Conference death a sign for reform

A protester was killed by police during demonstrations at the G-8 conference in Genoa last Friday. Will I sound too cynical or defeatist if I say that it didn't surprise me, that it was only a matter of time? Will I surprise you if I add that its predictability doesn't make it any less outrageous. \nSpeaking only of my own country, the U.S. government has made it clear that it will respond to peaceful demonstrations against its policies with police violence. (Yes, I know: some of the demonstrators have not been peaceful. But the overwhelming majority have not been violent, and have been met with the same violence.) From the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle to both party conventions of 2000, with the counter-inaugural demonstrations of last January a partial exception, tear gas and broken heads have been the rule. You may remember Washington Post publisher Ben Bradlee, complaining on "Larry King Live" that he "wasn't impressed" by the counter-inaugural because there were only seven arrests. I trust that Bradlee was more impressed by Genoa.\nCarlo Giulani's death was met by lofty evasions that will be familiar to anyone who remembers past movements for social justice: because the protesters are unruly (meaning: they refuse to stay home and watch ESPN, as God intended), and some are even violent, they have discredited their cause and need not be taken seriously. If they were not unruly, that would be taken as a sign that there is no discontentment. Of course, those who dismiss the protesters would never consider that the State is discredited by its violence.\nBut, as usual, those who justify the status quo don't care if their arguments make any sense. What matters is that they've shown their allegiance to the owners, the bosses, the powerful, who cannot be discredited no matter what they do. The important thing is that there must be no public input on matters of international trade.\nThis has been the fundamental bipartisan principle behind NAFTA, GATT, and MAI; Bush continues Clinton's demands for "fast track" negotiating powers, which will take economic policy still farther from democratic scrutiny.\nThe G-8 leaders issued a protest of their own.\n"It is vitally important," they declared, "that democratically elected leaders legitimately representing millions of people can meet to discuss areas of common concern." George W. Bush, for one, was not democratically elected, and Putin doesn't look much better. But there are millions of people whom the G-8 leaders do not represent at all, whether legitimately or illegitimately -- namely, the people in the poorer countries on whom they are trying to unleash their "free trade" policies. These people didn't elect the leaders of G-8, or the leaders of their own countries, and couldn't afford to travel to Genoa to let their voices be heard directly.\nBush supplied boilerplate hot air: "I respect the right to peaceful expression, but make no mistake -- those who protest free trade are no friends of the poor. Those who protest free trade seek to deny them their best hope for escaping poverty." Even if this were true -- it isn't -- Bush wouldn't know. Thousands of people in Bloomington, for instance, know how much "free trade" has helped them, by depriving them of jobs.\nA prime example of Bush's "free trade" in action is China, which is rightly under attack for its dreadful human rights record.\nRemember with what indecent haste Bush's father tried to return trade privileges to China after Tiananmen, which was only the tip of the iceberg of human rights abuse; and China doesn't stand alone. The purpose of "free trade" is to give big corporations free access to cheap raw materials and labor unmediated by unions, health and safety regulations, or other constraints.\nThe United States became rich and powerful, not through "free trade" but through protectionism, right down through the Reagan-Clinton eras. (Clinton suspended NAFTA in the interests of Florida tomato growers against Mexican imports. Not the workers, mind you: the growers.) And the American people escaped poverty -- to the extent that they did -- because American business was not allowed total freedom of exploitation, because American workers rebelled.\nThe international movement that met in Genoa must not be stopped, or surprised, by the death of Carlo Giulani. But at the same time, it must not view its members as renewable resources, to be used up in the struggle for economic justice. That would be sinking to the level of its opponents. This is a crucial time to evaluate tactics.