2007-07-06

A report from (some of) the Netherlands

The two-days discussion in the weekend of June 30/Juli 1st became
especially exiting with the presence of three foreign activists, who came
to add their experience. Also some older activists had their comments. Of
course there was the usual remarks that the movement was a lot better in
shape in the past, and also the traditional denigrating remarks about the
bolshevist I.S. did not lack. Another recurring observation was the
typical Dutch allergy for theory and analysis. But over all it was a
constructive evaluation of a week of protests and the preparation of them.

Dissent-Nl was not spared from criticism. After an initial good turnout at
‘national’ meetings the amount of people actively involved went down
steadily. Searching explanation for that, some mentioned the large
distance to travel for people from the north as well as the fact that for
many people local activities are preferred. Another hindrance is the fact
that many people are not accustomed to basis democratic decision-making
and do not understand the value of it. Finally the specific structure of
the dissent-network (Nl, but also international) was pointed at as
explanation. It is a ‘vague’ and formless structure, with the advantage
that it is difficult to combat but that also makes it more difficult to
reach fixed agreements and commitments, because people feel less attached
to such a loose structure.

Militancy

Of course there was also discussion about the violent ending of the
demonstration on Saturday June 2nd. Many present doubted if the violence
applied by the black block was appropriate. Another observation was the
return to autonomous form of organisation from the ’80’s and the question
if there are any alternatives to that. According to one experienced
activist, there are only two options for such a situation; either all
participants try to figure out in advance what they want to accept and
what not, or everybody is free to choose their own tactics (the so called
‘diversity of tactics’ approach) and accepts differences on forehand. In
practice the first option is impossible because of the juridical
consequences of being prosecuted for advocating violence, which leaves
only the second option as a possibility.

Another observation was that activists who had participated with the
actiondays before the summit, were exhausted at the moment the blockades
had to start. They might have better chosen their time to build affinity
groups and make plans for the blockades. But others remarked that the
actiondays added content to the protests, because of their thematic
content (migration, agriculture and militarism), although you wouldn’t
find much of that back in the media, who were all focussing on the riots
of Saturday.

Another observation was that dissent more or less was invisible at the
actions and in the camps. They were doing a lot of the work, but could not
(or didn’t want to) claim any of the results. This is understandable and
even very correct in a network-situation, but also makes it possible for
other more visible leftist currents to ‘harvest’ the successes.

Media

A separate discussion was about the media and the image they created (of
the G8 and the activists) and attempts to counterbalance this. One of the
contributions from the Dutch side was a special bus for activist media,
which was hindered by the police all the time and was even confiscated for
24 hours. The organising of such a project appeared to be quite some task,
that was not done perfect all the time and much was learned. On the other
hand a huge amount of images and reports was produced of which a part was
shown at the evaluation.

What many people observed, was that differently from other summits there
were hardly any sightings of convoys with delegates from the 8
participating countries. And if the delegates can simply be transported
via air and sea, isn’t the blocking of the roads on the land then merely a
symbolic act? And how many people get motivated by symbolic acts these
days? There was some debate about the possibilities to block air and
sea-routes, but we quickly concluded not to have the means for that. Also
it appeared that many of the lower ranks of the G8-circus had not met in
Heiligendamm but at other places. They had not been targeted by
demonstrators, which had to do with the concept of blockading, which is
always focused on the surrounding of one specific target. But there was a
hopeful conclusion: with enough information and a good communications
system, it might have been possible to block the harbours they had been
using. In fact there were a few small blockades at the harbour of Rostock.

Further

As to the question how to proceed; (apart from the international plans and
the evaluation in Limoges) there were several suggestions. The ideas
varied from organising the occupation of a liberated zone
(zapatistas-Netherlands?) and organising an info tour to present the
results of the G8-actions. Another idea was to organise a monthly meeting,
each time in a different town with information about affinity-groups and
how-to-organise efficiently and a presentation at the next 2.Dh5-festival
end of November in Nijmegen. Because the participants understood they
would not agree on one communal plan, they decided to organise a new
meeting in September.

(…)