The Dominion - 68

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

Canada Confronts Europe on Bank Levies

Martin Lukacs — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 05:45:42 +0000

Flaherty leads the charge against Robin Hood Tax

TORONTO—A confrontation is brewing at the upcoming G20 summit in Toronto, pitting Canada against European countries who are promoting a global “Robin Hood” bank tax that could raise hundreds of billions of dollars for social programs, food security or debt-payment.

A number of European nations, led by Britain, are calling for the adoption of taxes that would discourage speculative trading. Canada, however, is opposed to the taxes, and the US, while still uncommitted, is leaning towards Canada’s position. Opposition from one country would undermine the consensus required for the adoption of the multinational bank tax.

In early February, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that a deal on a potential tax levy could be reached at the Toronto G20 Summit. A few days later the Canadian government publicly opposed any such agreement.

“We’re not going to impose capital taxes on our financial institutions,” Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told journalists. “We’re against raising taxes and I hope to be able to convince my colleagues that these are unwise moves.” The Conservative government has also argued that as the only G8 country whose banks did not require bailouts it should not have to enter into a bank taxation plan.

The Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC) has criticized the Conservative government for rejecting financial regulation, accusing it of being beholden to financial interests.

“The Conservative government is opposed in principle to any new form of tax,” said Claude Vaillancourt, co-president of ATTAC-Quebec. “The Conservatives are blinded by the non-interventionist principles of neo-liberal economics, to which they adhere with ideological fervency.”

Britain has been at the forefront of the push for various tax and levy schemes to curtail bank risk. Prior to the economic crisis, London was a preeminent banking centre and over the past 20 years has been steadfastly opposed to most regulation of financial services.

The crisis changed all that. After the insolvency of several British banks and a $1.38 trillion bank bailout, and with an election looming, Prime Minister Brown is suddenly talking tough about banks “giving back to society,” telling the media he is “interested in how support is building up for international action.”

Britain’s proposals include a tax on bank transactions and a levy-style tax on assets. The transaction tax, often called the "Robin Hood tax" or the "Tobin tax" (after the US economist James Tobin, who first proposed it in 1972), is the more ambitious. It would focus on the trillions of transactions that take place in financial markets every day, including speculative ones such such as derivatives, which were a key part of the financial crash.

Precipitating the crash, these assets, including bundles of sub-prime mortgages, became overvalued due to speculation. When their values fell rapidly in 2008 the collapse began.

The transaction tax would put a very small tax (from 0.05 per cent to one per cent) on each of these transactions. Critics of unregulated banking argue that had such a tax been in place a few years ago investment banks would have thought twice about performing these transactions, thus lessening the likelihood of the crash.

“A low transactions tax...has little or no impact upon useful, longer term transactions, but limits ‘noise trading’ and very short-term ‘in and out’ speculation,” said Canadian Labour Congress economist Andrew Jackson. “Progressive economists who have advocated a financial transaction tax...believe that it would reduce speculation and volatility, without interfering with normal and useful activities including stock and currency trading and even hedging for legitimate purposes.”

A 2009 study by the Austrian government showed that a 0.05 per cent tax on UK financial trades could raise about £100 billion per year, paying for the expansion of social programs, paying down debt and providing insurance funds against future bailouts.

Grassroots organizations like ATTAC-Quebec take a stronger position, suggesting that any new funds from a tax should not go to banks, which might only encourage them to take more risks, potentially leading to new crises.

“The tax should simply be a fee for assisting citizens across the world,” said Vaillancourt. “This tax could, for example, give all citizens basic services—quality health care or free education.”

Despite its current opposition Canada was one of the first G20 countries to consider adopting the Tobin tax. In 1999 the Liberal government passed a resolution to “enact a Tobin tax in concert with the international community.” However, the Reform Party (later the Conservative Party) opposed the resolution and it did not gain enough international support to be enacted.

The other proposal promoted by European countries is a tax or levy on the assets of banks. It would not bring in sums on the scale of a Tobin tax, though some financial analysts believe it would restrain banks and raise some bailout money. As it stands now the levy has gained support from Britain’s key European counterparts, France and Germany, both of whom are strongly promoting it. From the perspective of the banks this is a more acceptable proposal than the Tobin tax as it would be either a one-off or infrequent fee based on a bank’s worth rather than a tax on its every transaction.

A great deal of Canada’s authority on these bank tax issues within the G20 is based on the perception that the country’s traditional banking sector was able to withstand the financial crisis. The historical record is murkier. While it is true that Canada did not have to bail out its banks there is much more to the story than mainstream media accolades of bank prudence and wise Conservative government policy.

In the late 1990s, and again in the early part of the new millennium, the five Canadian banks aimed to merge into three institutions to obtain the capital base to compete internationally with banks such as Citigroup, UBS and Royal Bank of Scotland. They hoped to enter the “major leagues” of investment banking and non-traditional speculative banking: the very markets that were at the heart of the crash.

