The Dominion - Amanda Wilson

Preemptive Lockdown

Moira Peters — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:44:25 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in St. Petersburg, 2006

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the last in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

St. Petersburg marked the first Russian G8 summit following the country's inclusion in the group in 1997. Its focus was to be on energy security. Wanting to impress its new G8 partners, the Kremlin hired US-based PR firm Ketchum to improve its image. Ketchum has worked extensively for the US Military and Department of Education, where the company was caught up in controversy for allegedly paying commentators to promote then-President George W. Bush's policies. Ketchum was also in hot water over its use of fabricated news segments promoting the benefits of drugs produced by one one of its pharmaceutical clients.

The actual summit took place in Strela, a suburb outside the city. Heavy police presence made it nearly impossible to access, so most protests took place in the city center. As a result, the summit itself was only slightly disrupted by protests, but heavy media attention aided in the dissemination of protesters' messages.

Ella Pamfilova, Coordinator for the National Working Group of Civil G8 2006 said NGOs and civil society were successful in interacting with and influencing the G8. “A number of our recommendations were taken into account by the G8 but we would like to get better results in future.”

The Network Against G8 (SPB8) organized a series of counter-G8 events, protests and publications. A Libertarian Forum was organized in Moscow, as well as the Russian Social Forum and the Other Russia Conference.

Russia was well-equipped to handle protesters. St. Petersburg Special Forces (OMON) made use of Israeli armored vehicles for crowd dispersal, firing water, tear gas and paint. Numerous ports were closed and the St. Petersburg airport was closed, except to airplanes carrying official delegations.

Prior to the meetings in St. Petersburg, over 200 people were reported to have been arrested, some accused of terrorism, to prevent their participation in anti-G8 protests. Representatives from 40 foreign NGOs were refused entry to Russia, apparently for “mistakes in connection with the negligent filling in of forms,” and countless Russians were denied entry into conferences and prevented from traveling.

According to eye-witness reports, people were removed from trains and buses throughout Russia moments before departure for Moscow. Others were summoned to their local police station, threatened with detention on administrative or trumped-up drug charges, reminiscent of the Genoa summit. Protesters were reportedly beaten and attacked in the days before the summit. The Legal Team from the Network Against G8 registered approximately 600 cases of human rights violations during the St. Petersburg summit.

“It seems that since 2006 the authorities started collecting lists of all possible troublemakers, and many preemptive measures were taken,” said Zhelya, an organizer with the anti-G8 protesters. “These lists are still being used by them when protests take place in this or that part of the country.”

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

This story was published in The Dominion's special issue on the G8 and G20 summits in Ontario. We will continue to publish independent, investigative news about the G8 and G20 throughout the month of June.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Briefly, the G8 summit in Kananaskis, 2002

Briefly, the G8 summit in Gleneagles, 2005

Civil G8 2006

A G8 Facelift and the War on Error

Moira Peters — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 05:30:55 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in Gleneagles, 2005

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the fifth in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

In the words of Waldo Bello, Senior Analyst with Focus on the Global South, the Gleneagles summit was British Prime Minister Tony Blair's attempt to give the G8 a “facelift” in a battle for the “souls of global society.” Dubbed the "Year for Africa,” the 2005 Summit's focus was aid for Africa and achieving the Millenium Development Goals.

Some progress was made: G8 leaders established the “Commission for Africa” and addressed issues of corruption, HIV/AIDS, improved aid provision, education, trade justice, debt cancellation and security.

“Though the G8 has made substantial progress in debt cancellation," wrote Saran Yun of the G8 Research Group at the University of Toronto, "its contributions to effective aid, education, anti-corruption measures, and the fight against infectious diseases have been minimal. In terms of trade reform, the G8’s performance has been dismal at best.” Despite the emphasis on developing countries at Gleneagles, at the following G8 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, African development had all but disappeared from the G8 agenda.

A report by watchdog NGO CorpWatch highlights the strong presence of corporations at the Glengeagles summit. “Blair, [Gordon] Brown and Bono say they want to use the Gleneagles summit to tackle the issues of climate change and poverty in Africa. We argue in this report that the corporate agenda advanced by the G8 ultimately contradicts the achievement of any genuine and lasting ecological and social justice. Precisely because of the corporate agenda, any pronouncements from the G8 are likely to be nothing but ‘greenwash,’” states the report.

The "7/7" London bombings occurred during this summit, not believed to be a coincidence.

Thousands converged on Gleneagles to protest the summit. Security forces attempted to create a “sterile zone” free of protests: high metal fencing and concrete blast barriers were erected around the town and an “air exclusion zone” was imposed. ID “access passes” were distributed to residents to easily identify outside protesters at roadblocks and checkpoints.

The Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army (CIRCA), a network of clown affinity groups, attended the Gleneagles protests. According to CIRCA member General Unrest, CIRCA uses a combination of street theatre and play-tactics to “undermine and ridicule the intimidation and provocation of security forces at demonstrations.” By blowing kisses at police officers, or encircling a group of police who had cornered Black Bloc protesters, CIRCA helped diffuse tense situations and expose the ridiculous security measures at the summit.

CIRCA’s goals were “to wage a War on Error, since we believe that our laughter, our freedom, and our love of life is confronted by fundamentalists who preach the gospel of Error," said General Unrest in an interview. "From July 6-8, 2005, the most dangerous Errorists of the world’s eight richest countries (G8) were meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, to plan further Errorism on a global scale.”

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Briefly, the G8 summit in Kananaskis, 2002

CIRCA

Fortress G8

Moira Peters — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:16:30 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in Kananaskis, 2002

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the fourth in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

The G8 summit in a remote ski resort in Alberta signaled a shift in G8 summits in several ways. It was now seen as necessary to make summits inaccessible to protests and members of civil society. Kananaskis was also the first summit to take place after 9/11. Security costs ballooned to $96.5 million, or one-third of the summit's overall budget.

The summit was short, both in length and content. Lasting only a day and a half, it produced no final agreed-upon communique, despite the looming agenda items of terrorism, Africa and economic growth. Prime Minister Jean Chretien hoped to highlight aid to Africa as his "legacy issue," but much of the summit's agenda was overshadowed by the push for anti-terrorism measures.

While the RCMP promised “free speech zones” at the summit, the choice of Kananaskis—150 kilometres from Calgary—made it clear that mass mobilizations at the summit site would not be feasible, with a 6.5-kilometre perimeter and 13 checkpoints which kept dissenters away. A 150-kilometre “no fly zone” was guarded by 18 fighter pilots and three aircraft missile batteries. More than 6,000 Canadian Forces personnel were deployed in Kananaskis and Calgary during the summit. Chretien attempted to amend the National Defense Act to declare the summit area a "military security zone" but the provision was withdrawn following widespread public outcry.

Protests were quieter at this G8 Summit. A "G6" counter-summit, representing the 6 billion people living on the planet, was hampered by Canadian officials who refused visa requests from the vast majority of African delegates hoping to attend. Protests concentrated in Calgary, with a diversity of tactics and strategies, such as a nude anti-sweatshop rally in front of a GAP store, the “Showdown at the Ho-Down” (a street party outside an official summit function hosted by the mayor), and anarchist street soccer games that challenged police officers to a game (they declined to play).

The largest protest (“J26”, named for its date, June 26), a snake march through the downtown core, attempted to disrupt businesses and some G8 meetings taking place in Calgary.

The Kananaskis summit contained many of the refrains and promises heard at previous summits. This time around, there were no protesters within earshot to challenge them. The events of 9/11 seemed to drastically shift the space for protest and dissent, with governments using them as an opportunity to clamp down on civil disobedience and resistance.

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Delta Lodge

Our Brother's Blood

Moira Peters — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 05:56:05 +0000

Briefly, the G8 summit in Genoa, 2001

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the third in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

The Genoa summit has become infamous for the shooting death of protester Carlo Guliani. His was not the only blood shed at the hands of Genoa police during the 2001 G8 meetings. The summit's focus was global poverty reduction, but its content was overshadowed by waves of repression and resistance between police and protesters.

Over three days, more than 300,000 people protested the G8 in Genoa. At times, protesters seemed to have the upper hand; forcing police to retreat, even chasing them down the street. At other moments, brutality and violence by the carabinieri, Italy's police force, set the tone of the summit, as shown in video footage of groups of police beating a protester caught alone on the street.

In a show of force rarely seen in North America, Italian industrial labour unions put their skills to work building protest infrastructure to shield them from police attack. With large sturdy shields, they marched in old military formations through the streets of Genoa. And in response to requests by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to not dry their laundry outdoors, people hung clotheslines full of their underwear out their windows as protesters marched through the streets.

On Friday, July 20, Carlo Guliani, a 23-year-old Italian protester, had dropped a fire extinguisher and was holding his hands up in the air when he was shot twice by police and then run over by a police vehicle. The crowds in the streets swelled as news of his brutal killing spread, with marchers chanting, "Assasino!" An anarchist flag was draped over his coffin at his funeral.

