By Peter McKenna
The StarOctober 25, 2001
In the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, it's become axiomatic to say that the world will never be the same again. The horrific loss of life and the mind-numbing TV images have shaken us to our very core and fundamentally changed our thinking on security matters.
Clearly, commercial flying, airport security checks and simple border crossings are no longer routine undertakings. Even the so-called "War on America," as CNN blares, defies classic military strategy — relegating special operations forces to the shadows and caves of Afghanistan.
But what do the tragic events of last month mean for civil society protesters, anarchists and the anti-globalization movement? Indeed, will it mark the beginning of the end of large-scale popular demonstrations in the West?
Even as lethal cruise missiles rain down on Afghanistan, and naval warships (including Canada's) are positioning themselves in the Arabian Sea, the question remains: Will this dramatically alter the way in which civil society conducts itself?
Significantly, some U.S. environmental groups have ceased attacking the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. One representative of the Sierra Club put the current pause in perspective: "Only when the healing is under way and we have begun tackling the security challenges we face will our nation be ready to focus again on other issues."
More recently, the scheduled marches against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were suddenly turned into anti-war rallies instead of anti-globalization protests. "Eight million Afghan refugees need food now, not war and terror," shouted one activist.
Apparently, a decision was made — and condemned in some activist quarters — to set aside gas masks and vinegar-soaked bandanas for chants of "justice, not revenge" and signs reading "Violence breeds violence." But, instead of an expected 100,000 demonstrators, only about 12,000 or so turned up on the streets of Washington, D.C. At a time of deep soul-searching, the whole issue of tactics has been essentially turned on its head. For one thing, aggressive street confrontations, civil disobedience and human blockades seemed strangely out of place. There were obvious concerns that if violent street battles erupted, both the legitimacy and credibility of the protesters would have been badly damaged. As a member of The Mobilization for Global Justice explained: "There was an overriding concern about being respectful to families and the victims of the tragedy."
With patriotic fervour running high in the U.S., it was not surprising that these marches brought out counter-protesters. In the words of one angry critic: "I think it's a shame these people are out here. We need to stand together as a nation, but these people are mocking the 7,000 deaths. We should be mourning."
Another counter-demonstrator was equally unforgiving: "How can they call themselves Americans? I can't believe these people don't want us to defend ourselves."
Recent protests against the air strikes against the Taliban regime have been conspicuously low-key and obviously mindful of horror-stricken Western publics. In the succinct words of a spokesperson for the Church Council of Greater Seattle: "There is a different sense out there that now may not be the time to protest."
In the short term, at least, the public mood in the U.S. is going to remain grim and introspective and, thus, not likely to look kindly upon aggressive street tactics. As Ryerson University's Tim Falconer, the author of Watchdogs And Gadflies: Activism From Marginal To Mainstream, puts it: "There is going to be a lot less sympathy from the general public and a lot less tolerance from the authorities."
In fact, the security of world leaders is sure to take precedence over mass civil society protests. Governments and security authorities now have a ready-made justification — to wit, the fear of terrorist attacks — to clamp down on democratic rights and freedoms.
According to Falconer, "The authorities will show less tolerance and may soon wield greater powers of surveillance and the ability to infringe some basic civil liberties." Moreover, activists hopping from one protest event to another may also run into a brick wall of intensified border restrictions.
Another key aspect of the post-Sept.11 world is the role of the mainstream media. It looks as if the press — so crucial to the movement's success or failure — now holds the anti-globalization movement in even less esteem. And the combination of a more critical press and a less sympathetic public will pose formidable challenges for activists in the future.
It remains an open question, however, as to whether the anti-globalization movement has lost the momentum from Seattle, Quebec city and Genoa. It is also unclear as to whether governments and their political leadership have regained the upper hand.
The only certainty, it seems, is that the target of the activist movement has shifted from the World Trade Organization-sponsored trade liberalization and the corporate agenda to peace activism and conflict resolution. Over the longer term, though, the movement may find itself more willing to work within the existing system of government committees and public consultations.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