Critics argue these merger attempts were not prevented because of a prudent fear of systemic risk, or the Liberal government’s foresight. News of the banks’ ambitions and public outcry about layoffs, branch closures and increased service charges forced the Canadian government to block the mergers. Canadian financial elites and the business class harshly criticized the government. Yet it may have been fortunate for them, and the current government, that the Canadian public was not swayed. Otherwise, Canadian banks might have been bailed out as well in 2008.

The International Monetary Fund has also weighed in, with Managing Director Dominic Strauss-Kahn saying countries opposing bank levies only because they escaped the current crisis unscathed are being “shortsighted.”

The US position leading up to the June G20 meetings is likely to be a major determinant of the success or failure of the G20 bank tax talks. The US bank bailouts have made it difficult for the US government, unlike Canada, to point to their strong financial sector as a reason to oppose bank taxes. Nevertheless, the US has also come out strongly against the Tobin tax and has reacted ambiguously to the idea of an international bank levy.

On the other hand, the Obama administration has made public statements over the last few months about an internal bank levy proposal. This may lead the US to be more open to an international levy given that it would shield them from capital flight if all nations bought in.

Because consensus is required for G20 policy decisions the growing Atlantic divide leaves any tax or levy plans up in the air. Meanwhile, the positions of the other 15 G20 countries are still being developed and do not seem to be getting much attention from the major players.

Though tax-watching might seem like a dull sport it is worth observing the developments this month. The European powers backing these taxes have been shaken by the crisis and pressured by their electorate. Regardless of motivations the taxes could have real-world effects that should not be minimized. The taxes are not radical but at least they point in the right direction: towards the banks.

Darren Puscas is a researcher on a project on women and unionization at McMaster University, and is the editor of the blog www.g20breakdown.com.

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

Dollar bills stick together

Free Trade Goes Local

Cameron Fenton — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:54:22 +0000

Provincial “barriers to trade” broken under new regional agreements

WATERLOO—While the Canadian government was prorogued and the Canadian public was watching the Olympics, Prime Minister Stephen Harper quietly signed the Canada-USA Procurement Agreement (CUPA).

The agreement navigates around a recently enacted United States “Buy-American” policy. Critics of the CUPA argue that the agreement further locks neoliberal ideologies into Canadian-American trade policy. This free-market expansion challenges or removes much of the capacity for provincial and local governments to control local economic development decisions.

The implementation of the CUPA foreshadows Canada’s agenda at the June 2010 G8/20 meetings where, as Harper stated during a planning meeting in Ottawa in March, he will be urging the G20 to “open global markets” and “resist protectionism.” Miranda Goeltom, Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Indonesia, noted at the G20 Workshop on the Global Economy in May 2009 that the G20 agreed upon commitments to “reinvigorate world trade and investment,” primarily through “reducing trade and investment barriers and financial protectionism.”

The CUPA overcomes what a March 2010 edition of the Global Trade Alert report calls a “worrying measure” of protectionism. Under the CUPA, resisting protectionism means decision-makers will have to consider bids from American contractors for procurement contracts, giving no favour to local companies. In an appendix in the CUPA titled “Market Access,” procurement associated with publicly funded schools and local economic development programs in Ontario and Quebec are not protected from the CUPA’s reach. For other provinces and territories, specific exclusions were created for education and local economic development programs.

While there are no tariff barriers between provinces in Canada, differences in regulation and approaches to management in environmental protection, labour rights, health care delivery, and public education are equated to barriers by trade economists. These views are shared by a group which holds considerable influence at the G20 summits—the World Trade Organization. Agreements such as the 2007 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA) between Alberta and BC aim to eliminate these barriers.

In 2009 the Council of Canadians (CoC) released “State of Play: Canada’s Internal Free Trade Agenda,” a report giving updates on TILMA and other interprovincial Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The report critiques these agreements for allowing “corporations and individuals to challenge any provincial or municipal government measure they feel ‘restricts or impairs’ their investment. Even measures designed to protect the environment and public health can be brought to an unelected TILMA dispute panel with the authority to impose penalties as high as $5 million [against the challenged government].”

This allowance is akin to the CUPA provisions in Notes to Appendix A, which challenge strengthening environmental protections as “disguised barrier[s] to trade,” or the Chapter 11 review panels of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which allows corporations to sue governments when they change policies or regulations that could affect trade. A 2009 case brought to the NAFTA review panel by DOW Chemicals found that Quebec’s restrictions of certain toxic pesticides were considered a disguised trade barrier.

“It [TILMA] will dramatically restrict the ability of governments—including local governments—to act in the public interest,” said Murray Dobbin of the CoC.

Unlike NAFTA, in TILMA there is no limit on how many times a corporation may bring an issue to the dispute panel. If a regulation is found to be a “disguised barrier to trade,” foreign corporations may continue to sue the offending government until that regulation is changed. To avoid continual negative repercussions, governments may avoid implementing stronger standards and policies.

The CoC reported that “some US states have shown an interest in signing TILMA, which would lead to massive deregulation in Canada as we harmonize policies with the United States. TILMA thus becomes an issue of democracy and of deep integration with the US.” With the two agreements sharing many of the same clauses, the implementation of the CUPA forces many of TILMA’s clauses onto provinces, states, and municipalities who had little-to-no input into the agreement.

