Last week, Bush's two sons joined forces to try to usher in that new
world by holding the FTAA negotiations in Florida. This is the state
that Governor Jeb Bush vowed to "deliver" to his brother during the 2000
presidential elections, even if that meant keeping many
African-Americans from exercising their right to vote. Now Jeb was
vowing to hand his brother the coveted trade deal, even if that meant keeping thousands from exercising their right to protest.
Despite the brothers' best efforts, the dream of a hemisphere united
into a single free-market economy died last week - killed not by
demonstrators in Miami but by the populations of Argentina, Brazil and
Bolivia, who let their politicians know that if they sign away more
power to foreign multinationals, they may as well not come home.
The Brazilians brokered a compromise that makes the agreement a
pick-and-choose affair, allowing governments to sign on to the parts
they like and refuse the ones they don't. Washington will continue
to bully countries into sweeping trade contracts on the model of the
North American Free Trade Agreement, but there will be no single,
unified deal.
Inside the Inter-Continental hotel, it was being called "FTAA
lite". Outside, we experienced something heavier: "War lite". The more
control the US trade representatives lost at the negotiating table, the
more raw power the police exerted on the streets.
Small, peaceful demonstrations were attacked with extreme force;
organisations were infiltrated by undercover officers who used stun
guns; buses of union members were prevented from joining permitted
marches; people were beaten with batons; activists had guns pointed at
their heads at checkpoints.
Police violence outside trade summits is not new; what was striking about Miami was how divorced the security response was from anything resembling an actual threat.
From an activist perspective, the protests were small and obedient, an
understandable response to weeks of police intimidation.
The FTAA Summit in Miami represents the official homecoming of
the "war on terror". The latest techniques honed in Iraq - from a
Hollywoodised military to a militarised media - have now been used on a
grand scale in a major US city. "This should be a model for homeland
defence," the Miami mayor, Manny Diaz, said of the security operation
that brought together over 40 law-enforcement agencies, from the FBI to
the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
For the Miami model to work,
the police had to establish a connection between legitimate activists
and dangerous terrorists. Enter the Miami police chief, John Timoney, an
avowed enemy of activist "punks", who classified FTAA opponents as
"outsiders coming in to terrorise and vandalise our city".
With the activists recast as dangerous aliens, Miami became
eligible for the open tap of public money irrigating the "war on
terror". In fact, $8.5m spent on security during the FTAA meeting came
out of the $87bn Bush extracted from Congress for Iraq last month.
But more was borrowed from the Iraq war than just money. Miami
police also invited reporters to "embed" with them in armoured vehicles
and helicopters. As in Iraq, most reporters embraced their role as
pseudo soldiers with zeal, suiting up in combat helmets and flak
jackets.
The resulting media coverage was the familiar wartime combination
of dramatic images and non-information. We know, thanks to an "embed"
from the Miami Herald, that Timoney was working so hard hunting down
troublemakers that by 3:30pm on Thursday "he had eaten only a banana and
a cookie since 6am".
Local TV stations didn't cover the protests so much as hover over
them. Their helicopters showed images of confrontations, but instead of
hearing the voices on the streets - voices pleading with police to stop
shooting and clearly following orders to disperse - we heard only from
police officials and perky news anchors commiserating with the boys on
the front line.
Meanwhile, independent journalists who dared to do their jobs and
film the police violence up close were actively targeted. "She's not
with us," one officer told another as they grabbed Ana Nogueira, a
correspondent with Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! who was covering a
peaceful protest outside the Miami-Dade county jail. When the police
established that Nogueira was "not with us" (ie neither an embedded
reporter nor undercover cop) she was hauled away and charged.
The Miami model of dealing with domestic dissent reaches far
beyond a single meeting. On Sunday, the New York Times reported on a
leaked FBI bulletin revealing "a coordinated, nationwide effort to
collect intelligence" on the anti-war movement. The memorandum singles
out lawful protest activities. Anthony Romero, executive director of the
American Civil Liberties Union, said the document revealed that "the
FBI is targeting Americans who are engaged in lawful protest. The line
between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred."
We can expect more of these tactics on the homeland front. Just
as civil liberties violations escalated when Washington lost control
over the FTAA process, so will repression increase as Bush faces the
ultimate threat: losing control over the White House.
Already, Jim Wilkinson, director of strategic communications at
US Central Command in Doha, Qatar (the operation that gave the world the
Jessica Lynch rescue), has moved to New York to head up media
operations for the Republican National Convention. "We're looking at
embedding reporters," he told the New York Observer of his plans to use
some of the Iraq tricks during the convention. "We're looking at new and
interesting camera angles."
The war is coming home.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted
material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material
non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this
constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in 17 U.S.C ยง 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this
site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain
permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper
which first published the article online and which is indicated at the
top of the article unless otherwise specified.