IMF/World Bank protests in D.C. this week

Here's one man's account in Washington D.C.
www.dc.indymedia.org

Metro Police Antagonize Student -- A Story Everyone Should Read by Chris Caesar
Email: ChrisCaesar (at) hotmail.com 16 Apr 2005
A note: I write this not as an exercise in self-aggrandizement; I include it here only to demonstrate how pervasive and eerily effective the security apparatus was at the recent protests against the IMF/WB (April 16th). It is striking, and slightly frightening. Anyone planning future actions in the Metro area should be aware of just how closely our actions are being scrutinized.


For the duration of Saturday's demonstrations against the IMF and World Bank, I noted with surprise how laid-back the police presence was – though not out of liberal police aggrandizement or gratitude; rather, given all the hysteria that typically accompanies these demonstrations, I found the police to be ostensibly lazy about protecting corporate franchises and other obvious targets. This naïveté was blown out of the water, however, when I was confronted by a particularly obnoxious police officer who seemed to find great satisfaction in antagonizing college students…

I was taking photographs for Indymedia, and had bought some gum and water at the CVS in Dupont Circle. Enjoying my chew, and weighing whether or not to leave, I overheard an officer speaking to another:

”We got this kid running around over here, possibly tagging, we should check him out.” The officer then started to quickly move down the street, and, in accordance with my journalistic ethics, I followed to see if I could provide some camerawork. I was disappointed to see him enter his car and simply wade through some of the congested traffic, eventually pulling up to the sidewalk.

As I approached a trash can to throw out my gum, I noticed him glaring at me as he exited the vehicle, and I instinctively reciprocated. To be fair, I can’t say for sure whether the following was a result of my stare or a premeditated plan to confront me, but it began nonetheless:

“Pretty angry today, huh pal?” Uh, what?
”Excuse me?”
”Well, you seem pretty upset today – starting trouble at the rally earlier, being violent.”

The “trouble I started at the rally earlier” consisted of my yelled insult to 4-6 anti-abortionists that had picketed there: namely, “Go back to the asshole side of the street!” as cops escorted them there. While certainly immature, it’s a bit far from ‘starting trouble’ or being violent. In fact, most of the people at the rally were visibly upset by the ‘pro-life’ presence and chanted hostile messages.

I looked at the cop in disbelief, slightly freaked out.

“I don’t have to talk to you, and I’m not going to,” I forcefully said.
“I can talk while we’re just walking, can’t I?”
”Well, you can talk. I’m not going to answer.”
”Okay, okay, you’re right, and that’s what makes America great, right?” Was this guy trying to provoke me? America’s great because I don’t have to drop to my knees whenever a cop talks to me?
”Sure…” I snubbed him.
“We’ve noted,” he went on, “that you were involved in three incidents today. Why are you so angry?”

The only other two “incidents” that I could possibly think of occurred when cops recklessly sped past me on motorcycles (on the sidewalk, for God’s sake) and I yelled at them to slow down. Had I stumbled even slightly, it could’ve been a serious accident for both of us. Stunned by their recklessness, I turned and saw an archetypal pig laughing at me in his car, amused at my attempt to stick up for my safety and others – i.e., doing his freaking job! Without thinking, I shot him an angry glance: “Is it funny?! Fuck you!” complete with middle-finger gesturing.

The other ‘incident’ occurred when I was taking a picture of a line of police motorcycles, and a cop angrily told me to cross the street; she didn’t want her picture taken. I told her that “I [didn’t] want the shit beaten out of me, so I guess I will.”

Disrespectful? Sure, but only in retaliation. Violent? Eh, not quite. Whatever they were, how this officer was cognizant of these three relatively minor incidents was beyond me. Meanwhile, he persisted.

“Why are you so angry? We’re just trying to keep you safe.”
”Oh, I’m sure,” I rolled my eyes. Officer Provocateur started to cross the street.

“You always gotta have a smart aleck answer for everything,” he shouted, “it’s going to get you in trouble.” How prescient:

“Well, you always gotta be a consistent jackass, sooo…” I trailed off. He stopped in the middle of the road, and even though his back was towards me, I could tell he was enraged. He turned around, and started racing towards me, wagging his finger and yelling.

“OKAY, NOW YOU HAVE GIVEN ME A REASON TO SPEAK WITH YOU,” he said, exhibiting far more ‘violence’ then I had that day.

“NOW YOU’RE CURSING, AND IT’S AGAINST THE LAW IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO SWEAR IN PUBLIC WHERE PEOPLE CAN HEAR YOU.” (sic)

I glanced over at the enormous “FUCK THE WORLD BANK” and “IMF= IMPERIAL MOTHER FUCKERS” sign but kept the irony to myself.

“Now, if you screw up one more time,” he said, breathing on my face at this point, “you’re going to jail, you got it? You-are-going-to-jail.”

“Okay, sorry sir.”

Jackass turned and marched back to the Circle, presumably to heroically protect the public from the papier-mâché terrorists congregating there. I left shortly thereafter.

