Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSeparate and Not Equal-- the G8 Reveals our Apartheid Style Democracy
By the time you read this, another G8 summit meeting will be over. And, to quote the ever-quotable Shakespeare, it will once again have been a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Every year since 1975 the heads of the same states (with the more recent addition of Russia) meet to discuss ways to further their control over the rest of the world, including their own citizens, a fact which has become even more apparent at this year's lockdown-style get-together. And every year since 2001, when an Italian protester was murdered by police, it is a sort of annual scrimmage between citizens and organisations which aim to change the status quo, whether for the good of the environment, the poor, the war-torn or diseased, and the not -so-thin blue line of heavily armoured police who are apparently protecting democracy from itself. In short, the G8 is and remains a meeting free from any sort of consultation with either the heads of those states who will be greatly affected by the decisions made (read African and developing nations), or the citizens the G8 leaders claim to represent.
It can also be viewed as a sort of party under Apartheid-- the tiny number of "haves" sit in luxury behind a €12million fence and a police-enforced "protester free zone" 5 km outside the barbed-wire, while the great masses wishing for change or to at least have some sort of inclusion in the decision-making process, sleep in tents and are bullied by armed men in Darth Vader costumes, but both sides attempt to reach conclusions as to the way the world and their own part in it should progress, and both attempt to enjoy the meeting as much as possible.
On the agenda this year, curiously on both sides of the barbed wire fence, was climate change. Greenpeace demanded immediate action, not words, studies and empty promises. Grass roots groups across Europe, from Denmark, Italy, Sweden, and all parts of Germany, rode to the meeting by bicycle to show their own commitment to this issue.Those who could not do so travelled mainly in packed buses or trains (I was one of the latter). Inside the luxury zone, though, was a different story. Bush, purportedly representing the US, came with his own special agenda-- move away from enforced and concrete goals on carbon emissions and to a new, American-style system wherein each country should set its own goals voluntarily, and enforce them on the honour system. Business leaders were of course quick to praise this brainchild for its flexibility and business-friendliness. In the end, the result was the same as every year; the assembled leaders essentially agreed to talk about this issue again later, with no concrete goals set. If global warming was on the agenda, clearly it was not an "action item".
The firm carbonfootprint.com has even assessed the total carbon emissions that each country's delegation to the meeting made. The rather predictable result is that the US delegation, much like its own citizens, was the most polluting. In fact, its carbon emissions were greater than any other country's delegation, in some cases exponentially. While Japan tried to offset this pollution by tree-planting programmes, the US has, predictably, no such plan. So while the assembled leaders at the luxury hotel in Heiligendamm spoke at length about their commitment to fighting global warming, their total carbon footprint for the 3-day meeting was more pollution than even 198 average Americans cause in an entire year. Meanwhile outside the newly erected Apartheid fence, a 16,000 strong police force used such environmentally-friendly methods as armoured vehicles with water cannons and helicopters to prevent the bicycle riders from disturbing the important deliberations inside.
Much of the talking was also diverted by Mr Bush's various preparations for future wars. The missile system he plans to install in the Czech Republic and Poland was viewed as a threat to Russia (funnily enough), and discussions on this topic were heard more in the international news than the topics originally slated for debate. Make no mistake, a new arms race and cold war are indeed pressing issues, but the interesting thing here is who is doing the pressing. This move was initiated solely by the Bush regime, without consultation of even the other G8 members, turning this year's meeting into a Russian babushka doll: Bush and Putin in the centre, followed by the rest of the G8 leaders, and finally the huddled masses outside the fence, yearning to breathe free, and preferably unpolluted air.
