APEC Summit Reveals Howard’s Government Fears Protests

When the IMF World Bank held its meeting in Singapore last year, the government took precautions in ensuring that the visibility and number of protests were reduced and minimised. Even though the Singapore government has banned protests in the country, they reluctantly succumbed to international pressure by allowing foreign protestors to demonstrate, though in a controlled situation.

They manage the dissent through a series of red tape and intimidation efforts such as preventing listed activists (or at least holding them for questioning at the immigration) from entering the country; drawing up a small enclosed area for indoor demonstrations to control the protests; and openly stating that they will come down hard on any protesters engaging in any violent behaviour.

Prior to the event, the police in Singapore had little experience in dealing with any large scale protests let alone riots. As such, they went overseas to be trained by police forces in countries with such experience.

Much to the delight and relief of the Singapore government, none of the foreign protestors took up the bait to challenge their right to freedom of assembly. Instead, the overseas NGOs and activists organised an alternative forum in neighbouring Indonesia island, Batam.

The only protest and march that resulted in a stand-off during that period of time, was a local grassroots effort by a small group of Singaporean activists who had been incensed at the government’s economic and social policies that created a large wealth gap while stifling dissent.

In less than a month’s time, 2 to 9 September, Australia will be hosting the APEC summit which will be attended by the government officials and business representatives.

While Australian guarantees its people the right to freedom of assembly, the Howard government is naturally jittery when it comes to this large- scale upcoming event. After all, it includes governmental leaders from within the Asia Pacific, which also includes US President, Mr George Bush, who invites disdain, dislike and protest wherever he goes - chiefly for his disastrous and genocidal decision to invade Iraq.

As such, it is pertinent that the government should ensure that top security and safety be extended to all, whether living, working or travelling in Sydney during that period of time.

Except for perhaps a few inconveniences to ensure safety, the government should still allow forms of peaceful protests to happen.
However, this does not appear to be so, based on recent developments.

Drawing a leaf from authoritarian regimes such as Singapore, which has a successful history of repressing civil and political rights, the current Australian Howard government is keen to neutralise and reduce public protests during this period of time since an outright ban is out of the question as it will more likely create public outcry, and make the government look draconian and ridiculous.

So it does what it can do given the situation. Neutralise the efficiency and visibility of protests. It does so using a combination of strategic and intimidation efforts:

a) Dissuading activists to protest.

Premier Morris Iemma has warned school students from being exploited by feral protestors. The NSW Education Minister, John Della Bosca, has similarly warned students not to engage in the upcoming APEC protests as it is likely to turn violent. Students who skip classes to protest will be marked as absent. This provoked an response from the activist group, Resistance, who was trying to stage a national walkout on September 5 to protest the arrival of Bush.

In another Sydney Morning Herald article, the NSW Police has denied allegations that they have told activist groups to stay away from the APEC protests.

The NSW president of the National Union of Students, Tom Patton, said the police him that, “… we hope the NUS isn’t in APEC, we don’t think it’s a good idea.” He also claimed that the police asked him if he had any details of student groups or individual students who were organising APEC demonstrations.

The president of the Sydney University student representative council, Angus McFarland, also said in the same news report that he was asked to provide details of protestors and given a similar warning in a meeting with the police after the May 2 protest.

b) Intimidation tactics.

While public dissuasion may reduce the number of protestors, police harassments and intimidation acts are employed as a second and additional tool to further decrease the strength.

Besides the allegation of police blackmailing an activist, Daniel Jones into spying protestors to get charges reduced or dropped in return, the NSW Police, the Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police have also approached universities for personal student information without their prior approval or a warrant.

Says Lucy Sanders, general secretary of The Student Representative Council at Sydney University, “It’s creating a climate of fear assuming police have a right to get any type of information they want without justification or consultation.”

In another case reported by Green Left Weekly and StopBush2007.org, an activist was targeted at the customs for listing “activist” as her occupation. According to the StopBush2007 website, the activist was subjected to frisking, while her bag was searched and computer confiscated. She relates, “One official told me that I was being searched because of the APEC forum scheduled for September 7th – 9th, 2007. This is despite the fact that I had a plane ticket that had me returning to the United States on August 22nd, two weeks prior. Other officials wouldn’t state why I was being searched.”

In another chilling account of police intimidation, journalist, David Marr, in an essay for “His Master’s Voice”, Quarterly Essay, #26, 2007, wrote of police raids in Sydney on the 14 March, resulting in the arrest of 5 student activists.

According to the article, “the bail conditions of the twenty-eight Victorians charged require them to stay out of New South Wales. Going north to demonstrate at APEC will land them straight in gaol.”

c) Impede demonstration - protest route (in)visibility, displaying naked force; and widespread police powers.

While Iemma has said the recently acquired $700,000 water cannon, which can cause serious injury was a coincidence purchase not intended to coincide with the APEC summit; and that it will only be used against rioters, it psychologically deters peaceful protestors for fear of being hurt during the demonstration process. NSW Greens MP John Kaye said that demonstrating the device “could act as a needless provocation to APEC protesters, which could increase the risk of violence during the summit.”