The next night, 340 police officers raided the School of Diaz, thought to be a safe place for protesters, mostly students, to sleep. Scores of police forced their way into the building and began beating those inside. Video footage from after the attacks shows blood smeared across the floor and splattered against the walls. It was reported that protesters were urinated on and forced to sing fascist hymns. One protester described it as "complete carnage. There was blood everywhere...we were tortured, and I don't use that term lightly." In all, 61 people were badly injured and 93 were arrested, using what the Genoa Justice Campaign, an organization seeking investigations into police brutality at the Genoa Summit, labels “counterfeited evidence.” Charges against all 93 were dropped, and in later testimony the Deputy Police Chief of Genoa admitted to having planted Molotov cocktails and staging the stabbing of a police officer.

Approximately 300 protesters were arrested and over 230 were injured in Genoa. In the weeks following the summit, dozens of police officers and state officials were charged with physically and mentally abusing protesters, planting evidence and wrongful arrest. Since then, 26 police officers, prison staff and state officials have been found guilty of abuse and negligence, but no senior level police officials have been held accountable.

Genoa will be remembered as a monstrous display of state repression of dissent. It will also be remembered for the incredible defiance and strength shown by protesters in their perseverance in challenging the police and the state. After Genoa, it seemed something was shifting: resistance to the G8 and the international structures it supported was gaining strength. And then September 11th happened, and suddenly, everything was different.

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

G8 showdown in Genoa

The Birth of "Terrorism"

Moira Peters — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:10:19 +0000

Briefly, the G7 summit in Halifax, 1995

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the second in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

G7 leaders in Halifax in 1995 were given the tall task at the Naples summit the previous year to "assure that the global economy of the 21st century will provide sustainable development with good prosperity and well-being of the peoples of our nations and the framework of institutions required to meet these challenges.”

According to the Canadian government, the Halifax summit would “set the standard for more results-oriented, informal and businesslike summits.” The summit was labeled the Chevrolet Summit, for its supposed scaled-down style.

While the cost of security of this summit was a mere $25 million (compared to over $1 billion for security at this year's in Toronto), leaders put terrorism on the agenda for the first time. The estimated ratio of delegates to security personnel was 2:1.

The newly-created World Trade Organization was featured prominently in the summit's final declarations, and leaders pledged to support its development.

In the lead-up to this summit, Canadian NGOs, labour unions and faith-based groups joined forces to create the Halifax Initiative, an organization that today provides an analysis of G8 summits and issues, and calls for reform to international financial institutions (IFIs). The Halifax Initiative was formed against the backdrop of widespread criticism for the lavish 50th Anniversary meetings of the Bretton Woods institutions (the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund).

“[The people] wanted major changes and there were signs the Halifax summit would respond to those calls,” said Fraser Reilly-King of the Halifax Initiative. “As a result, Canadian NGOs formed the Halifax Initiative in December 1994 to ensure that demands for fundamental reform of the IFIs were high on the agenda of the Group of Seven's Halifax Summit.”

The Halifax People's Summit (P7) was a gathering of NGOs, labour unions and activist groups from Canada and around the world. Sponsored by 50 NGOs and coordinated by hundreds of volunteers, the P7 included talks by Vandana Shiva, David Suzuki, Maude Barlow and Ed Broadbent, and a host of organizations from South Africa, Latin America and Turtle Island's First Nations.

The attempts made to freshen up the G7 with a new format don't appear to have changed its end results.

"Thankfully it [the G8/G20] looks to finally be going the way of the dinosaurs," said Reilly-King. "But regrettably, today’s responses [to global economic problems] by the G20 are remarkably similar to proposals issued 15 years ago at the Halifax Summit."

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

The Forces Meet Hfx G7

Before the Tear Gas Hfx G7

Deja Vu?

Moira Peters — Sun, 30 May 2010 05:09:53 +0000

Briefly, the G7 summit in Toronto, 1988

Large summits are nothing new. The 36th G8 summit will set up shop in Huntsville June 25-26. Toronto, a past host, will this time welcome the 4th G20 summit June 26-27. The following is the first in a six-part series of briefs looking back on past G7/G8 summits and protest. Check back each Sunday for a blast from the past when we recap a different summit's official agenda and civilian and activist responses.

****

The 14th World Economic Summit in Toronto was held in a very different era. In 1988, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain still divided the world into east and west; South Africa was still under the formal rule of apartheid; and Osama Bin Laden was seen by the US as a freedom fighter. However, similarities to the upcoming summit in Toronto might make this coming June feel like a recurring bad dream.