The agenda outside the fence remained unchanged throughout the conference; make our voices heard. This seemingly simple motto has become increasingly difficult, however, in an increasingly polarised world of haves and have-nots, and not only of wealth but also of rights and power. While previously the right to peaceful assembly was guaranteed by the German constitution, this year marked a special exception. The only demonstration allowed was in Rostock, some 20 km away from the actual meeting place, and some three days earlier. Even this assembly was met with massive resistance from police, and resulted in the typical clashes with stone throwing and cars set ablaze on the one side, and pepper spray, water cannons and billy clubs from the police. Later in the week protesters would try again to get near the actual discussion, using bolt cutters to get through the fence, and imposing sit blockades of the streets to Heiligendamm. All of these measures were met with rapid and harsh resistance from the police, who quickly made matters clear: if you aim to stop global warming, you'd better arrive on a jumbo jet. Bicycle riders must wait outside the fence, please.
Daniel Vallin is a writer who lives in Europe.
22 Comments so far
Show All"iwarrior: Depends on what historical legacy Gore wants to make for himself. Does he want to go down in history as the first president-elect of neither the Democrats or Republicans in 150 years, or not?"
Thing is, in the 2000 race, I didn't think Gore did much to disprove the theory that the D's aren't much different than the R's. That's why I'm not real high on him. But he does obviously care about environmental issues which I suppose would make him a natural for the Greens. And the environment is the biggest issue of them all.
"It's nonsense to suggest that the Greens were responsible for Bush's rise in '00. We're all compelled to vote our consciences. If our conscience says Green, then we're responsible for voting Green — no more, no less. If anyone's to blame, it's the 25% or so of Americans who didn't bother to vote, not the 5% who voted Green. Or the increasingly clear fact that the ballot box was stuffed anyway."
Oh, I'm not suggesting that Nader was a spoiler at all. But as evidenced on comments made here on this site, the perception is there. Plus, Gore is most closely associated with the D's, and we all know how Nader has taken them to task.
But if they did decide to team-up as Greens, I would consider giving them my vote for their ecological agenda alone.
As the term "apartheid" implies, let's not forget the racial implications of US foreign policy and the policies of other G8 countries and the international financial institutions. We are definitely up against a system of global apartheid. For more analysis on global apartheid and most importantly, to take action to stop it, visit http://africaaction.org/resources/globalapartheid.php .
Gore/Nader, Gore/Gravel, Gore/Kucinich, or Gore/Paul, all running on the Green Party ticket. Some hard to beat combinations if Gore runs for the Greens.
Have many people noticed the US establishment's new deception with the word "non-binding" to describe agreements? Of course it means bullshit.
So when you hear about a non-binding agreement, it is actually a bullshit agreement.
I heard that the G-8 leaders agreed upon a "non-binding agreement" to reduce greenhouse gases significantly by 2050.
The "leadership" of the USA and Israel are truly like characters in a horror story.
They couldn't be much more appalling.
But how lesser is their evil? They are united with the Rethugs in foreign policy. They refuse to enact genuine campaign finance reform, eliminate closed-source and easily-fiddled electronic voting machinery, will not enact Range or IRV vote.
Clinton granted most-favored status to China, despite criticizing King George I over doing so. They have not shut down the School of the Americas, they shamelessly did nothing while genocide was underway in Rwanda, they got us into Vietnam, they never went after Bush Sr. for lying about being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra, they refuse to impeach Bush, they've not restored habeas corpus, and so on.
Probably most of this country's ills are, arguably, the fault of the Democrats. People have for far too long sent false hope in their direction. It's been a good crook / bad crook arrangement for decades -- if not since the onset. The best thing for this country would be for hope to congeal or accumulate around the real McCoy, whoever or whatever party it may be. The Dims have had their chance, and with the possible exception of Paul Wellstone they are largely not par for the course. People shouldn't pin any more hope on them, unless they can clean up their primaries and allow someone like Kucinich to actually float to the top. Until then, it's bait-and-switch as usual. Obama & Hillary will be another vote for Zionism, imperialism, furthering US hatred, adding fuel to the terrorist cause, boondoggle attempts at health care, etc.
They'll need to get more creative with their rhetorical devices, since the substance behind their rhetoric is as thin as the atmosphere on Mars.