What is noteworthy here isn’t Jackass’s approach, but the breadth of his familiarity with my behavior that day. I wasn’t dressed flashily, (just khakis and a buttoned shirt) – but he knew who I was (and a lot of my activity) from a single glance. His language (“We’ve noted”) and his baseless accusations of “violence” suggest to me that his information didn’t stem from his own account; that is, unless he truly is just a complete idiot.

Can anyone speak to this? How exactly is this possible? I’ll admit I’ve only been in DC for a few months and am not familiar with local police tactics, but I’ve never encountered this in any previous protests, DC ones included. Thank you, and be careful.


www.dc.indymedia.org

 

The thing I find interesting is that many of the World Bank/IMF protestors seem to be anti-free market types,but at the same time, many free market advocates are also criticle of the World Bank and IMF mainly because they view these organizations as being more socialist than being related to capitalism. To them, both the WB and IMF are about distributing wealth to poor countries that they say usually ends up in the swiss bank accounts of corrupt leaders, and this economic Aid interferes with countries setting their own pace for economic development.

 

there's quite a bit of info (from the anti-capitalist perspective) on www.globalizethis.org

 

As far as debt cancellation. What's going to be done in these countries that owe money to prevent them from going back into debt after the debt is cancelled,and when they need to borrow money all over again? I'am assuming that these countries and their debt cancellation supporters are wanting them to make economic reforms that will fix the reasons that led to their debt in the first place?

 

What led to the debt "in the first place" were these little euphemisms called "structural adjustment programs" which patented products that local communities (most, indigenous) traditionally had sole rights to. An intrinsic right to their own property and means of survival. So local farmers were forced into allowing Monsanto (etc) to buy up the local goods, ie. wheat, corn, and other foods and claim ownership of it. The local farmers had no choice in the matter and so their livelihoods now stood in the hands of some mega-powerful global companies who've done everything to squeeze the local community dry of it's own right to self-determination and preservation. Some have called it "economic terrorism". Everything has been bought up, including water itself in many areas, so in effect nothing belongs to the farmers and local people outright. All products now have patents, restricting local ownership, basically wholesale. That's only where the problem starts. The issue of debt is a bit more complex, let alone the far-reaching concept of corporate Imperialism on a global scale. I'd refer you to the site www.50years.org which explains in greater detail the issues of the corporate pandemic.

 

This is almost completely fictional. If a country has debt problem, the IMF or World Bank offers new, lower cost lending on the condition that the circumstances leading to the current problem, i.e. huge budget deficits and excessive state intervention in the economy, are corrected. If the country wants to keep doing what its doing, it is free to do so and can continue to rely on private lenders. It has nothing at all to do with patents on indigenous products.

You have to realise that developing countries are not lawless zones where no subsidies or trade protections exist. In fact most developing countries have plenty of trade barriers, tariffs, quotas, subsidies, state owned industries, state directed lending, and other forums of government interference, typically more than developed countries. It is not doing them any good.

 

Most of the countries get into problems due to being attacked by wallstreet, with speculators short selling their currency, the wallstreet starts economic warfare on these nations, then the WB and WTO comes up to grab everything at rock bottom prices.

Some short selling casualties
Mexico 1994
Thailand 1997
Indonesia 1998

Once wallstreet attacks a nations currency, the currency falls and since the nations debt is usally in US dollars it creates these problems.

 

Psy, I've decided that arguing with your make-them-up-and-then-change-them-as-you-go-along theories are a waste of my time, I'd rather debate someone like Revo.

Seriously, how can the WTO "grab up" something at a rock bottom price? It is a trade agreement. How can a trade agreement grab up anything? It makes no sense and you are insulting me by suggesting I have time for such idiocy. Why don't you learn the meaning of the terms you are using before you try to debate with them?

 

My bad, should be IMF. A evil capitalists attacks some poor country by short selling their currency, country currency crashes, IMF loan sharks that puts the country in the hands the same capitalists that caused the countries currency to crash.

Read Wizards of Money part 5: Monetary Terrorism

 

Pointbreak, there's a great documentary called "The Corporation". I just saw it for the first time and it confirmed everything we suspected about "lonesharks" and others. You actually hear it from the horses mouth...that is, the "bad guys" admitting their wrongdoings. Give it a look-see.

www.thecorporation.com

 

Yeah it played in London, I skipped it though. Maybe I'll see it on DVD.

Anyway its true that corporations are psychopaths, but is this news? Even going way back to Adam Smith, he never said profit seekers benefitted society deliberately, he said it was a side effect of their pursuit of self interest.

And as for corporations having rights as persons, well, they should.

When I see it, we can compare notes. Meanwhile structural adjustment has nothing to do with patenting indigenous products.

 

You have a completely warped concept of "personhood" if you think artificial business constructs should have "rights" or be deemed "persons". But then you've long proven to be little more than a rabid apologist for unbridled corporate criminality (and all those tied to it).

The fact that you readily admit the psycopathy of the corporate world and subsequently condone and even applaud it, only demonstrates your own parasitic and irresponsible character (or more rightly lack thereof).