G8 brutality

by Sceptic Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:49

It is not “G8 brutality” – it is a case of police brutality against “anti globalisation” protesters rioting at a G8 summit meeting. The G8 itself did not cause the violence. The initiative came from the protesters and the response from the police. Moreover the G8 leaders are elected by their people. It is the protestors that are the self mandated radical fringe.

This case demonstrates that system works in western countries. It is better that no police brutality occurs in the first place but if it does then it is right that those responsible are prosecuted as happened in this case. By contrast police brutality is a matter of policy in Zimbabwe, Iran, China and many other places. If you are going to throw paving stones at the police forces its best done in a G8 or other broadly “western” countries. Try that somewhere else and a much more bloody and terminal fate will await one than happened to those in Italy with the exception of the one fatality.

Also what is the photo about? Is that from the same rioting situation or what? If a photo is posted, especially such a gruesome one, it should be made very clear what it relates to. If it does not relate to this story what is it doing in the thread?

by Dissident Werewolf Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:09

Hmmm... Well I suppose you could claim that the G8 leaders are 'elected' (although in Russia's case this is debatable) but I certainly don't think you could say that they are accountable to the people that elect them (climate chaos, Iraq war, etc). Also to say that the G8 leaders are innocent of causing violence is probably a stretch, although they certainly weren't out throwing paving stones in Genoa there is a great deal of evidence that police agents provocateurs stirred up violence as a justification for their mates to wade in heavy handed.

By the way the photo with the blood is from the Diaz school in which the cops severely beat activists as they slept, the school was also home to part of the indymedia network for the G8 protests, the attack was an attempt to disrupt information coming from 'non-sanctioned' sources. The court case on this attack continues

by shortciper Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:13

The photo is of blood at the Diaz High School where the police were responsible (from the top down) of organised and premeditated brutality. The raid left seventy-three protesters injured with three in comas. The judge ruled that there was no evidence to show any of those demonstrators had been involved in the violence in Genoa.

In another ongoing trial, 28 defendants, including some of Italy's most senior police officers, face charges related to the raid on the school.

by Soundmigration - wsm per cap Tue Jul 15, 2008 13:37

The large scale movement the was manifested in Genoa was there directly because of, and in resistance to, illegitimate bodies such as the G8 that have set themselves up as decision makers for the planet.

The violence that was meted out on those present, most sleeping in there beds, in the Diaz media center was brutal, indefensible and unprovoked. Many many people injured in this 'raid', this violent assualt and attack was planned and most horrifically many of those hospitalized by the initial raid where taken. by the same police units, to the police station mentioned in the original post, and tortured in some cases over periods of up to two to three days.

The policies supported and inequalities instituted and maintained by the G8 are EQUALLY brutal and should be resisted very vocally and clearly.

The G8 is as 'self mandated' as those who resist. They are 8 we are millions. (sure this is simplistic but it an illustration). not one of these elected leaders presented the G8 in their party or personal manifesto. From even the limitrf scope of 'sceptic's' viewpiont, they have no mandate for creating and maintaining instituaions like the G8, the WTO, the World Bank and the myriad of unelected unaccountable that exercise power over the majority of people on this planet.

the introduction of Zimbabwe into the debate is a straw man

How does 'Sceptic' think elected representation came about?

Was is handed down by the predecessors of todays Western elites?

Why do you associate 'democracy' with sham elections every five years where there is no real oppostion to the instutionalised and required inequalities and justice needed to maintain a particular model of organising society.

Why is democracy related to the 'political sphere' but not the economic?

It pretty disgusting to see the murder of Carlo Gulianno to be contextualised as an apparent 'exception' given the multi faced attacks on humans across the globe. Funny to that its members of the G8 that have armed and assisted the other dictatorships you mentioned too. Perhaps sceptic will now recognise that the idea that he/she doesnt live in a dictatorship doesnt mean that we should resist the facist Berlusconni, or the vision less technocrats in ireland that are happy to let the right wingers make the calls and row in behind them

any further thoughts sceptic?

by Sceptic Tue Jul 15, 2008 16:03

How can the G8 be an illegitimate grouping? What is wrong with such an exercise in cooperation between elected governments? The issues are international if not global in scope and an intergovernmental response is called for. How are governments to be validated if not by election or what value system do you subscribe to for imputing legitimacy to Governments if not that it is representative government. Arguing that you are millions won’t wash – you are a very small fraction of the people who elected the Governments whose heads met as the G8.