What is it with everyone and the Green Party????? Do you think there is a magic bullet out there for you that is going to solve all our problems????? I don't think Al Gore will ever be talked into running for any other party than Democrats. If he can be talked into that! I personally don't think he will be. He was burnt very badly in 2000 when the Supreme Court handed Bush the election on a silver platter. All of you should have been out there then demonstrating against the hijacking of the election. Demanding all the votes in Florida be counted. If enough of us would have been out there, they would have to listen! A third party candidate never wins a general election! Most American's will not support them. All you people will do is to put another Republican into office with your nonsense! That won't solve a damned thing but destroy what is left of this great country! That's what the Republican's are counting on, a lot of you disgrutled Democrat's to put them back in office by throwing your vote away on a third party. Even though I can not say that I am the slightest bit happy with them. I will personally vote Democratic like I always do. They are the least of the evils out there right at this moment.
zoya:
About two weeks ago, I read on the MSM somewhere that Al was considering running as Green Party candidate. Haven't heard from Al yet though. That's a winning combination. Al, are you listening?
I want to pull the best minds together in the Green Party-Gravel, Nader, Ritter, Ron Paul, Kuchnich(sp), Chomski, we need talent from a variety of fields.
Can the "money party" and create a "people party".
This writer is a new one for me, and I hope to see his byline more often on CommonDreams. Very savvy, sense of humor, but with serious intention to give a reader the full picture of what was going on at the G8.
Eminently forwardable to anyone who's not clear on why this is 'democracy' talk is such a farce.
Zoya:
While I disagree with the assumption that none of us are innocent on a scale that includes the likes of Al Gore, I think your solution to the Green Party problem is perhaps the best I have heard. The most workable. A plan with real potential for success. I wonder if the Green Party could make this one compromise--soliciting the work of a prostitute--and then, with national credibility gained, still remember to have a soul. I have written extensively on the impossibility of trusting Al Gore and why I would never vote for him as a presidential candidate, but I will rescind my vow if Al goes Green. Thanks for one of the most original, innovative and practical ideas I've read in a long time! What do you think Greens? Can you use the machine and not become it? I'm calling my local chapter on Monday to see if we can't start some movment.
RE: zoya
Here! Here! I second this emotion! In 2001 at the anti-inaugural festivities my sign was simply "Re-Elect Gore!" He was elected in 2000 by a clear majority of Americans but was robbed by the Bush cabal with the help of Baker and the whores on the Supreme Court. He deserves his re-election bid and he shall have it if he wants it. We are waiting to see him emerge. To lead us back to the free world.
In these days of the twilight of empire, I think we need to have a little talk about this neocon notion of America's right to lead the world. I do not think that the US power elite -- the American State, owned and operated by its corporate class -- can lead the world, no matter how many G8 meetings an American president can hijack. But I do believe that the American people can -- and often do -- lead the world. I say that as a Canadian born and bred in America's greatest imperial success. The US Green Party has just put out a press release inviting all disillusioned anti-war Democrats to switch to the Greens. Why not broker some kind of deal between Al Gore and the Greens. And don't give me that crap that Gore isn't pure enough to lead the Green Party in 2008. There is no such thing as "pure": nobody's innocent here. Y'all are looking for Mr. Perfect Candidate -- someone with Clinton's political skills and Chomsky's understanding of what needs to be done. Well, that candidate ain't gonna appear. And even if he/she did, he/she would never get elected. And, if elected, would soon join JFK, RFK, and MLK in a martyr's death. So get your heads out of that warm-and-fuzzy American Dream, form some kind of a coalition to get Gore and the Greens negotiating a compromise, and get that third party off the ground for 2008. Show the world what it REALLY means for America to lead.
There are competent and capable G-8 leaders (e.g. Merkel) who wish to preserve as much power and privilege to the elites as possible without creating a significant risk of revolution of some sort, and then there are the ignorant and incompetent G-8 leaders (e.g. Bush) who, through their clumsiness and obtuseness, inadvertently provide insight to the masses as to the true purposes of such gatherings and the policies that result.