Like the 2010 G8/G20 summits, 1988's G7 meeting was hosted in downtown Toronto at the Metro Convention Centre. It was also a year Canada played host to the Olympic Winter Games, held in Calgary.

Perhaps most intriguing, the final communique called for democracy in Afghanistan: “We welcome the beginning of the Soviet withdrawal of its occupation troops from Afghanistan. It must be total and apply to the entire country. The Afghan people must be able to choose their government freely.”

The current G8 position on Afghanistan calls for something different: ”The international community needs to remain engaged...Close coordination between the Government of Afghanistan, UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), NATO, non-NATO ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] partners and other stakeholders is essential for a successful transition.” Canadian troops will remain in Afghanistan until at least 2011, according to Dimitri Soudas, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister's Office, with the possibility of some soldiers remaining in Afghanistan past that date in “non-combat roles.”

In the lead-up the 1988 summit, as much media attention was paid to Ronald Reagan's farewell to the G7 as to international fiscal policy—the summit’s official focus. Summit delegates also discussed supposed concern over continued repression in apartheid South Africa, and committed to reduce the debt of the world's poorest countries by one-third.

Despite these pressing problems, some pundits believed no action was necessary on the part of the G7. "I don't see they have anything to do other than congratulate each other on how well things are going," wrote one economic analyst in the New York Times.

Protesters who disagreed faced a four-meter-high steel and concrete fence surrounding the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, military helicopters hovering overhead and sharpshooters on Toronto’s rooftops. Total security costs for the summit were $29.3 million.

Three main groups organized against the G7 in Toronto: The Other Economic Summit (TOES), the Popular Summit Coalition which organized a counter-summit at Ryerson University, and the Alliance for Non-Violent Action (ANVA).

Matthews Behrens, one of the organizers with ANVA, said at the time there was significant debate and discussion around the legitimacy of non-violent civil disobedience and its place within the resistance to the summit: “It's hard to imagine, but back then nonviolent civil disobedience was still viewed by many on the left as outrageous, vanguardist, dangerous, alienating to working people, et cetera.”

Approximately 500 representatives from Third World economic organizations met at TOES. It was the first of what would become annual TOES in parallel with every G7/G8 summit thereafter, until their isolated locations made it logistically impossible.

In advance of the summit, ANVA attempted to organize citizens' arrests of several G7 leaders, including Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, for international crimes of torture, bombing of civilians and support for apartheid in South Africa. Canada had recently passed a law which allowed for the possibility of denying perpetrators of such crimes entry into Canada. When ANVA’s lawyer attempted to get an injunction to this effect, they learned the G7 leaders had been granted immunity under Canadian law for the duration of their visits to Canada.

Over the course of the summit, thousands of people protested. The largest rally from Queen's Park drew over 3,000 people, despite the threat of arrest by police. In total, 200 people were arrested. Protesters reported police violence during the summit and police surveillance in the days leading up to it.

“In many ways, the resistance at the G7 marked a high-water mark for social movement organizing in the 1980s,” said Behrens in an email. “It jump-started direct action organizing in central Canada to go on and shut down the ARMNX weapons fair in 1989 and led to major First Nations solidarity actions in the late 1980s and early 1990s with respect to the Innu, as well as Oka solidarity, and provided a base for much of the organizing against the Gulf War.”

Amanda Wilson is a researcher and writer based in Ottawa.

For up-to-the-minute G8/G20 news from the streets of Toronto, visit the Toronto Media Co-op.

Toronto 1988 G7 poster

Financing the Co-operative Movement

dru — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 05:59:05 +0000

For better or for worse?

OTTAWA—Securing financing is a challenge for any new business, but if you happen to be a co-operative it’s particularly difficult, says Lynne Markell, Government Affairs Policy Advisor with the Canadian Co-operative Association (CCA). “Traditional lenders don’t understand co-ops and there is a large dependence on members to provide the initial capital.”

Faced with banks and agencies that expect profits to override other concerns, the co-operative movement is beginning to look within for solutions, but challenges remain.

Traditional lending institutions seek applicants that are low-risk, high return. Formally or informally, lenders impose a set of conditions upon those seeking financing to ensure they are a “desirable” investment. By requiring a particular kind of business plan, management structure, or certain profit margins, lenders can influence co-operatives seeking financing to conform with traditional notions of how businesses are run. What is desirable from the perspective of the lender may not be desirable for the co-operative members, or the values they are trying to maintain.

Co-operatives seeking to build an organization that redistributes resources and decision-making to their members or their community are faced with the awkward situation of seeking funds from institutions that will steer them towards values opposed to their own.