A 5 kilometre, 2.8 metre fence to “lock up sections of the CBD during the APEC summit” will effectively prevent protestors from entering the “declared zone.” As Alex Bainbridge, spokesperson for Stop Bush Coalition said, the change to the protest route would “hide us out of sight”.

This is in addition to the police having extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals in the declared area during the APEC summit.

As has been explained, in using various heavy handed efforts to reduce the visibility and scale of protests for the upcoming APEC summit, the Howard government reveals its innate fear of public dissent.

Burmese Military Regime Crackdown on Protests

 

The Burmese military regime has cracked down on protests twice again within a week.

According to Al Jazeera, a rare silent protest march, led by pro-democracy activists, on 19th August, sees as many as 500 people walking down a major road north of Yangon for about 9 kilometres. They were protesting against a 100 per cent rise in fuel prices at state-owned petrol stations.

A later BBC news article reported that at least seven top leaders of the pro-democracy 88 Generation Students group have been arrested to prevent protest fervour from spreading. According to the state media, they were arrested for “undermining stability and the security of the nation”.

Despite the arrests, more Burmese have taken to the streets to show their displeasure against the government. According to Al Jazeera, as many as 300 protested on Wednesday, 22 August, which further resulted in at least another six activists being arrested. The US Campaign for Burma, an activist group based in Washington, said that five university students and three members of Myanmar Development Committee, another activist group, were separately detained. Their arrests were however not reported by the state media.

In another incident (of which we are not sure if it part of the Wednesday protest), women activists have led a protest march in Rangoon. According to the report from Burma Digest, “there have also been reports of attacks by security forces and activists identified some of their attackers were women. They were holding sticks and chasing out activists from neighbourhood.”

The Burmese government has much to fear with the current protests as they are aimed at bread and butter issues which seriously affect the livelihood of the average Burmese. Fuel hikes not only increase the costs of transportation, but prices of necessities such as food.

Thuria Ayza, in a write-up for Burmese Digest, believes that the military regime is able to subsidise fuel prices but unwilling to do so.

She puts forth the explanation that Burma produces large quantities of natural gas through its off-shore fields and getting paid handsomely by selling them to neighbouring countries. Moreover, Burma’s low car ownership plus a strict petrol ration which limits a private car owner to only two gallons of petrol a week means the government can easily afford subsidize petrol prices if they really want to.

She puts it crudely, “the Government is not interested at all in people’s welfare; their first and foremost aim now is to become a North Korean style rogue nuclear power. And so they want to invest all their billion dollar gas money on buying nuclear facilities from Russia. It’s very much like the insane Great Leap Forward in China during communist Mao Hse Tong era; millions of Chinese were dying from starvation while their Chairman Mao leapt forward to nuclear power status.”

It is apparent, with this crackdown, that the Burmese military regime has not shown any signs or efforts to democratise. This is despite the fact that ASEAN, of which it is a member of, is planning to form a charter with a human rights mechanism. The immediate task, for ASEAN and the international community, is to pressurise the military government to release the activists arrested during this crackdown.

Sicko, US Vs John Lennon, 300 & Spiderman 3

Apologies for making a personal posting today. Bear with me while I try to make a coherent essay about 4 recent films that I have seen, in rapid succession within the last couple of days.

While one can enjoy the muscle and action flicks of 300 and Spiderman 3 with its testosterone-driven action scenes complete with advanced state of the art graphics, I fear that the “hidden” messages is more reflective of our times.

In 300, the battle between the Spartans led by the King scarily reminds me of Mr Bush with his rhetoric of war for freedom or democracy. Even though I do feel that the director desperately wants us to emphathise with the muscular sod. That is not to say that the Persian King who thinks he is God, and dressed like a witch with piercings all over his face, is Mr Kindness personified (or is he? Since he offers Mr Spartan King peace, but only if he agrees to kneel in front of him).

Spiderman 3, on the other hand, has a more “human” theme as compared to the previous episodes. Peter Parker aka Spiderman becomes arrogant when a black crawley mutant devours his suit . His enemies are Mr Sandman and the black spider with super-extraordinary powers that he manages only to defeat after he enlists the help of his previous friend turned foe. The director is telling us that for all the good that we have done, we may commit some wrong-doings along the way (and vice versa) … and arrogance is just bad for your soul!

Sicko, Michael Moore’s latest documentary about the healthcare system in the US sends a chill right down my spine when I see the numerous cases of Americans being rejected medical aid due to the fact that a) either they couldn’t afford it or b) the insurance companies refuse to pay. With this documentary, I’m even more convinced that healthcare, along with other necessities such as social welfare and education should be made universal and free.

And speaking of the universal theme of freedom, US Vs John Lennon, provides an interesting albeit in my humble opinion, a rather too lengthy documentary on John Lennon’s brush with the US administration. It highlights Lennon and Yoko’s peace efforts such as their bed in protests, the concerts they sing in support for John Sinclair, their friendships with radical activists such as Abbie Hoffman, and their brush with the Immigration and Naturalization department in the US. To realise that the US administration is wary of John Lennon and getting the FBI to conduct surveillance on the popular pop singer makes one wonder how widespread appeal the man must have in America during those times.