Jump to content

G7, G8 and G20 meetings: What do the protesters actually want?


Recommended Posts

There have been increasingly large protests over the last few years at all the world leaders meetings. I haven't paid much attention until now.

 

London is to host the G20 meeting on April 1 & 2 and the scale of the planned protests are scarily massive.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2009/mar/23/online-guide-to-g20-protests

 

I think it is time I informed my self. Ok protests at this meeting are understandable. People have been sacked and are angry, or are simply scared that they will be next so they are going to shout at anyone in authority.

 

What I am having difficulty with is why there have been so many big protests at earlier meetings. I've done a little research and while some of the issues are understandable the scale doesn't make sense. There will always be some people protesting various issues, but this is getting bigger and more coordinated than I would say is normal. Something else is going on and I don't get it.

 

I'm not suggesting conspiracy, more that I've missed something important that is getting bigger. What is going on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main motivator is people are just completely sick of the way this world is run. They are sick of corrupt governments in league with big business that only seem to ensure the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful. They are sick of inequities where we have countries so poor they can barely feed themselves and others so rich obesity is a national problem. They want change in the way the global economy is run, change that is based on fairness and equality for all, not just a select few. They want a change that ensures social responsibility and protection of the environment not just bottom line profits at the expense of everything else.

The leaders attending the G20 represent all that they hate. Some are obviously incredibly passionate about it and some will be just along for the ride. Some will be there just to make trouble.

I am totally opposed to violent protests but I do agree with many of the aims of these protests.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost certain though the media will mainly focus on any violence at these protests, even though the violence will most likely only be perpetrated by a very small minority of those attending. I once attended a protest with well over 100,000 people in Melbourne and it really was an incredible experience (and non violent).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Go Native
They are sick of inequities where we have countries so poor they can barely feed themselves and others so rich obesity is a national problem. They want change in the way the global economy is run, change that is based on fairness and equality for all, not just a select few. They want a change that ensures social responsibility and protection of the environment not just bottom line profits at the expense of everything else.
Has anyone proposed a solution to the above? What scares me is that it seems that the only answer to this is some kind of communism. And the communism we've seen to date suffers from the same problem where a few have incredible power with no one to answer to. Maybe the answer is to refine the current system rather than scrap it. At least democracy supposedly has the ultimate say.

I just read this rather long article which, if you ignore the more inflammatory comments, outlines the mechanics of this current crisis. It suggests the current mess is directly related to the relaxation of the Glass-Steagall Act that was put in place during the last Depression to put limits on the potentially unlimited reuse of money. I wonder if they could simply go back to this system which at least had some fiscal boundaries?
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people want some say in the way their countries are being run. Voting for one side or the other of the money party is looking increasingly meaningless. Barack Obama won a landslide victory on a platform of change, but has followed a completely bipartisan route appointing loads of Republicans and following exactly the economic policies. Where is the change people voted for? It was a landslide for change, not the same old rubbish.

 

Personally I think all political contributions and lobbying should be completely banned. Political parties should be publically funded and given an equal amount of free tv time or advertising space to get their message out. They are the public's airwaves, not the BBC's or ITV's. Since the rise of lobbying under Reagan/Thatcher and the vast increase in campaign spending, democracy has clearly gone into reverse. Money has far too much influence. Perhaps Glass-Steagall was a trigger for the economic crisis, but it was part of a general deregulation movement that was encouraged and fully supported, through lobbying, by the financial industry itself. It wasn't just some innocent mistake by the politicians independently acting on a erroneous worldview.

 

Any large group of people will be full of diverse opinions. Ju-nin to-iro. The same applies to whatever protests there are. It's pretty silly to suggest otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this kind of massive change has to be:

- done step by step

- in a practical way

- in a way that is agreeable to everyone as human beings

 

I do not think there is a silver bullet, which people seem to think someone like Obama is going to pull out.

 

You will find that these huge evil multinational companies actually do a lot for the environment, and they are staffed by very intelligent human beings who will not work for companies that abuse the environment or people. I work for such a company and our clients are even bigger multinationals so I have some understanding.

 

I am not saying 'shouganai' (what can you do?). But I do not like to hear people effectively say 'at the moment all the big guys are corrupt and evil, and we need a silver bullet that fixes everything' because it is not helpful or practical. If you care about it, get out and do something (and that does not mean attending a protest).

 

Obama is going for green energy, and the energy companies are also investing in this. Eventually we will fix the environment problem I believe. Regarding inequality in wealth of nations, I think that will always be there. Further, I think people from the rich nations like us want it to stay that way, deep down, though it is unfashionable to say so publicly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the most people who demonstrate at these "G" summits are only there to cause bother, the hippy-radical movement that can enjoy their life of lesuire precisely because of the free capitalist cultures that they are protesting against.

 

Take a bath and get a job ya scruffy hippy fool!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there are multiple reasons for third world countries being the way they are. Many of these reasons have bugger all to do with wealthy nations.

 

Sure, I'd like to have 10 kids.

Sure, I'd like to not have to worry about how I'm going to feed them, cloth them, educate them, keep them healthy.

Sure I'd like shoot down dead my opponents or anyone that stops me from getting what I want.