While co-operatives are eligible for many Federal Government financing programs, few co-operatives are successful in securing loans. In the past five years, the Canada Small Business Financing Program (CSBFP) has made only 65 loans worth a total of $5.5 million to co-operative businesses (on average the CSBFP disperses 10,000 loans worth $1 billion per year). In addition, the agriculture financing program, the Canadian Agricultural Loans Act (CALA), did not make a single loan to agriculture co-operatives in 2009.

Sometimes it’s a case of not understanding the co-operative model. In response to a question about eligibility for a loan, one private funding program responded that co-operatives were eligible, so long as the individual applying for the loan held at least 50 per cent ownership in the business. This effectively eliminates all co-operatives since the basis of their model is collective ownership amongst all members.

One member of a worker co-operative in Montreal compared the relationship between co-operatives and mainstream funders as “jamming a round peg into a square hole.”

Sandra Mark and Frank Moreland, organizers of the Vancouver Food Co-op, vent their frustrations at the financing options for new co-operatives, in the latest issue of Making Waves. They lament that co-ops face a myriad of catch-22s and barriers to accessing capital and conclude that “social enterprises themselves and our friends in the general public need to enter the capitalization arena. If we wish to scale-up community economies we need to be ready with our own dollars to start the flow of capital.”

These concerns have been voiced for years within the co-operative movement. In response, the CCA and the Conseil Canadien de la Cooperation et de la Mutualite are lobbying the Federal Government for the creation of a Co-operative Investment Strategy. The two-part proposal consists of a Co-operative Investment Plan and a Co-operative Development Fund, both of which aim to provide increased financing options for co-operatives in Canada. The idea behind the proposals is to generate investment from within the co-operative movement itself—from members, employers and supporters.

Under the CIP, members and employees of worker or agriculture co-operatives would receive a tax credit for investing in their co-operative. The CCA estimates the CIP could generate upwards of $125 million in new investment, while costing the government only $17 to $20 million in lost tax revenue.

The proposed Co-operative Development Fund would operate as a loan fund, providing a source of low-interest loans to co-operatives. After an initial cash injection of $70 million from the Federal Government, the Fund would be self-sustaining. A similar program in Quebec, the Regime d’Investissement Cooperatif (RIC) has generated nearly $500 million since its inception in 1985, according to the Canadian Co-operative Association.

Several smaller co-op-led financing programs are already in existence. One, the Tenacity Works Fund, created and managed by the Canadian Worker Co-operative Federation (CWCF), provides an investment of $15-50,000 to worker co-operatives.

According to Hazel Corcoran, Executive Director of CWCF, the Tenacity Works fund is too small to meet the full range of needs of worker co-operatives, which is why, she argues, the movement needs the Investment Strategy put forth by the CCA.

Despite widespread support for the program (including an endorsement from the House of Commons Finance Committee), the CIP was not included in the Federal Government's latest budget, tabled March 4.

Even if the programs are adopted in the future, challenges remain. The CIP rests on the assumption that members and employees of co-operatives have money to invest in their co-op. In addition, for a Co-operative Development Fund to be successful, there needs to be buy-in not only from the Federal Government but also from the co-operative sector as a whole. So far, the co-operative movement has not been able to come together to form a national development fund, putting the principles of co-operatives supporting co-operatives into practice.

As co-operatives struggle to secure the necessary financing, are they falling into the trap of conforming to the capitalist business model and capitalist financial institutions? Even financing programs from within the co-operative movement bring a particular understanding of a “successful” co-operative, and tend to guide co-operatives towards conventional business standards and practices.

Some insight might be drawn from the experience of the non-profit sector. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence, the editorial collective behind The Revolution Will not be Funded (published 2007), sharply criticized the non-profit movement for having become obsessed with the financial sustainability of their organizations, arguing that it has fundamentally weakened the movements it supposedly supports. They book quotes Ella Baker who argues, “We're getting praise from places that worry me," meaning perhaps it should be a concern that NGOs are perfectly in line with the priorities of funders.

Samuel Kuhn, one of the founding members of the Organic Underground, a co-op cafe in downtown Belleville, Ontario, said the tension between needing money to run the cafe and not wanting to conform to the requirements of financing institutions is constant. “We’ve faced so many funding crises in our three years that it seems unbelievable that we are still around...but we are!”

Perhaps that’s one of the strengths of the co-operative model: Organic Underground’s progressive politics and commitment to sustaining a community-run space has resulted in a loyal membership base. The Cafe, said Kuhn, manages to stay afloat despite the odds, “…surviving on spontaneous community donations or latte sales.”

