The Global Justice Movement, Global Resistance, anti globalization, anti-corporate globalization, alter-globalization, movements of movements….

Does it still exist?
Did we learn anything?
Should we kill it?

by- M.S.G. from Translocal Productions

On May 18 Paul Wolfowitz announced his resignation from the World Bank after a series of scandals. This was seen as at least a partial victory by many opponents of neo-liberalism. The man who symbolized for a few years the unity of current ‘pre-emptive’ imperialism with the structures of international finance came tumbling down in shame. Beyond the personal dramas of the scandal itself though, what became even clearer is that the World Bank (WB) itself is scrambling to reorganize itself with a new reduced role in the global market.

The WB, which symbolized so much for a few years and centered so much energy for people engaged in global resistance activism, now looks like a fumbling giant, unsure how, or unable, to stand up again as it once did.

Additionally since putting some of these ideas to paper, the G8 summit took place in Germany and has lead to a flurry of report backs debates on whether the global movement exists, what it can do, if its useful, etc.

We wanted to take this opportunity to reflect on Global Resistance (as we prefer to call it at times) and what it may have meant or may still mean. While these events are unfolding- for personal and work related reasons we’re living now in Europe where we have recently heard the official death of the Global Justice Movement proclaimed several times (for example in a radial social movements newspaper in Spain, at an international gathering in Italy…) While to a degree its something many of us had thought, we had never heard it declared in such an official manner in the US, especially given the G8 protests in Germany. But that proclamation didn’t come out of thin air. Often enough in fact it was made by people, journals, etc. who had been or are involved in those movements. The shocking intensity of the movement around the year 2000 seems to be equaled by the shock (even if many of us felt it deep down) of how ephemerous it was.

What does it mean to proclaim the death of this movement? As young activists who grew immensely in the post-Seattle euphoria, we wanted to reflect on some important lessons we learned and some achievements that as social movements, despite all the criticisms of global justice, we might not want to abandon just yet. The focus here is on our experience in North America and particularly the US, though this piece need not be considered exclusive to those territories. This isn’t some nostalgic search for a glorious mythical moment. Rather a sifting through of what was worthwhile, including some things that have been somewhat absent from many movements (at least US based ones) since the peak times of global justice.

Was it ever a “Movement”?

It may be worth asking the question. Often the movement thought of itself as representing or somehow being a part of every social movement against oppression that existed at the time. For a brief span, before 9-11 the movement thought of itself as drawing the chief dividing lines in society, as naming the one and only conflict that was to shape the future, something like: G8-IMF-WTO vs. the ‘people’/’multitude’ embodied by the ‘movement’. Global justice though isn’t/wasn’t a movement in the sort of structured way like the labor movement, or in a focused manner like Civil Rights or anti-nuclear movements. More than anything Global Resistance was/is constituted by occasional “events” of 2 types [1]:

*Counter Summits
*Social Forums

Despite the limitations of a movement primarily defined by 2 types of public moments we wanted to focus here on two things that we learned then that we haven’t seen to the same degree since. When speaking of global justice, often people focus on elements like the global movement’s decentralized network nature, its relative autonomy from political party structures (though that depends on the context), its confrontational attitude- but it seems we can find these elements elsewhere in other movements. Here we want to focus on something else, that we think was even more unique. Let’s begin:

1. Unity in Diversity? We are all Marcos!

At places/events like a counter summit and a social forum, though we often focused energies against a target (WB/IMF, G8, WEF) people came from all sorts of different movements (international solidarity, labor, animal rights, environmental racism, squatters, etc.). Ok, this happens in lots of mobilizations- but what seems unique here is the fact that so many different movements, collective, causes, etc. could often maintain their own identity- even their own slogans, strategies and tactics, while joining masses of people resisting. Different sectors, movements, etc., maintained aspects of their own particular struggles while joining in a more generalized moment of rebellion. Something of a unity within the radical diversity of groups present emerged in those moments. It was a “common” created out of singular experiences, identities, etc., that did not need to erase particularities, culture, what have you, in order to join a common struggle (not a uniform one).