Canada is discussing a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Europe that the CoC says “is likely to put pressure on provincial governments to increase privatization, including in areas such as child care and public health care...municipal governments will also be forced to fall into line.”

Fraser Institute economist Amela Karabegovic and trade advisor Robert Knox wrote that “interprovincial barriers are, and will remain, a major roadblock in the current negotiations... the free-trade agreement with the EU is an opportunity for Canadian governments to finally resolve the remaining interprovincial barriers.” It becomes clear that the regulatory harmonizations that result from TILMA and the CUPA must take place for FTA negotiations to continue.

“The [G8] recognized in its Pittsburgh statement last year that ‘there are different approaches to economic development and prosperity,’ which is the same as saying that free trade, privatization and open markets don’t always work,” Stuart Trew of the CoC told The Dominion. “Harper disagrees with that idea and has made noises that he’d like the G20 to broaden its mandate to go after ‘protectionism in all its forms,’ which would include important national measures to protect the environment or help local industries grow up and compete.”

Dan Kellar is an organizer with AW@L and is co-host of AW@L Radio. He will see you in the streets of Toronto in June.

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

CUPA chainsaw

True North

Tim McSorley — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 05:43:19 +0000

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

True North, part I

True North, part II

Powers of Eight

dru — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:20:04 +0000

powersofeight.png

The G8 accounts for a small portion of the world’s population, but a majority of its power. Through their influence over international financial institutions and their economic and military dominance, the G8 countries shape the world’s economic structures.

Download a pdf version of this infographic.

Migrating Justice

dru — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:02:05 +0000

Globalizing labour rights, regardless of status

MONTREAL—As the G8 and G20 meet in Huntsville and Toronto from June 25 to 27, resistance movements in the making since 2009 will take to the streets. A major focus of the community organizing and protests is migrant justice. On June 25, a “Free the Streets” demonstration will highlight the differences between politicians and dissenters on the themes of migrant justice, women’s and queer rights, and economic justice.

Fred McMahon, a globalization expert at the Fraser Institute, an influential pro-free-market think tank, says these protests are misguided.

“Nobody forces anybody to become a migrant labourer to Canada,” says McMahon. “The people who are protesting on the streets should ask how the migrants would feel if they were disallowed from coming to Canada. They wouldn’t be happy with the rich-kids street protesters. Migrants come here and see a better life for their families.”

SK Hussan from No One Is Illegal Toronto and the Toronto Community Mobilization Network counters that the migrant justice movement’s opposition to the G8/G20 emerges from a widespread dissatisfaction within migrant communities.

“People are angry and afraid of being deported, of unsafe working conditions, and of the rise in workplace raids,” Hussan told The Dominion.

Mostafa Henaway, director of the grassroots Montreal-based Immigrant Worker’s Centre, calls attention to economic “push factors,” factors that compel people to migrate. He specifically names Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and their negative effects on the economies of the global South in recent decades.

“The de-regularization of labour laws has been an outcome of the race to the bottom, which is necessary in this system to remain competitive. In this time we’ve seen the largest migration in human history,” says Henaway.

Henaway believes this migration trend largely benefits the governments of the global North, due to the way migrant workforces are exploited by host countries such as Canada. Henaway says that changes to temporary worker programs bring workers rendered impoverished by SAPs to Canada, meaning companies don’t have to relocate for low wages.

“Since NAFTA, we’ve seen tens of thousands of Mexicans working in exploitative and precarious conditions under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker’s Program,” says Henaway, who explains the workers generally cannot challenge these conditions because they’re afraid of deportation.

Henaway notes that in previous generations, immigrants who worked in Canada became citizens, but that this is no longer the case.

“They do not have the same rights as those with citizenship, and under these programs it is impossible for them to [become citizens].”

The numbers of temporary workers has been steadily increasing, nearly doubling since 2004 according to the Canadian Council for Refugees. Simultaneously, the number of refugees allowed into Canada has been drastically reduced. According to the Ottawa Citizen, in 2008 almost 22,000 refugees were accepted; in 2010, the projected acceptance rate is between 9,000 and 12,000.

Hussan says increasingly more migrants are being brought to work in exploitative conditions through temporary workers programs, but not allowed the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

“The increasing use of ‘flexible’ workforces allows Canada to profit from migrant labour without allowing migrants the right to remain,” he says.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s recently announced changes to immigration policy reflects these ambitions, deepening the “temporary” nature of these jobs. After having worked in Canada for a cumulative four years, temporary workers are not eligible to work in the country for six years, a move Henaway likens to a deportation order.

“If migrants are seen as good enough to work, then why aren’t they good enough to stay?”

Other proposed changes in Kenney’s newly announced “Balanced Refugee Reform” include measures that deny the right to appeal negative decisions to refugees deemed to come from “safe” countries, rather than evaluating claims on individual cases of persecution.

Henaway says it’s important to bring the voice of migrant justice to the anti-globalization movement. “The G8 and G20 [countries] are crucial to these policies that create migration, and are beginning to regulate migration. The G8 and G20 manage the global economy, and migration is becoming sort of a central pillar of the global economy. If they want to globalize capital then we have to fight for the right for the freedom of movement and for labour rights for all, regardless of status.”