"The agenda outside the fence remained unchanged throughout the conference; make our voices heard."
Right - because the "haves" are unaware of the state of the real world? "They" hear "our" voices loud and clear - the insurmountable challenge is to make them give a sh*t.
And - after how many decades of hoping that THIS TIME the leopard sharks will change their spots? - it's time to face the hard, ugly truth: we are on our own.
To the few on commondreams (from other lands) who blame our nation's citizens for the abysmal power plans of our "leaders," let this article serve as a metaphor. Committed persons are not being allowed to speak or influence power, and power, in the form of corporate masters is silencing all dissent or merely marginalizing to the point of exclusion. This MODEL is moving across the world with a few notable (South America) exceptions. It is the enemy to freedom, the sustainability of intrinsic ecosystems, and basic justice. It is a formidable force, armed and dangerous, increasingly in control of all media channels, and quite adept at using words that convey cozy, comforting slogans while RAPING citizens one way or another. Short of a stampede of the multitudes, and/or nature shifting the great balance, it's very difficult to envision what will seize power back from the corrupt forces that hold its reins presently.
I only have one word to describe this situation: DISGUSTING. But may the will of the masses prevail.
I could see a GP Gore/Nader ticket probably gaining inroads. But in order for Gore to get GP endorsement he'd have to be re-baptised in a sense. It would take serious convincing to sway rank-and-file progressive Democrats and GP. Picking Liebermann as a running mate or appearing with the Clintons at fundraisers would not a winning ticket make. Indeed, it would just smear the GP, and divide the Dems/GP 50/50 instead of 95/5.
In order to pull it off, he'd need a GP insider as a VP running mate, and probably a present a short-list of folks for the various cabinets of progressive people in order to convince us.
But I think it's possible. Gore's got the name recognition with middle-america. But I can't read him any more. Was he a a sock-puppet -- or hostage -- to the DLC and MIC? If Gore were let loose would he be Gore, or just another bait-and-switch Dimocrat?
I definitely agree. We definitely need a viable 3rd party. This Iraq disaster has handed potential 3rd parties a rare opportunity for growth.
The Democratic Party must be brought crashing down. So important is this that even if a Republican wins the White House again as a result of a 3rd party splitting the vote with Democrats, the Democrats still must be punished by a 3rd party. The Democrats, especially the "electable" ones hardly seem any different from the Republicans.
Let's not forget how much the media trashed Gore back in 2000 and he won anyway. He was regularly called "too liberal" an "environmental extremist", all the while he was anything but.
Failing at the federal level, a 3rd Party(perhaps the Greens) can concentrate their energy at the state level, and slowly build up to the point where they can be taken seriously. We cannot miss out on this rare historical opportunity!
"I could see a GP Gore/Nader ticket probably gaining inroads."
Ya think? You don't think they each carry a bit of baggage. How about the whole thing with Nader being blamed for spoiling Gore's chance of winning? I don't think Nader wants to even walk on the same side of the street as Gore.
frank1569 - I wish we were on our own. These fascist pigs are at the trough just to make sure there is no room for millions of poor people.
iwarrior: Depends on what historical legacy Gore wants to make for himself. Does he want to go down in history as the first president-elect of neither the Democrats or Republicans in 150 years, or not?
It's nonsense to suggest that the Greens were responsible for Bush's rise in '00. We're all compelled to vote our consciences. If our conscience says Green, then we're responsible for voting Green -- no more, no less. If anyone's to blame, it's the 25% or so of Americans who didn't bother to vote, not the 5% who voted Green. Or the increasingly clear fact that the ballot box was stuffed anyway.
As for building a bridge between the progressive rank-and-file democrats and the Greens -- if Nader won't do it, then someone else. But there should be no compromise. The Green Ten Key Values are clear, cohesive & consistent. The Democratic Party platform is not. Time to abandon it.
I'm an exDem as of 2002 when they jumped into bed with Bush. If the Green Party can recruit a viable candidate like Gore, I'll switch over immediately. Good idea, Zoya.