 

But I choose NOT to do any of those things and so do most of the people I live with in this first world nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: veronica
(I know this was not your main point there Mantas, but I can't imagine the mindset someone has wanting to have 10 kids!)

Papa's sister is pregnant with her 10th.

I have 4 - and they take SO much time and effort. Sometimes I feel like I am being pulled in multiple directions and not giving them the time they deserve - especially when I go to work. How SIL can possibly manage ten is beyond me. As small children - possibly, but contrary to popular belief they are MORE demanding as they grow older.

I like the solution of the province in India that will only provide a gun licence to a man if he has had a vasectomy...
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some lady stopped us the other day, had a bit of coo over our two little ones, and then went into this massive rant about not having three kids like she did. Too much trouble and too much expense, she said.

 

The other big cost of kids is child care/education. Especially if you pay their university fees like ordinary Japanese parents do. I went for free in the UK twenty years ago. I just looked it up, but the course I did is now 3,145 quid a year for UK residents and ten and a half grand (!!) for o/s students. The kids need three years' (non educational) residency to get the former. Methinks a lot of colleges are going to close in the future. People haven't got the moolah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call them 'universities', Mr Wiggles, not 'colleges' wink

 

Makes me laugh how some of the scumbag colleges I know of back home have become 'universities'. Stains the name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't think the kind of change the protestors want will ever be possible. I can empathize with their views but can't really see any practical way to enforce and implement what they'd like. Governement regulation is about the only way to bring social and environmental repsonsibility to big business but it's not like all countries on the planet will set the same regulations. If a company finds the regulations too much in one country they'll just move to another where they get more of what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver
I think that the most people who demonstrate at these "G" summits are only there to cause bother, the hippy-radical movement that can enjoy their life of lesuire precisely because of the free capitalist cultures that they are protesting against.

Take a bath and get a job ya scruffy hippy fool!!


Some might say that precisely because one lives in a privileged society that one has a responsibility to think about and act on behalf of people who are adversely affected, but have no voice in that society.

Progress and freedoms that we enjoy are not handed to us by our rulers because they are a bunch of compassionate folk, hey have all been fought for by people who won't stand to take the bullshit anymore.

One could as easily change your words and say that apolitical bystanders can enjoy their life of leisure precisely because of the gains that activists have made against wage slavery, sexism, and absurd concentrations of wealth.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is too that people who have never been actively involved in protests usually have no idea what it's really like, they just get a completely distorted view from the media. The vast bulk of the protesters will be everyday normal folks who are concerned with what's going on in the world. The media though will undoubtedly focus on the radical violent fringe who will make up only a very small proportion of the total. I've been to several protest rallies with 10's of thousands of people where perhaps less than 100 got a bit worked up and clashed with police. On the nightly news it's only really that very small minority that gets much coverage though. So people get a very distorted view of what the average protester is really like. They're not all unwashed hippies...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan


Progress and freedoms that we enjoy are not handed to us by our rulers because they are a bunch of compassionate folk, hey have all been fought for by people who won't stand to take the bullshit anymore.




Not so sure about that one. I'd break it down to a more fundimental way in which we treat each other.
From the time I've spent in third world counties, I've worked out that they really don't give a damm about each other. I'm not sure if thats a product of the dog eat dog world in which they live or it's a world they have created for themselves due to their attitude. Either way, they'll never climb out of their third world mess if they don't start showing more compassion to each other and working collectively for the greater good.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Mamabear
Are there not more effective ways of facilitating change than standing outside political buildings and waving placards?


MB having been involved in many things over the years from human rights organisations to environmental groups I can tell you there's a hell of lot more going on than just placard waving. Direct actions are a great way for media publicity and general awareness but there will also be huge pressure from lobby groups at the highest levels of government and business. What you see on TV is only a small part of the whole.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally Posted By: Oyuki kigan
Originally Posted By: Tubby Beaver
I think that the most people who demonstrate at these "G" summits are only there to cause bother, the hippy-radical movement that can enjoy their life of lesuire precisely because of the free capitalist cultures that they are protesting against.

Take a bath and get a job ya scruffy hippy fool!!


Some might say that precisely because one lives in a privileged society that one has a responsibility to think about and act on behalf of people who are adversely affected, but have no voice in that society.

Progress and freedoms that we enjoy are not handed to us by our rulers because they are a bunch of compassionate folk, hey have all been fought for by people who won't stand to take the bullshit anymore.

One could as easily change your words and say that apolitical bystanders can enjoy their life of leisure precisely because of the gains that activists have made against wage slavery, sexism, and absurd concentrations of wealth.



I'm not Apolitical Oyuki, in fact I have quite strong views about a fair few of the underlying causes of these type of summits, but the radical Hippy crowd spoil it for the true activists by bringing down to violence. My point being that these people would protest anything if it meant they could fight with the Police and smash a few windows. These "protesters" are doing nothing for the 3rd world or "Those who have no voice in society", they are doing it for themselves. They want the violence and they dress it up as a noble cause.

The past gains in social democracy that you state that gives me my cushy life is different to what happens at these things as most of those causes were protested by the people who were suffering under the previous regimes...so by the workers who had a pittance wage, or by the women who didn't have the vote. Not by people of other countries who are trying to assuage their own middle class guilt about having the good luck to have been born in a Developed country
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...