The G20 protests this spring are attracting a wide variety of community members. Hussan expects around 5,000 people for the “Free the Streets” march, largely to be led by racialized people and immigrant communities.

“We have been and continue to host community forums in 15 migrant neighbourhoods in the months leading up to the G20. Each of these should bring out from 100 to 300 people,” says Hussan. “People want to talk about status, and about labour standards, about the world that they want to live in.”

Robyn Maynard is a radio journalist and community organizer based in Montreal, focusing primarily on issues of migrant justice, police violence, and racial profiling.

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

Permanent Status demo

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

From Ski Hills to the Summit

dru — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:09:22 +0000

Indigenous activists challenge Canada’s claims to traditional lands

VANCOUVER—“Recovery and New Beginnings” is the slogan Canada will be pushing at the G20 summit in Toronto, but for many Indigenous people, what’s going on inside the meeting represents more of the same.

Activists like Arthur Manuel of the Secwepemc Nation think the impacts of a Canada-hosted summit are clear.

“The G8/G20 impacts Indigenous people because Canada, who’s hosting the session, is actually claiming they have 100 per cent exclusive power, jurisdiction, authority over Aboriginal and treaty territories, and that’s totally wrong,” he said.

Manuel and others will be working to ensure that the illegitimacy of the G20, and the Canadian government’s ongoing denial of Indigenous sovereignty, take centre stage during the meetings.

What is Defenders of the Land?

In a declaration entitled, “Tell the world the truth about Canada’s record on Indigenous rights!”, the Defenders of the Land, a network of Indigenous communities and activists, is appealing for a “cross-Canada day of non-violent action” on June 24, timed to coincide with the opening of the G20 summit in Toronto.

According to the declaration, actions could include “blockades, occupations, rallies, or economic disruptions, in addition to spiritual ceremonies and community gatherings, all of which maximize respect for life and our rights as Indigenous Peoples.”

First Nations signed on include the Algonquins of Barriere Lake in Quebec, the Ardoch Algonquin and Big Trout Lake in Ontario, and the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, which represents eight communities in the central interior of British Columbia.

They aim to draw attention to what they say is the Canadian government’s “continued policy...to terminate Indian Peoples by removing our land and resource base and denying us the right to self-determination.”

Canada, alongside New Zealand, Australia and the United States, were the only countries to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. Australia reversed its position last year and was recently followed by New Zealand, which declared its support at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York on April 19. The next day, Washington’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice announced the United States would review its opposition.

In his Speech from the Throne in March, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated the Conservative Government might give “qualified recognition” to the UN Declaration, which critics argue would drastically limit its full implementation.

During the national day of action, Defenders of the Land will demand the Canadian government adopt and implement the UN Declaration, recognize Indigenous land rights, stop criminalizing Indigenous human rights activists, and investigate and take action to end the murder and disappearance of hundreds of Indigenous women (582 since 1974, by the latest count of the Native Women’s Association of Canada).

—Martin Lukacs

From climate change to Indigenous rights, the government of Canada lags far behind.

The G8 is a power play by participating countries, said Ben Powless, a Mohawk from Six Nations who works with the Indigenous Environmental Network. “It’s an effort to try and get out of their international obligations in terms of the [United Nations] and in terms of their own actual moral and legal responsibilities to the people most impacted by their decisions.”

Manuel and Powless are part of a push to bring Indigenous resistance to the international, macroeconomic level. Both are involved with Defenders of the Land, a national-level organization that attempts to bring together a national response to Indigenous struggles that are often isolated and fragmented.

“The AFN [Assembly of First Nations] has already tried to deal with all these issues, and so have all the provincial, territorial and tribal organizations,” said Manuel. “They’ve all written their letters, they’ve all had their resolutions, but the government doesn’t respond to it. The Defenders is just another added level of reaction that is coming from a body that isn’t really controlled through any sort of government-type funding,” he said.

The AFN and the territorial and tribal organizations receive yearly core and project funding from the federal government.

“But I don’t think Defenders in itself is adequate. I think the real answer is the local people have to get involved, local people have to take action on the ground and force the federal government and the provincial government to change basic fundamental policy,” said Manuel.

This push for bottom-up action is a concerted, purposeful response to the top-down, undemocratic powers exercised by the G20.

“Right now all of the major economic decisions are top-down; that’s what the G8/G20 is all about,” said Manuel. “All the top dogs get together, and they make decisions in private meetings. And the decisions float down—which is wrong. One of the things about Aboriginal treaty rights is that it’s a very bottom-up kind of approach, especially vis-a-vis the G20.”

Manuel emphasized that non-Native support for Indigenous struggle is not only possible, but also an effective way to push back against corporate power.

“The real thing for Canadian people to realize is that Indigenous people are really the only ones who have a legitimate interest in pushing back government and pushing back industry, and you can tell that just by the court decisions that Indian people have won,” he said. “If Canadians can understand that, that’s how they can counterbalance big companies: by supporting Indigenous people, and the recognition of Aboriginal treaty rights—as opposed to just leaving it up to the government. If you leave it up to the government then you’re endorsing the top-down approach.”