“The policies supported and inequalities instituted and maintained by the G8 are EQUALLY brutal and should be resisted very vocally and clearly.”
This is assertion and pretty vacuous. Your quarrel is with the people who elected these leaders and to whom the leaders are accountable. If it were 8 dictators meeting it would be a different matter.

“not one of these elected leaders presented the G8 in their party or personal manifesto.” –
this is meaningless since these meetings have been going on since the mid 1970s and are well part of the landscape for decades. The voting populations of the member states don’t have a problem with these meetings. If anything there are pleased their Governments are participating.

“the introduction of Zimbabwe into the debate is a straw man”
It’s not. The regime there is sustained in power by police brutality. Police brutality is a crime in Italy – it is investigated and punished as is the case in this instance.

“Why do you associate 'democracy' with sham elections every five years where there is no real oppostion to the instutionalised and required inequalities and justice needed to maintain a particular model of organising society.”
Periodic regular elections are one way to confirm governments in office or to peacefully replace them with alternatives. What’s your alternative system? What state practices it? Is it that your real problem is opposition to liberal democracy and the social market economic system?

“Why is democracy related to the 'political sphere' but not the economic?”
It is related to the economic sphere and most modern political debate and political parties are organized about economic issues. Historically as the franchise broadened so did the role of the state in redistributing wealth. Thus for instance the introduction of old age pensions under the Bismarkian social system in Germany and under Lloyd George in the UK in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That was just the start.

“It pretty disgusting to see the murder of Carlo Gulianno to be contextualised as an apparent 'exception'”
I’m not contextualizing any fatality to the point of saying it does not matter. It does and it is right that it should be investigated and prosecuted. But alternative systems are very much worse. For example, the Chinese communist government deliberately killed thousands of protestors in 1989 with no accountability then or since. It only stands to reason that this is much worse by reason of scale and aftermath than the single fatality at the G8. It is only just to consider issues in proportion. How do you feeel about the slaughter in 1989?

by paul o toole Wed Jul 16, 2008 00:18

The G8 have absolutely no mandate to organise and dictate future events on this planet. They are an un accountable lot, dangerous beyond belief and take actions without consulting any one, not even there electorate.

Not one of them are acting on a mandate. The only requirement for membership is to possess several aircraft carriers.

by Sceptic Wed Jul 16, 2008 15:09

“The G8 have absolutely no mandate to organise and dictate future events on this planet.”

This is ridiculous as the G8 is not a world government or anything like it nor does it proclaim itself to be. Nor is it in any position to dictate events. It is a meeting of like minded governments who may have some influence in certain areas principally economic affairs and philanthropic projects. It does not need a mandate because it exercises no legal power by its own right. It is not a military alliance and many of the states inside it have small militaries – eg. Canada, Japan, Italy while large scale military states are outside it – eg. China, India. Nor does it have military effect in its actions and it does not generally address itself to military issues. Moreover each of the member governments is elected and accountable to its electorate with the exception of Russia which is sliding towards a more authoritarian style façade democracy.

It is a collection of the larger democratic states of Europe plus the two in north America and Japan with Russia admitted by courtesy some years later.

Some seem to have a need to conjure up an imaginary monster to grapple with in their global ideological struggle. But that the G8 is not anything like what you seem to think it is and is the wrong target. On the contrary standards of governance and observance of human rights are relatively much higher inside the westernized states from which the G8 springs than in many state outside it. Again Russia is the exception but there were exceptional reasons to admit Russia not least the hope that the effect might be ameliorative on Russian behaviour

by paul o toole Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:02 pauljotoole at eircom dot net

.......It is a meeting of like minded governments who may have some influence in certain areas principally economic affairs and philanthropic projects. It does not need a mandate because it exercises no legal power by its own right.

You made my point beautifully. they have ...' no legal power'...

They control the world bank and the IMF. They decide how much African Nations will repay on their enforced debts ensuring their sustained deliberate impoverishment while they rape their resourses. This is only one of their 'philantropic projects' ...

