Financial Times - July 31, 1999
THE CHANGING FACE OF PROTEST: IDEALISTS OR SUBVERSIVES?
Whatever your view, the nature of civil disobedience is being irrevocably transformed by the internet and modern communications, says Max Wilkinson
They surged in thousands down Whitehall, passionate for their cause, and exulting in the power of the crowd. For most it was a peaceful protest. But the activists saw it differently. For years, they had been building up their international connections. They had courage to defy the law, to use violence and, if necessary, to go to prison.
That protest was against slavery. The year was 1832. Nobody now would think they were wrong.
That perspective suggests caution when assessing - or condemning - the "new" forms of direct action that have emerged recently. Take three examples that occurred this week.
First, on Monday, there was the orgy of arson and looting that disfigured the 30-year anniversary of the hippy festival at Woodstock in New York state. Second, on Tuesday, Lord Melchett, executive director of Greenpeace, was remanded in jail after he and 29 other protestors were charged with damaging genetically modified maize crops in Norfolk.
Then, on Wednesday, Perry Nove, the City of London Police Commissioner said in a report on the Carnival against Global Capitalism, on June 18, that there had been a "level and sophistication of planning not previously seen at similar demonstrations".
Mr Nove added yesterday that the extent and ruthlessness of violence was also unprecedented, exceeding even that of the Poll Tax riot in Trafalgar Square in 1990.
One even more disturbing aspect of the June 18 violence in London was its gratuitousness. Some aspects of this were similar to the arson at Woodstock, where the crowds boiled over in a frenzy of music, heat, alcohol and drugs. But though there seems to have been an element of protest in Woodstock - perhaps against the "capitalist" organisers of the festival - the hard men behind the London outbreaks were better organised.
Protesters emerged clad in black with balaclava helmets from chanting and dancing crowds to smash windows, occupy buildings and burn cars, causing ¦1.1m (Dollars 1.95m) of damage and 42 injuries, according to the police. In Woodstock, it seems the riots were more of a crowd phenomenon. Up to 10,000 of the total 225,000 at the festival are said to have joined in the burning of lorries, stealing food and attempts to smash up the sound system. Others danced naked among the flames, as if to outrage every bourgeois convention.
Woodstock may be a one-off, but the broader dangers of organised mass protests spilling into violence have to be taken seriously. The Carnival against Capitalism was organised internationally, with protests taking place in several European business centres, although London was the only one that turned nasty. The next focus of protest may occur in Seattle, where the World Trade Organisation is holding a meeting in November.
In the confused iconography of the modern anti-capitalist movements, international companies and free trade are blamed indiscriminately for "exploiting" poorer countries and bamboozling consumers in richer ones. In many ways, it is a romantic reaction to the forces of global capitalism - a yearning for a mythical past, in which communities lived more in harmony with nature. Even so, some of the bigger groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, have had an enormous impact on government policy, and are feared by many companies - from Monsanto and Nestle to Shell.
In this, they are aided by new technologies, which protesters have become increasingly skilled at exploiting.
First comes the appetite of television for soundbites and zippy images. Greenpeace has shown itself a master of manipulation of the media for two decades. But its methods have been expensive, using ocean-going ships, for example, to put protestors between whaling vessels and their prey or to try to block nuclear waste shipments. Now many smaller groups are learning how to interest local television and radio stations with inexpensive stunts, such as tying themselves to "raw logs" due to be exported from Canada. (Slogan: Log exports = Job exports)
Second, the internet is now used efficiently by thousands of groups for disseminating information, organising protests, and in some countries, circumventing government censorship.
The internet, says Peter Wilby, editor of the New Statesman magazine, has dramatically shrunk the boundaries of protest.
"Previously there had to be a critical mass of people wanting to form a group in one locality. Now anyone can form a group if there are three or four like-minded people in the country - or indeed in the world," he says.
Third, modern communications technology, particularly mobile phones have made the organisation of demonstrations much easier and potentially more efficient. Of the three, the internet has had the most profound influence on the nature of protest. By enabling protest movements to fragment and focus on narrow or local issues, it has greatly increased the scope of protest. There is now something for almost everyone to get steamed up about.
But because of the ease with which connections can be made between internet sites it is also possible to co-ordinate large numbers of disparate groups for a big event. Moreover, it may be difficult to identify who is doing the organising - and this creates rather sinister possibilities.
This seems to be what happened on June 18. The commissioner's report suggests that some 33 different groups may have been involved, including Reclaim the Streets, Movement against the Monarch, and Campaign against the Animal Trade, with many diverse aims.
When the protesters converged on London, they were issued with different coloured carnival masks which looked like innocent fun, but which had a deeper purpose. On the back was printed not only the aims of the protest but advice on how to deal with the police and a deceptively simple instruction: "On the signal follow your colour."
Mr Nove says this gave the organisers a high degree of control. Using mobile phones they created a "starburst" in which groups of protesters moved in different directions, creating confusion for the police.
No-one should object to peaceful protests, however well organised or however incoherent their objectives. In London during the last 12 months, there were 30 protests which required 500 or more police to control them, generally without mishap. The violence on June 18 partly resulted from police mistakes.
But the Carnival against Capitalism has raised anxieties as to whether a new, more violent trend is set to emerge. It mirrors a debate within the protest movement about the legitimate use of violence or direct action. The charges against Lord Melchett of Greenpeace are of some importance in this context. His defenders say that he is accused only of damage to property, not injuring people. But the London and Woodstock arsonists were also "only" harming property. Greenpeace's boast that it has "de-contaminated" farms is no more than a euphemism for criminal damage.
Most protesters are law-abiding in principle, even when they are prepared to condone some infringements of the law in practice.
This is the ambiguity that violent protesters seek to exploit. For example a discussion paper published on the internet by Earth First! explains that setting fire to ski huts in Vail, Colorado, last year was wrong and counter-productive. Sabotaging bulldozers would have been just fine - and effective.
Perhaps the biggest difference between protesters now and those of previous generations is that there are many more single issue protesters, often with woolly or incoherent ideas. Does that also distinguish today's protests from the strong and specific cause of 1832?
Don't be too sure. Edmund Burke, the political theorist, complained that the abolitionists were guilty of confusion and over-simplification. Just like the anti-free traders are today, right?