While 2010 is the second time Canada has hosted the Winter Olympics and the G8 in a single year, it is the first time anti-capitalist and anti-colonial movements will converge on both events.

For those who were part of the anti-Olympics convergence in Vancouver, the G8/G20 protests in Ontario mark the next step forward.

“The step forward I want to take from anti-Olympics organizing is from here to Toronto,” said Lyn Highway, a community organizer in Vancouver. “Convergences are places where Indigenous resistance can connect with other anti-capitalist resistance.”

For Highway, being able to work on an autonomous action and also plug into legal and media infrastructure set up as part of the convergence, was one of the key successes of the anti-Olympics convergence.

“The anti-globalization movement never really mobilized Native people in North America, although there were large numbers involved in Mexico and South America,” said Gord Hill, an artist from the Kwakwaka’wakw nation involved in anti-Olympics organizing. But he thinks many Native people were encouraged by the expressions of resistance during the Games in Vancouver.

“No movement has ever succeeded without using a diversity of tactics, which arises from the involvement of diverse social movements, and this is a strength that should be promoted,” said Hill. “Expressions of resistance in non-Native movements shows a fighting spirit, a warrior spirit,” he said.

A day of action on Indigenous rights, called by the Defenders of the Land, will take place June 24 in Toronto.

An Indigenous counter-summit planned for Toronto evolved out of an Indigenous summit in Hokkaido, Japan, which took place during the G8 summit there in 2008.

The decision to focus on the G8 in 2008 was a telling moment in the international Indigenous movement, said Powless, because it brought together those people living in G8 countries who are directly impacted by economic and colonial policies.

The four-day gathering at Toyako, Hokkaido, in Ainu territory, included Ainu performances and cultural events, as well as open- and closed-door meetings, all of which took place alongside public events surrounding the G8 summit. “It did a good job of opening up the spotlight in terms of Indigenous issues there, and gave a fairly prominent voice to a lot of the Indigenous representatives who were able to attend,” said Powless.

In addition to the actions of June 24, Indigenous people will be active around the G20 in labour unions, anarchist collectives, and national and youth organizations.

Dawn Paley is a journalist based in Vancouver. She is a member of the editorial collective of the Vancouver Media Co-op.

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

Grassy Narrows River Run 3

Staking the North

hillarybain — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 05:53:05 +0000

The Arctic is being developed—in whose interest?

MONTREAL—On March 28 Indigenous leaders and environmental activists called for a moratorium on Arctic oil and gas exploration, as Foreign Affairs Ministers from Canada, Norway, Denmark, Russia and the United States met at the “Arctic Summit” in Chelsea, Quebec to discuss their plans for the resource-rich North.

Canada has acknowledged its interest in metals, oil and gas in the Arctic, which the melting sea ice is opening up to exploration. But critics are expressing concerns about the impact of Arctic industrialization on Indigenous peoples and the climate.

“New oil and gas development is anything but responsible in the face of a very serious climate crisis,” says Andrea Harden, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “It is no small irony that increased access to exploit reserves in the fragile Arctic Ocean ecosystem is largely the result of melting sea ice.”

The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), the Alaska-based Resisting Environmental Destruction On Indigenous Lands (REDOIL) and the Council of Canadians travelled to the Arctic Summit to deliver their appeal for a moratorium on oil exploration.

According to a joint press release issued by the IEN, REDOIL and the Council of Canadians, 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas have been discovered in the arctic. Clayton Thomas-Muller of IEN is concerned that talk of developing oil and gas reserves in the north is just part of a larger initiative to exploit the world’s remaining natural resources.

“The Arctic development plan is part of an ongoing psychotic initiative lead by the G8/G20 nations to exploit the world’s last remaining pristine ecosystems for energy [and] for raw resources,” explains Thomas-Muller.

According to past communiques, G8 meetings have explicitly encouraged the development of new oil reserves. A new resolution to phase out G20 country subsidies to oil companies was passed at a G20 meeting last September but the resolution lacked any time-frame for action.

Thomas-Muller was also concerned by the lack of Native representation at the Arctic Summit considering the difficulties Inuit people face as a result of oil and gas exploration.

“Indigenous peoples in the circumpolar region are the true canaries in the coal mine when we think about the global climate crisis,” Thomas-Muller explains. “They carry a disproportionate impact from the global climate crisis and then are doubly impacted by the immense presence of unsustainable energy development in that region.”

Inuit have observed changes in animal populations and behaviour, thinning sea ice and unpredictable weather patterns. An Inuit hunter was stranded in January when the ice floe he was on broke off and started to drift in the Northwest Passage.

Ongoing explorations in Nunavut are going after nickel, diamonds, sapphires, uranium, gold, silver and other metal deposits. The exploratory process may also adversely affect caribou herds on which Inuit depend for sustenance.

According to the Beverly and Qamanirjuaq Caribou Management Board (BQCMB), caribou populations suffered a “major population decline” since 1994. A 2004 position paper published by the BQCMB suggests that increasing demands for caribou, effects of climate change, and infrastructural and industrial development on caribou ranges—including exploration—are the major contributing factors to this decline.