This was of course difficult to achieve and often problematic as to how well it actually turned out in reality: there were the infamous debates about a diversity of tactics; issues of how local struggles could disappear in the mass actions of countersummits; …
But if we compare this to other actions and movements (anti-war to name one, or even the impressive May 1st mobilizations for immigrant rights) while there maybe a mass of people from different types of movements participating, does a diversity of issues/struggles flourish in the same way? Do these other movements identify themselves with that sort of radical diversity? Is that radical diversity of struggles seen not only as a value but as defining the movement itself, or is there necessity for a focus on the issue at hand? We haven’t seen it elsewhere yet, and while this aspect was one that almost always confused the media entirely (“how could bicycle rights, public housing, and environmental activists be in the same march?”) it was simultaneously a strength and a weakness in which we relished as a movement. It was often said that this factor of the movement(s), visible in most countersummits and social forums, could dilute its effectiveness- it is/was difficult or impossible to focus on a short list of demands. At times it seemed as if little more than trying to blockade an institution or critiques a set of polices was possible. Yet didn’t we all learn from that intense diversity, quantity and geographic breadth of struggles? Didn’t we discover new, previously unthought of connections between- issues, collectives, strategies, etc…?

2. Another form of International Solidarity- “We Are Everywhere”/ Are we Everywhere?...Are we Anywhere?!

A notion of global interconnection and solidarity that went beyond other forms of internationalism of solidarity movements. The feeling of really being part of the “movement of movements”- a wave of struggles rooted in particular territories and histories but somehow also existing at the global level. It should be said that at times this was only skin-deep but it was something one began to feel in the gut. The movements of global resistance became a place where one could see connections between Indigenous struggles in Ecuador, landless movements in Brazil and unemployed in Argentina. A place where the struggles of Korean students could be seen as sharing something with Thai farmers, and Nigerian unionists; where struggles against the dam of Itoiz (in the Basque country) could be likened to struggles against the Narmada dam (in India).
Somehow this unity was not based on reducing everyone to a category (workers’, or the ‘truly oppressed’). While people in different struggles shared many things they different in just about as many, and this was not see as wrong. Each struggle was unique, each history as well but they could somehow communicate on a level that hadn’t been seen prior and we could feel these different struggles as part of our own [2].
What created this feeling? Was it that spirit born out of the Global Days of Action and the attempts to communicate between the different actions that composed them? Was it born out of the media spectacles generated by direct action at countersummits that inspired people, even if at a sort of glammy dazzly level? Was it a set of policies being applied in an almost uniform manner across so many countries (i.e. Washington consensus, privatization of public services, etc.) that could be named? Was it the euphoria of internet? Was it radical attractors like the Zapatista struggle that pointed us towards other struggles? We’re not sure how it came about, but somehow in that mix, the moments-sites-networks of the movement became channels of exchange between an incredible breadth of movements and struggles.

….

These two achievements were often incomplete, not well rooted, and could often fall into easy sloganeering…but it also feels like something that social movements, in North America and elsewhere, have been losing. Aren't these important contributions, especially in the light of current events?

What about Global Capitalism?

Another contribution was the presence-critique-awareness of global capitalism into different struggles. Trying to globalize local struggles and vice versa was a useful exercise. The analysis though, was usually a bit general and quite cut and paste.
The global resistance movement often summed up questions of unifying struggle by chalking up all problems to either an IFI or to multinational corporations. While this analysis could help link up some problems, it was often too shallow.

Currently though, it feels like some of that critique of global capitalism hasn’t been so present in other movements or at least not quite so explicit: anti-war, migrant rights, millions-more march, …There’ve definitely been attempts to make those connections, but the urgency or protagonism of that critique seems to have slipped to the side a bit.

Was that analysis too skin-deep? almost certainly. But the fact that we’ve abandoned bringing in the critique of global capitalism, and updating it, may mean that we’re not up to par with capitalist transformations in reworking the global order and with the strategies required to counteract it.