For more information, visit the Cooperative Investment Strategy, and the Principles of Cooperation, developed by the International Co-operative Alliance.

Amanda Wilson is a writer and researcher in Ottawa. She currently works within the co-operative sector.

Organic Underground

Bendable Business

Moira Peters — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 06:18:58 +0000

Cooperatives less likely to break in economic crises

OTTAWA—Mondragon Internacional (MCC), the world’s largest worker cooperative, has been the focus of a lot of media coverage in recent months, inciting discussion on how worker cooperatives have been affected by, and are responding to, the global economic crisis.

On October 27, 2009 the United Steelworkers announced a framework agreement with Mondragon to develop unionized worker cooperatives in the manufacturing sector in the US. Under the agreement, both parties have pledged to develop a model that combines the collective bargaining system with the “one worker, one vote” hallmark of cooperatives. While it will not be the first time worker cooperatives have looked to unionization, the scale and formal partnership of the Mondragon-Steelworkers proposal is without precedent and could signal a way for cooperatives and unions to work collaboratively in weathering economic storms.

Perhaps even more surprising, The Economist recently published an article on how Mondragon is coping with the current economic crisis. According to the article, cooperatives can react more quickly to such a crisis because workers decide themselves to cut wages or take unpaid leave, avoiding the delays of formal negotiations with labour unions.

Mondragon is the world’s largest worker cooperative, located in the Basque region of Spain. Started in 1956 by five workers, and inspired by the work of local priest Don José María Arizmendiarrieta, it has grown into a complex of over a hundred worker cooperatives, a cooperative bank, and housing and social cooperatives. It now employs approximately 34,000 people and is one of the largest producers of domestic appliances, machine tools and automotive parts in Spain.

However, Mondragon is not your average worker cooperative, and not everyone thinks that it is a great model to look to. While many people on the left assert that the prospering Mondragon is an example of how cooperatives present an alternative business model that puts its workers above profits (it is referred to as an “empire of egalitarianism” in a September, 2009 article by Kelly and Massena in Yes Magazine), there is also growing criticism that Mondragon is straying from its cooperative principles by centralizing decision-making, developing partnerships with capitalist firms and hiring more non-member workers.

So, beyond the mammoth Mondragon, how are smaller, less powerful worker cooperatives weathering the economic crisis?

The International Organization of Industrial, Artisanal and Service Producers’ Co-operatives (CICOPA) reported that cooperatives have been more resilient in the face of the economic crisis than other business models. Based on a survey it conducted of its members, CICOPA found that while cooperatives have experienced a downturn in production and sales, they have experience almost no job losses, focusing instead on adaptation measures such as a reduction in hours or wages.

CICOPA attributes this resilience to the combination of flexibility and security of the worker cooperative model. Participating in decisions about the future of their workplace, workers—who are also owners—collectively decide what they are willing to sacrifice for the long-term viability of the business, and ensure that this is achieved equitably. By contrast, in a traditional capitalist businesses, managers and owners may simply inform workers of a decision to cut wages or hours, lay off staff or force labour concessions to save profits, leaving workers outside the decision-making but front and center in the effects of re-structuring.

The fundamental goal of cooperatives is to provide employment for members, as opposed to other business models, which seek profits or return on investments above all.

Three worker cooperatives in Ottawa and Kingston have come up with creative ways to make ends meet. Though they were not easily made, these choices have kept their cooperatives alive and, in some cases, stronger.

***

A recent addition to Ottawa’s Centertown neighborhood, the Umi Cafe, is a cooperatively-run coffee shop, selling light meals and drinks, as well as hosting music and political events in the evenings.

Sergio Guerra, one of the directors of Umi, says the shop was hit hardest by the recession about a year ago when the Ottawa bus drivers strike made the economic situation all the more difficult, grinding the entire downtown to a halt. Without public transit, Umi saw fewer people coming through their door. During the worst of it—late fall and winter of last year—the worker-members faced the choice of either shutting down the business or not getting paid. Guerra says Umi didn’t loose a single worker; everyone stayed, even with low wages, because they were committed to the cooperative and their investment.

They also drew on the neighbourhood and called a meeting where they presented the coffee shop’s financial situation as well as what they needed to stay afloat. The community responded, raising the necessary funds to keep Umi alive, a testament to the solidarity built between the cafe and the neighborhood. For its part, Umi has increased the variety of its products to entice passersby into the cafe.

According to Guerra, the cooperative model—with its commitment to outreach and solidarity—was invaluable during the difficult economic times. Without support from the neighbourhood the cafe’s survival was uncertain.