No legality, no mandate, ultimate power.....sounds just like democracy to me. Nice people, especially with Geldof and Bono at the helm to distract those who might question their tactics...

by Sceptic Thu Jul 17, 2008 13:15

Not at all. The G8 itself has no legal personality or authority or secretariat. It has no founding statute or Treaty. It is merely a meeting of certain governments whose collective relative global significance is declining. It does not control the World Bank Certain of the governments which also meet at G8 summits may be highly influential in the World Bank and other bodies but that is not by virtue of their membership of the G8. Without the G8 the reality of governance of the IMF, World Bank etc would pertain as it did from the Bretton Woods agreement in 1945 up until the inception of these particular summits in 1975, when the first economic summit took place in Rambuillet. If you have a problem with something to do with the World Bank then address your protests to it or its member governments as shareholders but it is meaningless to be adopting the G8 as a proxy for your grievances in general or in other areas.

As regards Africa it is the non-G8 member China which can be more aptly described as the neo imperialist power in Africa now – doing deals for mineral extraction with the most repulsive regimes like that in Sudan while using its clout at the UN to shield the regime from the consequences of its genocidal actions. In any case just as for the World Bank the G8 has no formal role in Africa. The member governments may set aid or debt relief targets among themselves but these are targets that they pledge on their own administrations or exhort on others – the G8 has no formal authority or role whatever in meeting them.

by Banksy buggered me in a Dorm Thu Jul 17, 2008 14:23

China had extensive trade relations with Africa in the past, including the empire to which Zimbabwe traces its national myth roots - but it never extended an imperial structure beyond its current borders. That is one of the mysteries of China. One could argue that even its extended sovreignty over the easternmost and southermost provinces of the current PRC were responses to the then Mongol ad latter western imperialist machinations.

It's great to see you trip over your tongue. It makes the whole charade of your comments and thoughts seem almost democratic.

by Sceptic Thu Jul 17, 2008 14:42

I never suggested that China had an empire in Africa. How could it since it itself was an object of colonialism in the 19th century? However it is quite plausible for a powerful state to engage in what might be described as neo-colonial behaviour towards a weaker state without having been the weaker states imperial master in the first place as the term is widely employed in use to mean a client state or a dependent state. The fact is that by any standards the most morally blind exploitative outside power involved in Africa today is the People’s Republic of China - principal patron of both Sudan and Zimbabwe to begin with and in the copper belt. To critics of colonialism exploitation and dependence were its principal marks hence their appearance in the post colonial era can be termed neo-colonialism.

by soundmigration Thu Jul 17, 2008 16:08

Im not sugesting that the G8 have a legal identity. The fact that they don't is to so degree an abstraction to far.

BTW some excerpts from todays guardian. just in case you start to forget how bad it gets when facists or their sympathizers begin to snip power. I now its not policy to allow full cut and paste but i think much of this pertains directly to the thread,

"There are several good reasons why we should not forget what happened to Covell, then aged 33, that night in Genoa. The first is that he was only the beginning. By midnight on July 21 2001, those police officers were swarming through all four floors of the Diaz Pertini building, dispensing their special kind of discipline to its occupants, reducing the makeshift dormitories to what one officer later described as "a Mexican butcher's shop". They and their colleagues then illegally incarcerated their victims in a detention centre, which became a place of dark terror."

"None of those who stayed on the ground floor escaped injury. As Zucca later put it in his prosecution report: "In the space of a few minutes, all the occupants on the ground floor had been reduced to complete helplessness, the groans of the wounded mingling with the sound of calls for an ambulance." In their fear, some victims lost control of their bowels. Then the officers of the law moved up the stairs. In the first-floor corridor they found a small group, including Gieser, still clutching his toothbrush: "Someone suggested lying down, to show there was no resistance. So I did. The police arrived and began beating us, one by one. I protected my head with my hands. I thought, 'I must survive.' People were shouting, 'Please stop.' I said the same thing ... It made me think of a pork butchery. We were being treated like animals, like pigs."

"The signs of something uglier here were apparent first in superficial ways. Some officers had traditional fascist songs as ringtones on their mobile phones and talked enthusiastically about Mussolini and Pinochet. Repeatedly, they ordered prisoners to say "Viva il duce." Sometimes, they used threats to force them to sing fascist songs: "Un, due, tre. Viva Pinochet!"