SAME DUDES/NEW FACES?
Things have been changing quite rapidly that make that early analysis by global justice movements a bit rusty. If we want to take on aspects of global capitalism in our struggles and see how they may be connected to those and other struggles then we’re forced to deal with some new realities. What are some of the new developments? Without going into details we can signal a few:

-The IMF and the WB seem to have shifted a bit in terms of their importance. Their role as providing a seal of credit approval seems to still be around but these institutions command much less power and legitimacy so their ability to coerce governments and countries has been somewhat checked. The number of countries bailing or trying to bail out of the IMF is an example of the crisis rocking these institutions (many of the new governments in Latin America have at least paid lip service to leaving the IMF and Nigeria is also in the works)

-The WTO- insofar as it’s a multilateral process looks like its collapsing. If not already in 2003, then definitely by 2005, the WTO looked like it had its days numbered with Korean militants ready to squeeze out the last breath.

-Nation-States themselves, and more of them, are playing a new and confusing role in reshaping global trade, forming blocs, etc. They always did of course, but there seem to be some new ingredients that mix together now: the increasingly unilateral pre-emptive nature of US militarism and empire; but also powerful so-called ‘middle-income countries’ such as China as a huge factor internationally, India and Brazil as capable of seriously influencing regional, and global, economies,…

-The shifts in state-power in Latin America, with different indigenous, left, or at least non Washington-consensus movements in power. This is leading to alternative processes of regional articulation (such as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas ALBA), the halting of the FTAA, a lessened role for the IMF, and more.

-With the end, or at least serious delay of multilateral free-trade mega-zones such as the FTAA, APEC, MAI, as well as the WTO, a new flurry of bilateral trade agreement and Free Trade Areas is criss-crossing the globe in a web of new corporate-friendly legislation. At times these smaller FTAs put the worst and most controversial elements of agreements like GATS and MAI into effect though on a smaller scale. These agreements are much harder to map because of their decentralized nature, one country can have various FTAs with various countries, each with slightly different stipulations. These FTAs exacerbate North South relations as before, but now we can see the formation of South-South FTAs, at times it seems in order to consolidate the power of regional players (such as existing attempts by India and South Africa for example). Some argue that these agreements are merely revving up for an eventual new round of multilateral agreements (see A. Choudry 2005) other argue that we’re witnessing the hardening of regional powers and their respective ‘spheres of influence’ (N. America, S.America, Europe, East Asia, South Asia, …) and thus heading into an era of potential mass regional competition (see B. Holmes 2006).

-And…what about all those nasty corporations running loose?

In some sense the map of the territory we’re fighting in at the global level has shifted: the sort of easy reading of the world through multilateral institutions is shifting; Nation-States, and more of them, have come back (or have become more visible) as brokers and targets; regional blocks may be forming that suggest the need for regional strategies and networks; and to all of this we need to add the generalized environment of militarism due to the ‘war on terror’- both in international relations but also in the domestic policies of many countries hardening and broadening their security and police state mechanisms

-Another issue tied to this critique of global capitalism has been the barrage of domestic legislation over the past several years, much of it trying to inaugurate the Bush strategy of the ‘Ownership Society’. Both Democrats and Republicans of course have been at the forefront of this, but with the double-whammy Bush administrations this seems to have sped-up even more. Welfare ‘de’ forms, privatization of Social Security, the new bankruptcy law (or lack thereof), cutting federal student aid, new definitions of unionizable labor by the NLRB, prices at the pump, etc.

Something the Global Justice movement failed to achieve to a large degree, was to link issues like structural adjustment abroad with policy changes on the ‘home front’. Some Unions did, many corporate campaigns tried to work that in, bravely KWRU and the PPEHRC openly labeled welfare reform as ‘domestic structural adjustment’. But generating the same kind of energy around policies, like the ones named above, as was generated for similar issues abroad was something that was left unfinished. Issues that provoke mass resistance elsewhere (both in the global North and South) seem to waft over as non-issues for most people in the US and as issues that cannot be mobilized around for most social movements.

Now What?!

