Legal Control and Resistance Post-Seattle

Introduction SINCE THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN 2001, FEARS OF TERRORISM HAVE BEEN USED TO justify loosening regulatory restrictions on law enforcement activity (Fernandez, 2009). Before September 11, activists in alterglobalization (1) movement were laying siege to global governance (2) meetings around world, threatening credibility of Washington Consensus. These festive mobilizations, espousing direct but taking varying forms in countries with different traditions of political struggle, were exposing undemocratic nature of global economic governance. Concerns about terrorism provided convenient framework in which to increase repression of nonviolent movements, not only of alterglobalization movement, but also connected movements such as eco-defense and antiwar movements. In late 2005, U.S. media began to report that federal agencies were engaging in broad-based investigative activity targeted at avowedly pacifist peace organizations composed of religious people, veterans, and elders, who had opposed Iraq War using quite tame and lawful means. As scholars of these movements, we found ourselves increasingly aware of complex dimensions of repression and of creative resistance happening in face of that repression. Yet, as we examined literature on repression we recognized several limitations. First, we discovered that literature on policing of protest had simply not kept up with events since emergence of alterglobalization movement in 1998. Second, we recognized that literature on policing of social movements did not address wider social control of dissent. Third, we realized that protection of global economic governance meetings involved dimensions of state organization that have not been considered in earlier studies of state repression. Fourth, we recognized new component of state repression, cross-border collaboration on tactics for protest policing. To begin to address these shortcomings, this article reviews previous literature on relationship between state and social movements and draws on extensive ethnographic data on alterglobalization movement as basis for outlining new framework for studying social control of dissent. It is important to note that literature review here is limited to United States and Europe, and our data reflects ethnographic work in U.S., Mexico, and Canada, with secondary sources from Western Europe. The analysis draws on seven years of ethnographic work, (3) independent media reports, activist discussions in several forums, and public texts such as activist videos. Seattle and Aftermath On November 30, 1999, nonviolent protesters in Seattle successfully shut down World Trade Organization (WTO) meetings for full day due to combination of creative direct action, presence of massive numbers of people in streets, and police disorder (de Armond, 2001). Reeling from defeat, police agencies in other cities rapidly geared up to face anti-corporate and anti-globalization protests. The response was not merely quantitative. Drawing on 35 years of observation of First Amendment activity, National Lawyers Guild (2004: 19) concluded that post-Seattle protest policing manifests a noticeable shift from reactive law enforcement to preemptive law enforcement. Four years after victorious Seattle WTO protests and two years after September 11, Seattle coalition of unions, antipoverty groups, environmentalists, and students gathered to oppose Free Trade Area of Americas (FTAA) meetings in Miami. No fewer than 40 law enforcement agencies, seven of them federal, organized to limit protest so as to prevent violence in what was described by Miami Mayor Manuel Diaz as the model for homeland defense. The U.S. Congress provided $8 million to help with security in Miami; this money was provided as line item in Iraq War appropriations bill. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.