The 222 people who were held at Bolzaneto were treated to a regime later described by public prosecutors as torture. On arrival, they were marked with felt-tip crosses on each cheek, and many were forced to walk between two parallel lines of officers who kicked and beat them. Most were herded into large cells, holding up to 30 people. Here, they were forced to stand for long periods, facing the wall with their hands up high and their legs spread. Those who failed to hold the position were shouted at, slapped and beaten. Mohammed Tabach has an artificial leg and, unable to hold the stress position, collapsed and was rewarded with two bursts of pepper spray in his face and, later, a particularly savage beating. Norman Blair later recalled standing like this and a guard asking him "Who is your government?" "The person before me had answered 'Polizei', so I said the same. I was afraid of being beaten."
much longer article here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/italy.g8

In the context of the G8 legitimacy or its personality, these elites dont give a fuck about such side issues. the idea that, on the global scale that these entities are used as forum for show boating.

however how the G8 defines it self it only one way of describing. However millions of people around the world (more than the totality of voters collectively voting for these 8 elites, or perhaps even their parties) define it as the peak of elite opulence, an almost feudal in its attitude to the rest of the world. n its own terms it issues false promises, and Bono and Geldof's hijacking of the Making Poverty History agenda using the Comic Relief media infrastructure to manipulate the demands of many of the less liberal NGO's . By symbolically and practically resisting these meet ups we have shone a light and even the Irish times are writing editorials question the usefulness of the G8

I'd suggest that perhaps the Times issues is not the sustained injustices carried out by the meet up of the biggest arms exporters of the world, but that too much light on the obvious failing of global capitalism to 'provide' social justice rather than the gathering up of all the wealth created by the population of the planet through power infrastructures and implied threat

by Sceptic Thu Jul 17, 2008 17:15

The G8 is a thing, singular, not a plural as you write. It is not an entity – it is a meeting of elected heads governments of major westernized industrial nations + Russia which wanted to opt in. Those who participate have influence by virtue of their positions as heads of Government – not due to “the G8” which is not a corporeal entity. It is absurd to be protesting against it as if it is a quasi world government when it is absolutely nothing of the kind and moreover has less and less influence. The G8 the “anti globalization” people are protesting against is mythical not real – that is the kernel of my argument.

The G8 itself was having a meeting at which violent protests took place. The fact that there was police brutality does not reflect on the VIPs they were there to protect. It was not “G8 brutality”. It was a police excess which was properly investigated and prosecuted. There is no point in posting details of the fatality – that is not in dispute and has nothing to do with the G8.

I am not saying that such summitry is a good idea nor subscribing to anything that Bono or his ilk might advocate for their own publicity seeking purposes in my view nor anything that the G8 might adopt. If you have a problem with arms exporters than address your protests to the major arms exporters, including China. Not the G8 which is primarily and in origin an economic summit and which includes nations which have hardly any significant arms exports if any at all. If you have a problem with “global capitalism” but which in the westernized states is more aptly described as mixed social market economies then you must persuade the populations of the states which elect the G8 leaders that they should adopt a communist or whatever other system you desire. Or else bring it about by terror or revolution if that’s what you want. But there is no point in throwing paving stones at the police and at the shops in whatever city the G8 happen to meet. Your dispute is with the people who elect these particular VIPs not the principals themselves. That is why the whole anti G8 protest phenomena is wrong headed, misguided, ineffectual and anti intellectual. Unless it is protest for the sake of protest which I suspect it is. But the contradictions in all of this should be surfaced.

by Mark Thu Jul 17, 2008 19:19

Ok a bit of perspective

The original G7 ARE the biggest arms maunfacturers and exporters in the world.

On the idea of what the G8 is or isnt, or more realistically how concentrated power flows through the embodied and experiential lived lives of capitalism is more problematic..

Its conceptually useful when describing hierarchies of power, and the nuts and bolts of particular aspects of life under capitalism (or capitalism itself) etc to create clearly defined actors, (nation states, corporations, figureheads, protesters, anarchists activists etc) as well as defining the processes and links between them ( representative democracy, quasi legal forms, collective resistance, protest, politics, economics etc). However this description belies and limits the viewpoint of the decriber, whilst simutaneously formulating 'truth' on the basis of hidden prior assumptions and mixing together of the subjective and the 'objective' . I

That power, or those that retain it, relies on any objective neutral or legal particulars to justify itself is a myth perpetrated most obvioulsy by those seeking to retain. Heriachies of power, exploitation, patriarchy and religious secarianism existed before even the nation state became feature of our lived landscape. Laws an a cultural form tended to be exploited by those that have the power to create them(eg. by decree) and enforce them.

However its somewhat irrelevant that the G8 doesnt operate within a recognised legal framework of a 'world government'. Why would it need to??