Incidentally, food harvesting rights and land use planning with consideration of health, housing, education and other social services are guaranteed to the Inuit people of Nunavut, according to the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). This agreement concurrently handed over immense swaths of land in modern-day Nunavut to the Crown.

G7 Finance Ministers met in Iqaluit, Nunavut, in February. Some speculated that Canada’s recent strategy of promoting “Arctic Sovereignty,” including Canada’s staking of subsurface rights to the Arctic seabed and control over the disputed Northwest Passage, played a role in the choice of location.

The Harper government has bolstered its talk of Arctic Sovereignty through its “Arctic Strategy,” and, since 2007, has announced $3.1 billion in military spending for infrastructure development, annual military training exercises in Nunavut and the creation of the Canadian Northern Development Agency (CanNor).

Since the signing of NLCA Canada has been handing out exploration permits within the territory. Mining companies have invested at least $700 million in exploration in the territory since 2007, according to Nunavut Minister of Economic Development and Transportation Peter Taptuna.

Meanwhile, critics have accused Canada of not fulfilling its obligations under the NLCA. The Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) is suing the federal government for $1 billion for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary obligation. NTI would not elaborate on the ongoing court case.

A judicial review of the NLCA produced a number of suggestions which the federal government dismissed as being too costly. The announcement for $3 billion toward military infrastructure in the Arctic was announced less than a year later.

Shailagh Keaney is a writer based in occupied Atikameksheng Anishnawbek territory.

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

Arctic Canary

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

Women and Children First?

Cameron Fenton — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:10:06 +0000

Conservative policy contradicts "maternal and child health" plan

TORONTO—This January, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called on G8 leaders to make women and children a top priority during the June summit. In a Toronto Star opinion piece, Harper cited a “pressing need for global action on maternal and child health,” and expressed concern for what he called the world’s “most vulnerable populations."

Women’s rights advocates say that since taking office Harper has in fact undermined equality policy and existing advocacy programs.

In The Harper Record, a book published by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, the Ad-Hoc Coalition for Women’s Equality and Human Rights documented how, upon gaining power, the Conservatives made drastic cuts to women’s equality programs. They shut down 12 Status of Women offices and defunded the Women’s Program on equality advocacy as well as the Court Challenges Program, a legal program supporting gender equality, among other things.

“The common consensus in the coalition is that Harper’s policies have been a repressive step backwards for the feminist movement in Canada,” Coalition Coordinator Claire Tremblay explained.

In the January 2009 federal budget the Equitable Compensation Act was passed, preventing women in the Public Service from challenging pay-equity cases at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Long-time feminist activist Judy Rebick notes that Harper is “ideologically motivated; he does things by stealth, so most of the things he does are under the wire.”

In 1998, Harper declared that “the federal government should scrap its ridiculous pay equity law,” and in 1999 he called human rights commissions “an attack on our fundamental freedoms.” He announced plans to shut down Women’s Commissions in Vancouver, Toronto and Halifax this March.

In April 2010, the Coalition for Pay Equity in New Brunswick was denied funding despite the fact that, as vice-president Denise Savoie noted, the group had fulfilled all requirements for funding. “Evidently, their decision is based on ideology, not on the value of the project or on the group’s ability to reach the objectives,” she said.

According to the Global Gender Gap Index—produced for the World Economic Forum to measure economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, political empowerment, health and survival of women—Canada has fallen 11 places since Harper took office.

Harper’s announcement of the “Women and Children Initiative” came on the heels of the Canadian International Development Agency’s (CIDA) funding cuts to KAIROS, an ecumenical non-profit organization that supports overseas partners addressing the root causes of women’s inequality.

The Popular Feminist Organization (OFP), a grassroots women’s organization in Colombia which runs 22 centres providing legal and health services and youth programs, is one example of the groups to be directly affected by the CIDA cut. For women, “the OFP represents an important democratic space,” said KAIROS’s Latin America specialist Rachel Warden. The organization is “an alternative to the violence, poverty, and human rights abuses that surround them.”

The evolution of the Conservatives’ focus on maternal and child health remains unclear. In his Toronto Star opinion piece, Harper only made vague mention of the need for clean water, inoculations, and the “training of health care workers to care for women and deliver babies.”

Action Canada for Population and Development, a human rights advocacy group, explains that maternal and child health requires a comprehensive approach that includes sexual and reproductive health and rights, with access to family planning, including contraception.

But these recommendations appear to be falling on deaf ears. In an interview this February in Embassy magazine, Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda stated the government’s plan will not “support access to family planning and contraception.”

In March, Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon confirmed that this new priority “does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives.”

Two days later Harper flip-flopped, stating, “We are not closing doors against including contraception, but we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion.”

Meanwhile, the International Planned Parenthood Federation is waiting to hear if an annual $6 million CIDA grant supporting crucial reproductive health and family planning programs will be renewed.

The battle lines have been drawn. But what is at stake?

