[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Pierre Khalfa (ATTAC-France) on violence & themovement after Genoa

[n ik <fragments@va.com.au>]

>After Genoa, a few thoughts on violence and the current state of the
>movement .
>Pierre Khalfa .

its interesting how many ppl there are in the 'movement' now (it 
reminds me of a statistic i once heard - apparently there are now 2 
million americans who went to woodstock now - far more than were 
actually there).

firstly, its not a movement. there are many networks and movements 
that have converged on international financial institutions, & global 
bodies that regulate (or have a hand in regulating) international 
trade and finance. most of these networks and movements are radical, 
anti-authoritarian and anti-capitalist. a few are more reformist in 
nature.

its these reformist networks, movements, and organisations whose 
'friends' are now coming to the party. Greenpeace have put out a 
'globalisation' kit in Australia. Friends of the Earth Europe has 
called for a expulsion of the 'violent' protesters from the 
'movement'. Bono and Geldof are putting on their shades and taking 
care of business. More and more moderate reformists (who all happen 
to have quite a bit at stake in the current order(s)) are calling for 
'control', for us to 'police ourselves', and for certain ppl to 'take 
charge' of the movements(s).

who are these ppl to take charge? i don't remember seeing any 
messages from them when we did the first global day of action in may 
1998. Or see them standing next too me in the streets on J18. Or hear 
their bones being broken on the streets around the world since.

The majority of the networks and movements that have created this 
current series of actions and confrontations are just as much 
anti-authoritarian as they are anti-capitalist. any call for self 
policing or control or taking charge cannot have come from within the 
majority of the networks and movements that make up what the 
journalists laughingly call the 'anti-globalisation movement'.

Any attempt to exert control on these networks and movements will 
either fail dismally (the positive outcome) and the reformists will 
be cast to one side, or it will collapse under the divide and conquer 
tactics of NGO's, 'professional advocates', and reformists who are 
acceptable to the media and have a minimal amount of support (the 
negative 'incorporation' outcome).

Pierre Khalfa talks as thought the second possibility were 
inevitable. The irony is that if it weren't for the intervention of 
people like him, that possibility would be impossible. It is 
compromise that will kill this series of networks and movements - not 
'extremism'.

The Black Bloc(s) and other militant direct action blocs have played 
the most vital of roles in this latest series of actions - polite 
advocacy to the powerful few has played no role at all.

As for the differences between Quebec and Genoa ? - in Quebec there 
wasn't a group  of 400 fascists and police running around dressed in 
black to form a convenient excuse for the police to attack, and a 
convenient excuse for the reformists to call for 'control' (under 
their wise and gentle guiding hand of course).

Yes these networks and movements are in the midst of a debate on 
tactics and strategies at the moment. And it is interesting how high 
an opinion most ppl have of the black bloc, and of other militant 
direct action tactics and strategies. I think that they will all 
remain a part of these networks and movements for quite some time 
yet. I'm not so sure about the reformist elements of the movement who 
would be quite happy with a seat at the table though. I fear they 
will not be with us for long,