The G8 is very real precisely because it is what it is. Why else would the various leaders of the souh american and africa nation states be ving for attention, why else would NGO's (many not very radical) be trying to make vocal demands from the G8 meetings.

The G8 (as a singular) is not losing influence as you put it. It is losing legitimacy across right across the spectrum. This, to my mind, is due in no small part to those who sought to shut down what they felt was an illegimate meeting that made pronouncments on 'world and economic global development' when infact they are the faces of globalised capitalism as 'leaders' of nation state market democracies.

I know of no-one involved with organizing against the G8 who was not aware of the specticle nature of mobilisations. However it most certainly is real. The Italian quasi facist state attacked a movement in Genoa. It showcased its power over whilst 'protestors' showed there 'power to'. the idea that Carlo Guilliano death has "nothing to do with the G8' is absurd on more than one level. Whilst its clear that the various instruments of the Italian state have agenda of their own , they operate with the full knowledge and explicit support of the government, who in turn are avid fans of free market capitalism.

I'n not sure i get the piont saying that summitry is anti-intellectual either, and i for one, as much as i'm not a fan of dumb down property destruction, think that there is a time place and indeed need to direct militancy. i think even recent history would suggest that militant protest put non heirachical anti capitalism on the map in Western Europe. Meanwhile and alongside that is the growing tendency within the anti capitalist anti authoriatrian to 'organise' and make movement building 'at home' as it were a real thing.

However i think describing them as wrongheaded as a bit wooly, and itself mis guided and dare i say it a bit anti-intellectual in the literal sense. I mean this from the point of view of the radical, non authoritarian left. The tools that have been learnt, the skills and experiences generated as useless and they are being right now right across the globe. no is saying that 'summit hopping' is an answer in itself to capitalism, but active visble resistance carves out spaces for future activity

by Banksy buggered me in a Dorm Thu Jul 17, 2008 20:18

I shall not let you off the hook of constant waffle so easily. I suppose in this Olympics year you're quite the expert on Sinology and the history of China. But you have confused the trade blocks allowed access to Chinese markets in the 19th century and the leased treaty ports established under the final dynasty which were all returned to PRC with colonialism.

are you not?

by Sceptic Fri Jul 18, 2008 20:42

“The original G7 ARE the biggest arms manufacturers and exporters in the world.”

Get your facts right - they are not. Only the members who are also the Security Council P5 are significant ones and these are dwarfed by China and Russia except for the US. Anyway it is not a crime to either manufacture arms or to export them under properly controlled conditions. It goes with saying this has nothing to do with the G8 meetings. On that basis you should also be rioting whenever ASEAN meets because of the presence of China.

“The G8 is very real precisely because it is what it is.” I did not say it was not real – it is governments working in concert in certain areas like trade, credits and aid flows. But these are non-binding aspirations – the actual decisions are made by governments or international bodies or at trade rounds.

“The G8 (as a singular) is not losing influence as you put it.” It is by virtue of the rise of the non-western economic powers like China, India, Brazil and the oil producing states + others. These states were nowhere economically in 1975 and the G7 really could call the shots as it were except re OPEC.

“Its conceptually useful when describing hierarchies of power, and the nuts and bolts of particular aspects of life under capitalism (or capitalism itself) etc to create clearly defined actors, (nation states, corporations, figureheads, protesters, anarchists activists etc)..” This is Chomsky style waffle which denies apparent reality and suggest another hidden reality that is the real reality covering up for the vast global conspiracy or the illuminati or whatever.

“The Italian quasi facist (sic) state attacked a movement in Genoa.” It did’nt and mind your labels which are trying to tilt the argument with the choice of language Goebbels style yourself. I am not excusing an incidence of police brutality but part of the aim of these protests is to encourage a violent confrontation with the police. The thuggishess of some protestors is much more fascistic than the behaviour of the police in most cases. And are the Chinese to be given a free pass for their thousands of killings in 1989 because they are not capitalist or at least not in your eyes? The people who protested then had real courage and real grievances as against the G8 ones. Again you are against “capitalism” but the people who elect the G8 leaders can select a different system if they wish. Therefore your dispute is with them. And the most capitalist exploitative state is not China but yet again it gets a free pass from you because it has an unelected one party nominally a communist rule. One can only deduce this is what you want in the G8 countries or what is it you want. It’s not enough to be “against capitalism” as you put it without saying what system you would replace the present systems of governance and social organisation in the G8. You don’t have any integrity until you spell it out.