What can social movements do to challenge this mish mash of elements comprising the current face of global capitalism? Is it even worthwhile to try and bring global capitalism back into the game in a massive way? It seems that the years of work critiquing and fighting neoliberal institutions and agreements hasn’t’ trickled into the sort of general awareness of these issues on a mass basis as was hoped for. This seems especially clear with the lack of discussion, much less mobilization, around the Security and Prosperity Partnership, also known as “NAFTA +” . With the same corporate lobbies that were egging on NAFTA and the FTAA, the governments of the US, Mexico and Canada have been discussion, and pursuing, a semi-legal “deep integration” process for at least two years. This would include expanding NAFTA-like provisions to other sectors, new mega-infrastructure projects, and all this with the added elements of “security cooperation”- and if that’s security defined by Homeland Security, you know they can’t be up to any good [3]. In addition there is the South Korea-US FTA- which many say promises to be the most significant FTA on the table since NAFTA. While Korean movements have been mobilizing day and night, even sending delegations to the US, linking seemingly disparate issues to debates around the FTA 4, for the most part in the US only a few protests and attempts at lobbying have been made at the key negotiating meetings. Haven’t we grown since opposition to NAFTA in the early-90’s? After the mobilizing against the WTO, IMF, WEF, etc. shouldn’t a social response to these processes be almost ‘automatic’ or at least ‘easier’ to rally together?

We end with some questions. Without trying some infantile maneuver to simply ‘relive’ Seattle, how can we bring back the presence-critique-awareness of global capitalism into our struggle and the sharp attention to shifts of strategy on the part of the powers that be? But even more importantly- regardless what we call the movement or which movement is able to do it- is it worthwhile recuperating-recreating:
1) - a sense of a movement that shares the very distinct struggles being fought across the world as its very own, automatically identifying with anti-oppressive resistance movements?
2)-building a type of unity based in the radical diversity of existing struggles and learning more about/from those same struggles?

In the case of the global justice/resistance movement these two goals were achieved primarily through countersummits and social forums as mentioned above. Some believe that these particular tools are still worth pursuing. Many organizations and collectives invested a lot of energy in the G8 protests in Germany this year, and a lot of the report backs have been praising (while critiquing) this mobilization 5. The US Social Forum, and the careful planning that went into it, seems to have been successful at not only bringing many struggles together that don’t normally engage with eachother, but also mobilizing a lot of grassroots collectives that are often underrepresented at some other Social Forum processes. Maybe it is still worthwhile to consider these two tools, but we need not stop there. Part of the innovativeness of social forums and countersummmits was precisely how they broke the mold of activist tools and repertoires allowing for all sorts of combinations, adaptations, etc. Instead of only trying to imitate another “form”, can’t we look at the “substance” or goals of those tools and try to create new ones? New tools, or mechanisms that could achieve that sort of unity based in radical diversity, that sense of collective movement that went beyond one’s issue.

Could these tools, that we had glimpses of a few years ago, be appropriate for re-energizing social movements with a new sense of self and the world? Should we invent new ones that can achieve similar goals but in more profound ways?

1 Of course there was/is more to it than this. But insofar as it was understood as a movement it was often these events that shaped it plus, to differing degrees: a) a shared but general/vague critique of neo-liberalism; b) some networks and organizations (like Via Campesina, or People’s Global Action); c) some shared historic reference points like the Zapatistas.

2 We should note that this communication and “feeling” was riddled through with issues of North South differences, racial privilege, and more. This should not be ignored at the same time as we celebrate the beginnings of that ‘we are everywhere’ spirit.

3 See: www.spp.gov/ the official website; www.psp-spp.com/ is a clearing house for info anf mobilizing against the SPP based in Canada. While it not being talked about much in the US, groups in Canada are revving engines pumping out manifestos, communiqués, targeting corporations and mobilizing against the official SPP summit in Montbello Quebec this summer.

4 Interestingly, this seems to have lead to the creation of KAWAN an effort mobilizing Korean-Americans and others against the FTA.

5 See transform.eipcp.net/

Brian Holmes article:
www.16beavergroup.org/drift/readings/16b_bh_articulatingcracks.pdf

Aziz Choudry article:
www.grain.org/seedling/