May 23, 2001

REFLECTIONS ON THE QUEBEC SUMMIT(cont'd)

One of the most significant features of the anti-Summit protests was the extent of mobilization by the labour movement, both within Quebec and across the rest of the country. At the outset of the anti-Summit preparations, the three main centres of the Quebec labour movement were cautious and noncommittal about their involvement. In certain quarters, there was concern over the potential for violent repression, as well as distrust of some of the non-labour forces. There was also hesitation about mobilizing a mass protest that would run directly contrary to the increasingly neoliberal, pro-globalization positions of the Parti Quebecois and its federal counterpart, the BQ.

As the Summit approached however, the left and militant forces – both within the leadership and among the rank-and-file – gained the upper hand over the class collaborationist forces and succeeded in mobilizing a massive trade union presence on the streets of Quebec City. The large turnout of workers reflected not only anger at the anti-democratic measures of the Chrétien government, but also growing support within Quebec for independent political action by the labour movement, which is increasingly distancing itself from the PQ, on both economic and social issues.

No less important was the mobilization of labour in English-speaking Canada, particularly in light of divisions and difficulties in mobilizing members in recent years. Despite the recent CAW-CLC split however, thousands of trade union members mobilized for the Summit actions. The just-announced resolution of this dispute creates much more favourable conditions for labour to unite and fight around common objectives, such as opposition to the FTAA.

While the mobilization and consciousness-raising of Canadian workers is of central and decisive importance, the activation of other sections of the people – women, environmentalists, social and anti-poverty activists and especially youth and students – is also crucial to the advance of the anti-globalization struggle.

In Quebec, the youth distinguished themselves for their militancy and courage in the face of brutal police repression. Their determination encouraged many other protesters, including trade union members, to join them in solidarity at the protests along the "wall of shame."

Some of the youth actions were marked by spontaneity and a lack of clear leadership with a thought-out strategy, tactics, or alternative policies. In the pitched confrontations with police and the ensuing confusion, small bands of self-named anarchists (and probably more than a few police-agents provocateurs) undertook some actions which the police then used as justification to increase repression against the largely non-violent and defenceless participants. Ultimate responsibility for the violence along the "wall" however must be placed squarely at the feet of the police and security forces, and the Canadian government which directed themSome of the youth actions were marked by spontaneity and a lack of clear leadership with a thought-out strategy, tactics, or alternative policies. In the pitched confrontations with police and the ensuing confusion, small bands of self-named anarchists (and probably more than a few police-agents provocateurs) undertook some actions which the police then used as justification to increase repression against the largely non-violent and defenceless participants. Ultimate responsibility for the violence along the "wall" however must be placed squarely at the feet of the police and security forces, and the Canadian government which directed them.

If some of the youth actions might have been ill-considered or adventurist at times, it must equally be noted that the decisions taken by the main organizers of the April 22 mass demonstration -- the "People's Summit" convenors, labour and mainstream NGOs – were too cautious in character. These organizers underestimated the mood of the participants, most of whom were looking for more militant leadership. There was disappointment when the main march route steered well clear of the "wall" and ended at a remote site far from downtown. Many, including rank-and-file workers, wanted to show their solidarity with the youth along the wall, and to express their own anger at the FTAA and its assault on democratic rights, in a disciplined, peaceful, yet firm manner.

One of the key lessons of Quebec is that the anti-globalization movement is now becoming a truly mass phenomenon, bringing broad sections of the people into active struggle. This includes, not surprisingly, activists with reformist and social-democratic views. For instance, it is significant that – under pressure from below – the NDP leadership has now come out against the FTAA, and has called for Canada's withdrawal from NAFTA.

Quebec City is an important marker in the struggle against the FTAA and corporate globalization. Quebec shows that the movement continues to grow, and to mature politically. The movement is entering a more militant phase, both in terms of demands and tactics of struggle. Left and anti-capitalist ideas, those critical of capitalism and its lack or real democracy and genuine human rights, are spreading widely.

Future actions will be even more confrontational in character. The most decisive task will be to continue to build the mass character of such protests, involving ever widening circles of the working class and the people in struggle against corporate globalization. Only such a course can move the fightback from resistance to advance for the working class and the downtrodden.

During the "People's Summit," there was some useful discussion about the next steps in the fight against the FTAA. One of the main recommendations was to demand that any draft FTAA treaty be placed before the people in each and every country in the Americas for a democratic vote via referendum. This is a useful demand, aimed directly at the anti-democratic nature of the negotiations to date. This tactic has some limitations however: not all national governments will agree to a referendum. They may alter the wording of the referendum to create confusion, or change the timing of the referendum to attempt to weaken and dissipate the anti-FTAA movement.

Several activists pointed out during that discussion that, in addition to the call for referenda, other forms of mass struggle will also be required to defeat the treaty, including the proposal for an hemisphere-wide general strike of workers, linked to other mass actions and civil disobedience. May 1, 2001 was suggested as a possible target date.

Such an historic action by workers would hit directly at the interests of the transnational corporations and the neoliberal government promoting the FTAA, and bring tens, even hundreds of millions of people actively into the struggle to defeat it. This kind of escalation is possible, provided that the labour movement throughout the Americas begins immediately to develop a coordinated plan, and starts to mobilize working people in Canada, the U.S., and throughout Latin America and the Caribbean for its realization.

The anti-FTAA movement brings together people's demands for democracy and to end the corporate agenda that undermines the sovereignty, equality and social conditions of the hemisphere's nations. It is re-opening discussion on the alternative to capitalist plunder – namely, socialism. The left forces and the Communist Parties of the hemisphere have a special responsibility to ensure that this struggle stays united and grows.

© 2001 Communist Party of Canada