Financially it is unclear. The 2010 Canadian federal budget increases international aid by $364 million before capping it for subsequent years. The budget states, “Canada will use its leadership...to focus the world’s attention on maternal and child health and will work to secure increased global spending on this priority.” Yet there is no specific monetary allocation for the new initiative.

In ideological terms the stakes are well-defined. Harper told the World Economic Forum “it is...time to mobilize...to do something for those who can do little for themselves. To replace grand good intentions with substantive acts of human good will.” There is no attempt to address the root causes of injustice.

“There is a connection between a woman having control over her body and taking a first step towards empowerment and equality,” notes Tremblay of the Ad-Hoc Coalition. “If a women doesn’t have control over her body how successful can those other initiatives be?”

It isn’t clear what Harper’s G8 Initiative on Women and Children will achieve. On the contrary, given the systematic erosion of work supporting women’s equality and equity, there is a pressing concern that women’s rights will be further undermined.

“Stephen Harper has been a disaster for women,” observes Rebick. “He is the most dangerous prime minister we have ever had. Harper is dismantling Canada as we know it.”

Rusa Jeremic is an Educator, Writer & Satirist based in Toronto. She has an M.A. in Political Science from York University.

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

World Social Forum Kenya

Toronto vs. Cochabamba

Martin Lukacs — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:11:27 +0000

G20 to consolidate control over climate negotiations

MONTREAL—A small group of the wealthiest and largest carbon-polluting nations will use this summer’s G8 and G20 summits to advance an unjust global climate deal through unrepresentative, anti-democratic channels, say climate campaigners, Indigenous groups and representatives of nations in the global South.

According to documents released in February by the G20 Research Group—associated with the Munk Centre for International Studies—the European Union (EU) wants to “pursue a new deal on global warming through the G20, since the December 2009 Copenhagen conference of nearly 200 countries led to unwieldy negotiations that accomplished little.”

“This speaks to the inability of rich countries to recognize [their] climate debt, and speaks to their rejection of the UNFCCC process and a move to a much more undemocratic process,” said Andrea Harden, Climate and Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in 1992 and has met regularly since 1995 to create solutions to climate change. With 192 countries now party to the Convention, it is considered by many nations and civil society groups as the most democratic international forum for reaching an effective global climate treaty.

In Copenhagen, the “Circle of Commitment”—a group of wealthy nations, including the US and the UK—secretly circulated a document known as the Danish Text. It recommended consolidating climate negotiating power in wealthy nations, and placing control of climate financing under the purview of the World Bank. The result of the summit was the Copenhagen Accord, a US-backed, non-binding agreement that was similar in scope to the Danish Text. While supporting the UNFCCC as a forum for international negotiations, many nations and climate campaigners are reluctant to support the Accord.

“The Copenhagen Accord is a weak document that is not going to address the issue of climate change in any meaningful way,” said Harden. “The lack of any mandatory emissions targets means that whole countries will be facing dire consequences thanks to our government’s inaction.”

Pablo Solon, Bolivia’s chief envoy to the United Nations, told The Dominion such big power manoeuvring would undermine a just global response to climate change.

“Bolivia believes that on an issue that affects the whole of humanity, we cannot make decisions in small unrepresentative forums, whether it is a group of 20 nations or in secret dinners behind the UN facade as we saw in Copenhagen,” said Solon. “That is why we are calling for climate change to be brought back into the full UNFCCC process, and are supporting just, effective proposals put on the table by civil society organizations.”

While Canada and US politicians have refused to publicly acknowledge their policy shift, critics argue their statements about the UNFCCC processes indicate as much.

In the weeks after Copenhagen, head US climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing stated “it is...impossible to imagine a negotiation of enormous complexity where you have a table of 192 countries involved in all the detail.”

Critics’ speculation that the Copenhagen Accord would be used to undermine the UNFCCC was confirmed in early April 2010 at the Bonn intersessional meeting. The United States announced that nations refusing to sign the Accord would be ineligible for financial aid to developing nations to mitigate climate change.

“The US is acting like a bully, strong-arming the most vulnerable countries to get them to sign onto an ineffective and unfair deal that will not move the world closer to a just climate agreement,” said Kate Horner of Friends of the Earth in a statement to the media.

“This is in their rights, but unfair and clearly an attempt to punish Bolivia,” said Solon. “What kind of negotiation is it where you lose money if you disagree?” He said Bolivia’s negotiating positions would not change because of such threats. “We are a country with dignity and sovereignty and will maintain our position.”

Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice denied rich countries would prefer to work outside the UNFCCC. When asked by The Dominion, he also pledged support for the Copenhagen Accord.

“Close to 90 per cent of the world’s emissions are now governed under the Copenhagen Accord,” Prentice said. “The [government’s] intent is to proceed through a multilateral process to turn that accord into a treaty. It may be discussed but the focus will be the multilateral process to turn this into a binding treaty, and that is not the role of the G8 or G20.”

For representatives of Indigenous communities, drowning island nations and nations of the global South, the Copenhagen Accord represents a step in the wrong direction.

“The Copenhagen Accord has no legal standing—it is a declaration of defeat by nations determined to avoid their responsibilities for climate change,” said Solon.