They also consulted other cooperatives and received advice and support that might be unlikely from traditional competitive businesses. “Without that help and solidarity we wouldn’t have been able to do it, in other businesses it's all about competition,” says Guerra.

Also, as a co-op, it is in Umi’s interest to educate and empower its members; in return, members are committed to the survival of the business. The cooperative model helps to ensure that the perspectives of members are incorporated into the very direction the co-op takes.

Sergio says they’ve come a long way in a year: “We’ve proven that we can exist and we can grow.”

He finds humour in their difficulties, saying sometimes it feels like they are on the set of a sitcom: “We’re in season two, and its been very entertaining, not only thinking about the bottom line.”

La Siembra Cooperative, another worker co-op, manufactures and distributes organic fair trade chocolate and sugar products. La Siembra has twice been awarded the Worldwide Democratic Workplace Award by WorldBlu, a not-for-profit social enterprise offering programs, services and awards for democratic workplaces. Cailtin Peeling, the cooperative’s Marketing Communications Manager, reports that while La Siembra has been facing some challenging times, they’ve been able to use the challenges as an opportunity to explore new products and re-affirm their commitment to supporting their production partners in the South.

La Siembra was facing declining sales and stalled growth and was hit hard by the fluctuating US exchange rate. The co-op reacted by focusing its energy on areas where it was still seeing strong sales: baking products. La Siembra found that people still wanted to support organic fair trade products, but were doing so in a more affordable way.

That focus led several of their producer co-op partners to increase manufacturing capacity, allowing them to sell a higher value-added product instead of the raw materials. A producer co-op in Peru now manufactures chocolate chips to send to La Siembra, as opposed to the raw cocoa powder, allowing more of the revenue to stay with the producer in Peru. During the most difficult period, many of the workers at La Siembra took a voluntary reduction in hours.

Peeling says La Siembra has been able to use the tough economic situation to deepen its commitment to its values, not dilute them, by connecting with producer cooperative partners in new ways, and supporting the increased capacity of these co-ops to manufacture their own products. She says, “It's been a tough time but we’ve been really motivated for a longer–term vision.”

The Sleepless Goat, a worker cooperative cafe in downtown Kingston, has gone through a difficult year. While it hasn’t seen a reduction in overall sales, rising food costs and a realization that some menu items were in fact losing money, the Goat had to increase prices. Dave Burling, a worker-owner, says that while the cafe wants to keep menu prices accessible, without the increase the Goat likely would have gone out of business.

It has also been forced to make modest reductions in the number of staff working particular shifts, and has canceled its contract with overnight cleaners.

A sole owner of a business may decide it is in her interest to close up shop; however, the workers at the Sleepless Goat were committed to keeping their doors open, acting in their own collective self-interest to keep themselves employed. “Frankly, if the Goat had been a capitalist business it probably would have closed six months ago,” says Burling.

While difficult, the plan seems to have paid off: the Goat has recovered from the economic shock of last year. The cafe foresees some hurdles, including planned street closures due to construction, and the upcoming increase in minimum wage. Nevertheless, Burling is optimistic, saying that experience has shown that the cooperative model can adapt to change.

Worker cooperatives, like any businesses, are not immune to crises in the economy. They do seem to be surviving better than other business models, however. While every worker cooperative is different, the structure provides more freedom and control to adapt to a changing economic environment. What a cooperative does with that flexibility depends on its values and commitments and the strength of its community. At the very least, the cooperative structure gives workers choices in how to address the challenges they face, allowing them to take their fate into their own hands.

Amanda Wilson lives in Ottawa. She is interested in questions of alternative organizations of work and non-capitalist production and exchange models. She has an MA in Labour Studies.

Bendable Business

Life in the Calais Jungle

Moira Peters — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 04:06:30 +0000

A week in the migrant camps on the France/UK border

CALAIS, FRANCE—A tranquil scene greets visitors as they approach Calais, France, on the ferry from Dover, England: people play on the beach and lounge on the balconies of their waterfront condos; children fly kites by the shore. It has all the appearances of a charming place to spend a few days soaking up the sun and practicing your French. But this peaceful façade obscures the harsh reality for thousands of migrants, predominantly from the Middle East and Northern Africa, attempting to complete the final leg of their journey to what they hope will be a better life in the UK.

As the ferry docks, it is immediately clear that Calais’ port is surrounded by a maze of fences covering all access points. These fences are a physical representation of Europe’s increasingly obsessive efforts to close the doors to so-called illegal migrants. As the EU institutes increasingly severe and unforgiving immigration policies, Calais has become a bottleneck for migrants attempting to cross the English Channel, and a site of resistance for those wishing to challenge the repressive and racist actions of governments.

