:              a-infos-en@...
Subject:         (en) US, Washington, Statement For Bloc in DC]
Send reply to:   a-infos-en@...
Date sent:       Sun, 23 Sep 2001 01:48:00 -0400 (EDT)

  ________________________________________________
       A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
             http://www.ainfos.ca/
  ________________________________________________

<<Revolutionaries, still converge on Washington DC>>

Despite the recent developments on the 11th, we must move forward, in fact
this time is critical to express the connections between Capitalism,
American Imperialism and Anti-American Sentiment, as well as to show strong
opposition to the State's response to these 'attacks' and the coming war.

We respect the fact that now is not time for Offensive action. However it is
important for us to use this opportunity to show we are not the Terrorists
the state make us out to be, that the simple fact is Capitalism is the
creator and perpetuator of terror.

We call for those planning to come for the Revolutionary Anti-Capitalist
Bloc and the Offensive bloc to still come under the banner: Anarchism Not
Terrorism: for the March against hate, war, profit and poverty on Saturday,
the 29th of September.

Now is the time to dispel the myths about the 'Black Bloc'. We are ready to
march in Solidarity with the others converging on Washington DC and respect
their wishes, but will not be intimidated by the militarization and upsurge
in patriotism to change our politics. We will march aware that certain
tactics are not appropriate at this time and that the safety of the March
and the people with in the March is critical. But We will and must continue
on in this Struggle.>>


______________________________________________________________________
The Tute Nere Collective is in full support of the Anti-Capitalist
Convergence. We respect their work on creating this march and their wishes
and goals for the demonstration. This statement is not meant to undermine or
'endanger' the march and the ACC's organizing in any way. ~Tute Nere
Collective Washington DC

------------------------------------
caravan99@...
subscription:
mail to caravan99-request@...
with command in body of mail: subscribe/unsubscribe