Canada has come under fire as a major destabilizing force in international climate politics, and recently lowered its emissions targets to meet those of the United States.

“Our economies are integrated to the point where it makes absolutely no sense to proceed without harmonizing and aligning a range of principles, policies, regulations and standards with respect to combating climate change,” said Tracy Lacroix-Wilson of Environment Canada.

Under the self-regulation measures of the Copenhagen Accord, the Conservative government has decided to harmonize its emissions targets with the United States at 17 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020.

When measured against the Kyoto Protocol’s 1990 base year, the Copenhagen Accord will only reduce emissions by three per cent. This is half of Canada’s legally binding targets under the Kyoto Implementation Act, and far below what climate scientists are calling for.

Critics point out that the Accord leaves 75 countries involved in the UNFCCC negotiations out of future climate plans, adding weight to speculations that Canada and other major polluting economies aim to undermine the UNFCCC.

“It is essentially the G20 that is holding back the international process to achieve a fair, ambitious and legally binding climate treaty,” said Kimia Ghomeshi, G8/20 Campaign Co-ordinator for the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition. “It is these industrialized, wealthy countries that are historically responsible for causing climate change and therefore have the greatest responsibility to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.”

Gomeshi argues that without comprehensive, science-based targets enshrined in a global treaty, 76 nations “representing approximately 80 per cent of global emissions” will need to make cuts internally. Without enforcement measures, there are no forums for the most adversely affected nations to hold polluters accountable.

To address the Copenhagen Accord’s inadequacies, Bolivian Prime Minister Evo Morales convened the first World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in late April.

“The People’s Summit on Climate Change aimed to bring democracy and people back into decisions on climate change and our future,” said Solon.

The Council of Canadians was one of the organizations which sent civil society representatives to the Cochabamba conference. “We are excited to hear about and discuss some of the projects on the table, including the creation of a climate justice tribunal and an international referendum on a global climate treaty,” Harden told The Dominion. in the lead up to the summit.

Meanwhile, critics accuse wealthy nations of delaying innovative responses to climate change. At the G8 Foreign Minister’s meeting in Gatineau, Quebec in March, Japan’s was the only delegate to address the media on the subject of climate change.

“As we all know, the global community must address the issue of rising sea levels and rising temperatures. In order to address [climate change] there seems to be a consensus today,” said Kazuo Kodama, Japan’s Foreign Affairs press secretary. “We have to transform our society from a carbon intensive one to a low carbon society.”

According to documents obtained from the International Energy Agency (IEA), G8 and G20 leaders will likely table Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies as their main effort towards this transformation. The IEA’s 2009 CCS report to the G8 notes that “most of the major economies have announced ambitious plans (and associated funding) for large-scale CCS demonstration projects,” including a $3.5 billion investment from the Canadian government.

But a 2008 report released by Greenpeace called CCS technology a “false hope” solution that has yet to be effectively implemented by any large-scale coal-fired power plant or in the Canadian tar sands.

“Carbon Capture and Storage amounts to an expensive distraction from more meaningful actions addressing the climate crisis, like keeping fossil fuels in the ground, significant improvements in conservation and energy efficiency,” said Harden. “Even worse, emphasizing the proposed ‘potential’ of CCS masks the immediate impacts of ongoing expansion of destructive fossil fuel-based energy production, which the climate crisis demands we transition away from.”

The Toronto Community Mobilization’s G20 call-to-action included an invitation to Copenhagen to bring “climate justice” to the streets of Toronto.

“Following the collapse of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, [the G8/G20] will be discussing the global economy, development and climate change,” read the invitation. “These gatherings are about trying to fix capitalism, a system that cannot be fixed; about creating unsustainable market responses to ecological catastrophe that reinforce systems of oppression... The so-called leaders at these gatherings do not represent us.”

Organizers are looking to examples and proposals from the global South, such as those coming out of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth.

“We imagine the beginnings of a people’s accord, a summary of proposals led by groups who have worked many years on these issues, which can be implemented at local, regional, national and international levels,” said Bolivia’s Solon. “And it could provide a road map for saving people and our planet.”

Cameron Fenton is an intern at The Dominion and an anthropology student at Concordia University in Montreal.

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

Under water

Picking up the Copenhagen pieces

Issue #68

dru — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 01:51:52 +0000

Subhead:

Special issue on the G8/G20

Cover Image:

dominion-issue68-g20-1.jpg

Body:

Download Issue #68 (2010 G8/G20 Special Issue) [20 MB, pdf]

To read articles from this issue on the web, visit this page.

Issue #68 is formatted as thirty-two pages of letter sized paper (8.5x11").

(You need Acrobat Reader or an application that reads pdf files to view the print version of this issue.)

Distribution rights:

You are free (and encouraged) to download, print, and distribute as many copies of the Dominion as you like, with the following restrictions:

the content of the paper will not be modified
no advertising or additional content will be attached to the paper
15% of any profits derived from the sale or distribution of the Dominion will be paid to the Dominion
We ask regular readers for a voluntary contribution of between $2 and $10 per issue. See our donation page for details.

Exceptions to any of these restrictions may be granted on a case by case basis. Contact us with any questions.

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