Tensions began to rise in Calais following the 2002 closure of the Red Cross Reception Centre in nearby Sangette. French and UK authorities had pushed hard for the closure, hoping that removing the centre would decrease the number of migrants seeking to cross the border. It appears the move has simply made the journey more difficult for those desperate enough to try. In the past five years the UK has stopped nearly 90,000 individuals from entering Britain, two-thirds of whom came via the Calais crossing. Current estimates are that anywhere from 700 to 2,000 people are camped in Calais at any given time, hoping to cross the border. They live in an area known as ‘the Jungle’ on the outskirts of the city: a collection of makeshift tents and cardboard homes where migrants live a cramped and precarious existence.

Police repression against migrants and political and legal pressure against any organizations assisting migrants has increased in recent years, in an attempt to starve the migrants out of France and Europe as a whole. In France it is illegal to assist undocumented migrants, which makes it very difficult for organizations to provide support or to build solidarity networks.

In response to the emergency situation in Calais, a week-long camp was organized from June 23 to 29, to demonstrate solidarity with migrants and protest their treatment by European governments. The camp was a mix of activists from across Europe, predominantly from the UK and France, who came together under the broad banner of ‘No Borders.’ The movement is a network of autonomous groups calling for freedom of movement for all, and which sees borders as maintaining a structure of inequality and repression, based on categories of legal/illegal and citizen/non-citizen.

The level of organization was impressive: beyond a physical presence, they planned a series of workshops, concerts, radio broadcasts and even a camp newspaper. When a plumber arrived on the Sunday morning to set up showers, it was clear these were not just a bunch of crazy radicals set on crashing the border, as some mainstream media reports had suggested. The camp was created by a group of intelligent and dedicated individuals who were seeking to create a meaningful space for dialogue, and to question the notion of borders, citizenship, and state repression.

While the camp was purposely built away from the Jungle to prevent police retaliation against migrants, a group of approximately 20 Iranians had taken up residence right behind the camp. This group of men varied in age, including a redheaded boy of 16. Using the camp generator to charge his cell phone he looked like he should be playing soccer with his friends, not risking his life to elude detection crossing the border in order to evade capture and detention. Sleeping most of the day, these men spent their nights trying to sneak aboard trucks that would take them across the Channel.

A sign made by several of the Iranians depicted their journey across the channel and expresses their desire to be treated with dignity and respect. It highlighted the three checkpoints they must pass through undetected before they even reach the Channel. In 2004, France and England signed an agreement on "juxtaposed controls," which allows UK immigration authorities to establish their own checkpoints in certain French locations, including Calais. Those who are caught are given a warning, held in detention centres for a short period time, and then released to try their luck another day. Those caught on the UK side of the border face harsher detention facilities and deportation. According to the UK Border Agency, they deported a total of 63,140 migrants last year.

Organizers of the camp seemed to have negotiated a compromise between addressing security concerns to protect the camp and creating a welcoming and open environment. Decisions were made by consensus over meals, with translators relaying information back and forth between Anglophones and Francophones. This was done against the background of constant surveillance, as a van-load of police circled the camp every five to ten minutes. During the week-long camp, there were numerous reports of clashes between police and protesters, and camp participants posted stories online of being held and searched at the border. The camp created an alternative space in defiance to the hostility and repression created by the constant police presence. There were moments of solidarity, where people from opposite backgrounds sat side-by-side, sharing food and song, giving a glimpse of what a world of “no borders” might be.

The fact that Western, white citizens were able to travel to Calais to participate in the No Borders camp for such a short time illustrates the privileges many hold. Protesters travelling to and from the camp faced police harassment and detainment, but it is the thousands of migrants who remain who bear the brunt of the state’s increasingly violent and extreme attempts to build walls between people and exploit their labour and lives.

The UK and French governments continue to build their fortress. An agreement reached between the two countries on July 7, 2009, will invest an additional £15 million in increased security controls and technology to, according to the UK Minister of Border and Immigration, "further strengthen the ring of steel that protects Britain." The questions is, who will protect migrants—those seeking asylum, reunification with their families, freedom from violence, repression and economic disaster—from being squeezed and suffocated by this ring of steel?

For more information on the No Borders Movement or situation in Calais please visit:

http://www.noborders.org.uk
http://www.contre-faits.org
http://www.associationsalam.org/

Amanda Wilson spent two days at the No Borders Camp in Calais, France, in advance of the weeklong mobilization to protest the treatment of migrants by the French and UK governments.

Calais Arrest

Port of Calais