nik



>Given this situation, we must at the same time fulfil 4 aims. Firstly we
>must maintain and strengthen the link with public opinion. Secondly we
>must avoid the movement breaking up. Thirdly we must be capable of
>assuming its increasingly radical nature. Finally we must continue to
>organise massive demonstrations to show its strength .
>
>Fulfilling these aims necessarily means avoiding a certain number of
>stumbling blocks. Firstly we must avoid going to extremes as regards our
>choice of action that some might justify by governments' autism. This
>refusal is decisive if we do not want governments to win points in their
>attempt to destroy the public support we currently enjoy, whence our
>choice of non-violence. But at the same time this refusal must be
>accompanied by our taking charge of the increasing radicalisation of part
>of the movement .
>
>This means choosing forms of action that incorporate this radicalism
>symbolically. In the face of the system's violence, the choice of
>non-violence can be neither synonym to passiveness nor automatic
>acceptance of its legality, whence the "active" nature of our recourse to
>non-violence .
>
>The emergence over the last few years of radical non-violent forms of
>action taken by a number of social movements - unemployed people taking
>over French unemployment offices, or homeless people taking over empty
>accommodation, for example - has made it possible for those concerned to
>express their exasperation powerfully and give their cause visibility
>whilst at the same time having a positive impact on public opinion. We
>must take inspiration from this. The more we affirm the non-violent
>nature of our actions, the more we must present our determination through
>the appropriate forms of action that must be discussed on a case-by-case
>basis .
>
>We must position our relationship with the Black Block within this
>framework. Even if it is not a structured group but rather a faction of
>varying dimensions, it represents the tactic of choosing systematic
>violent confrontation with the Police and the destruction of the "symbols
>of capitalism" (bank branches, cars, etc.). This tactic is justified by
>"destroying property as a tactical means of direct action", by the aim of
>creating "liberated autonomous zones" and by the need to waken a
>sleeping  population by unmasking the repressive face of the State. We
>must say  clearly that this tactic is not ours. It can bring only the
>movement's  marginalisation and isolation and favours all types of
>manipulation . However, it would be a mistake to reject this current as
>alien to our  movement and consider it as simply a bunch of agitators.
>
>Firstly because,  whether we like it or not, governments will assimilate
>us with them and  our protestations will do nothing to change that...
>other than make a  radical change to our forms of action by adapting to
>what governments are  willing to accept. That kind of tactic would seal
>the movement's break-up  and sign its death warrant. Secondly since this
>faction may attract a  certain number of people who are sickened by the
>system and who really  think that they can change things in that way.
>
>Thirdly and, in particular, because any brutal rejection of this 
>current can only
>lead to an even greater radicalisation which might lead to a Red-Brigade logic
>being implemented, which would be used by governments against all social
>movements. The experience of Germany and Italy at the end of 70s are
>illuminating on these points. Finally because their attitude can vary: it
>was not the same in Washington (April, 2000) and in Quebec as in Genoa
>(possibly because the groups that bore the name were not the same). We
>are therefore at a watershed: we must both state clearly that the Black
>Block's methods and tactics are not ours, and at the same time not reject
>them but initiate a political dialogue with them .
>
>A few ideas .
>
>The debate on forms of action, of which the use of violence is only part,
>is running through the whole movement. We must assume and structure it
>so  that it becomes a factor for political homogenisation. In this
>context,  we must work on an international text on these questions that
>could be  adopted after being debated by the various members of our
>movement. This  reference text could be used as a charter for the various
>movements and  include a number of concrete commitments .
>
>In this context, we must discuss how our processions should be protected
>and ensure our right to demonstrate. We must be aware that the first and
>most effective protection is that provided by the movement's political
>force and its legitimacy in public opinion. However, this does not mean
>that we must underestimate the question. Although we must avoid any
>militarisation of our processions which, apart from giving an illusion of
>effectiveness, would fudge our image, we must also be capable of
>building  up a supportive framework sufficiently reassuring to enable
>massive  participation in our initiatives by setting up a contingent with
>a means  of defence .
>
>Proposals are being made that aim to bridge the gap between the movement
>and the Institutions. French Green Euro-MP Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Le Monde,
>11th August, 2001) suggests a sort of compromise for demonstrations
>during the next European Union Summit. With the belief that this meeting
>has a democratic legitimacy that the G8 did not have, he proposes giving
>them the possibility of meeting together without any problems in exchange
>for there being no red zones and there being a total freedom to
>demonstrate. A "demilitarised zone" would be created with no police,
>protected peacefully by 2000 "citizen leaders" (MPs, association leaders,
>union leaders, etc.) .
>
>This proposal acknowledges implicitly that summits are not all equally
>legitimate (whatever one might think of his statement on the EU's
>democratic legitimacy) and therefore that some are not justified. It
>questions the bunkerisation of these meetings and acknowledges the
>negative role of the Police. However, it does raise a number of problems.
>
>Firstly, one might doubt that governments will accept the idea of a
>summit with no police protection or demonstrator-prohibited zones. There
>is therefore a great risk of these "citizen leaders" becoming police
>ancillaries to stop demonstrators entering the prohibited zone.
>
>Basically, this proposal aims at making us responsible for security at
>the meetings of institutions whose tactics we oppose. Is that our role?
>
>Moreover, who will decide on the legitimacy of such and such summit or
>institution? .
>
>Beyond the action issue, we must expand our alternative suggestions.
>
>Today we have a number of limited suggestions. We must make them coherent
>as a whole and in particular ensure that they are accepted by public
>opinion. This approach is all the more important in that the credibility
>of our actions will largely depend on these concerns, given that
>governments and international institutions want to confine us to the role
>of "nice, pleasant people who pose real problems but have no real
>solutions" .
>
>Finally, we must discuss rapidly the two significant events that are
>coming up : the WTO meeting in Qatar in November and the new EU Summit in
>Laeken in Belgium in December .
>
>
>August 2001 .
>Translation by Amanda Brazier-Galbe
>
>
>
>-- 
>Philippe Manet
>sauf avis contraire dans le corps du message, pour votre sÈcuritÈ,
>n'ouvrez pas les piËces jointes !
>For your security, never open an attachement unless clearly stated in the
>mail !
>Zu Ihrer Computersicherheit: ÷ffnen Sie keine Anlage, wenn diese nicht im
>Anschreiben ausdr¸cklich erw”hnt worden
>
>#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
>#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
>#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
>#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
>#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net


_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold