page 6.                                                          forward - back

THE WORLD BANK, INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND, AND WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION


do you think you need an army to take over a country?
contents:
(1) cartoons and screed.
(2) transcribed pamplet. a detailed look at policy, with examples.
              don't be put off by the long pamphlet and miss the pome that follows it.
(3) pome - the actual experience of an A16 protester discovering what jail is really like. "no telling what might happen."
(4) people of color.
cartoon of storm trooper "free trade".

cartoon recounting a visit to a country affected by w.t.o. actions.

"YOU AGREE TO THIS, DON'T YOU?"

does this sound "international" to you?

of the 24 directors, 8 represent: usa, japan, germany, united kingdom, saudi arabia, china, russia.  while 184 counties share the rest.

the usa controls almost 17 percent of the votes of the imf, 16 percent of the world bank, japan controls 6 and 8 respectively, and germany, the united kingdom and france each control 5.
the usa hold veto power
and
the president of the usa appoints the world bank president.
 
what is the WTO ?
the WTO is a global council of capitalists,
NOT regulators, politicians, health workers, scientists, laborers, consumers, educators, people's representatives.
their only purpose is to make money.
they represent companies which are already the largest in the world.
they will tell any lies that bring them a profit.
now they want that power to be legal.
they want to
regulate themselves.
they ignore local wisdom.
they support
BRUTAL DICTATORS.

if they control whole economies,
they will control the world. 
do you think this sounds paranoid or grandiose?
you can no longer hide in your local self concerns.
read on.

     THEY WERE NOT ELECTED
   YOU HAVE NO SAY, NO RECOURSE.

in every single case
that has been brought before them
they have ruled in their own favor.

contrast these two points, one of words and one of facts:

(1) who would believe this corporate double talk? why would they use so many buzz words, if they weren't trying to reassure people? there is absolutely no substance here.
     from the World Bank website:

"the world bank is the largest source of development assistance. we use our financial resources, our trained staff and our extensive knowledge to help developing countries onto the path of stable, sustainable and equitable growth. world bank programs give high priority to sustainable social and human development...  with a growing emphasis on inclusion, governance and institution building. the main focus is to help the poorest people and the poorest countries."

(2) as said at the beginning of the section titled "the system":

it is a central part of IMF/World Bank policy on loans to poor nations that loans are conditional on the receiving nation cutting funding for education and social services, including health, and raising the cost of necessities. this is called "restructuring."
does this sound like empire building to you?
keep the peasants ignorant.

ONE ESTIMATE COUNTS 2.3 MILLION PEOPLE DISPLACED JUST BY CURRENT WORLD BANK PROJECTS.

cartoon of greedy w.t.o. monsters.more cartoons.yet more cartoons.

below, copied whole, is the best of the WTO pamphlets.
a careful reading will reveal how these people are not just power hungry,
 but insane,
attempting regulations against
all workers rights,
the environment,
and democracy itself.


The citizen’s guide to the World Trade Organization
Published by the Working Group on the WTO/MAI, july 1999
The contents of this pamphlet may be freely reproduced provided that its source is acknowledged.

eds. note - take special note of the formalized jargon of "TINA," with the AMAZING engrained assumption that "There Is No Alternative" to their policies.
this is nothing less than bizarre.

THE WTO AND CORPORATE GLOBALIZATION
What do the U.S. Cattlemen's Association, Chiquita Banana and the Venezuelan oil industry have in common? These big business interests were able to defeat hard-won national laws ensuring food safety, strengthening local economies and protecting the environment by convincing governments to challenge the laws at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Established in 1995, the WTO is a powerful new global commerce agency, which transformed the General Agreement on Tarriffs and Trade (GATT) into an enforceable global commercial code. The WTO is one of the main mechanisms of corporate globalization. While its proponents say it is based on "free trade," in fact, the WTO's 700-plus pages of rules set out a comprehensive system of corporate-managed trade. Indeed, the WTO has little to do with the 18th Century free trade philosophy developed by David Ricardo or Adam Smith, who assumed neither labor nor capital crossed national borders.

Under the WTO's system of corporate-managed trade, economic efficiency, reflected in short-run corporate profits, dominates other values. Decisions affecting the economy are to be confined to the private sector, while social and environmental costs are borne by the public.

Sometimes called the "neoliberal" model, this system sidelines environmental rules, health safeguards and labor standards to provide transnational corporations (TNCs) with a cheap supply of labor and natural resources. The WTO also guarantees corporate access to foreign markets without requiring that TNCs respect countries' domestic priorities. '

The myth that every nation can grow by exporting more than they import is central to the neoliberal ideology. Its proponents seem to forget that in order for one country to export an automobile, some other country has to import it. Now the world's transnational companies want more — a new "Millennium Round" of further WTO negotiations which would accelerate the economic race to the bottom by expanding the WTO's powers.

But this concept's failure goes beyond this inherent sham: the lose-lose nature of export-led growth was exposed in the aftermath of the East Asian financial crisis of 1998. When the IMF compelled Asian countries to try to export their way out of their crises, the U.S. became the importer of last resort. U.S. steel-workers lost jobs to a flood of steel imports, while workers in Asia remained mired in a terrible depression.

The neoliberal ideological underpinning of corporate-managed trade is presented as TINA — "There Is No Alternative" — an inevitable outcome rather than the culmination of a long-term effort to write and put into place rules designed to benefit corporations and investors, rather than communities, workers and the environment.

The top trade officials of every WTO member country are meeting in Seattle at the end of November. To start with, the WTO must assess the effects of its current rules before negotiating new agreements. This booklet explains what the WTO is, how it is damaging the public interest, how corporations and some governments want to expand WTO's powers, and what you can do.

WHAT IS THE WTO AND HOW DOES   IT WORK?

"More and more the WTO is under pressure to expand its agenda because more and more it is seen as the focal point for the many challenges and concerns of globalization."
                                         - Renato Ruggiero,  WTO Director General

The WTO is the international organization charged with enforcing a set of trade rules including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Trade Related Intellectual Property Measures (TRIPS), General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), among others. WTO was established in 1995 in the "Uruguay Round"of GATT negotiations.

Prior to the Uruguay Round, GATT rules focused primarily on tariffs and quotas. Consensus of GATT members was required to enforce the rules. The Uruguay Round expanded GATT rules to cover what is known in trade jargon as "non-tariff barriers to trade." These are food safety laws, product standards, rules on use of tax dollars, investment policy and other domestic laws that impact trade. The WTO's rules limit what non-tariff policies countries can implement or maintain.

Currently there are 134 member countries in the WTO and 33 nations with observer status. Officially, decisions in the WTO are made by voting or consensus. However, developed countries, especially the so-called QUAD countries (U.S., Canada, Japan and the European Union), repeatedly have made key decisions in closed meetings, excluding other WTO nations.

The WTO's lack of democratic process or accountable decision-making is epitomized by the WTO Dispute Settlement Process. The WTO allows countries to challenge each others' laws and regulations as violations of WTO rules. Cases are decided by a panel of three trade bureaucrats. There are no conflict of interest rules and the panelists often have little appreciation of domestic law or of government responsibility to protect workers, the environment or human rights. Thus, it is not surprising that every single environmental or public health law challenged at WTO has been ruled illegal.

WTO tribunals operate in secret. Documents, hearings and briefs are confidential. Only national governments are allowed to participate, even if a state law is being challenged. There are no outside appeals.

Once a final WTO ruling is issued, losing countries have a set time to implement one of only three choices: change their law to conform to the WTO requirements, pay permanent compensation to the winning country, or face non-negotiated trade sanctions. The U.S. official position is that ultimately, laws must be changed to be consistent with WTO policy.

THE WTO'S   RECORD:   THREATS TO DEMOCRACY, HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
When the WTO was created, concerned citizens and public interest organizations warned that the combination of the WTO's pro-industry rules and powerful enforcement would pose a threat to laws designed to protect consumers, workers, and the environment. Almost five years later, there is a clear record: the cases settled under WTO rules show the WTO's bias against the public interest.

THE CLEAN AIR CASE
CASE: On behalf of its oil industry, Venezuela challenged a U.S. Clean Air Act regulation that required gas refiners to produce cleaner gas. The rule used the 1990 actual performance data of oil refineries required to file with ERA (mostly U.S. refineries) as the starting point for required improvements for refineries without reliable data (mostly foreign). Venezuela claimed this rule was biased against foreign refiners and took the case to the WTO.
RESULT: A WTO panel ruled against the U.S. law. In 1997, the ERA
changed the clean air rules to give foreign refiners the choice of using an individual baseline (starting point). The ERA acknowledged that the change "creates a potential for adverse environmental impact."
IMPLICATION: Refiners from Venezuela and other countries will use the individual baseline option only if it gives them a weaker starting point, and thus lets them sell dirtier gasoline in the U.S., which would deteriorate air quality. The WTO gives businesses a special avenue to challenge policies, like the Clean Air rules, which have withstood domestic challenges.
 
THE BEEF HORMONE CASE
CASE: The U.S. challenged a European Union ban on the sale of beef from cattle that have been raised with certain artificial growth hormones.
RESULT:  In 1998, a WTO appellate panel ruled against the EU law, giving the EU until May 13, 1999 to open its markets to hormone-treated beef.
IMPLICATION: The ban on artificial hormones applies equally to European farmers and foreign producers. If European consumers and governments are opposed to the use of artificial hormones and are concerned about potential health risks or want to promote more natural farming methods, they should have the right to enact laws that support their choices. Instead, the WTO empowers its tribunals to second-guess whether health and environmental rules have a "valid" scientific basis.

THE SHRIMP TURTLE CASE
CASE: Four Asian nations challenged provisions of the U.S. Endangered Species Act forbidding the sale in the U.S. of shrimp caught in ways that kill endangered sea turtles.
RESULT: In 1998, a WTO appellate panel decided that while the U.S. is allowed to protect turtles, the specific way the U.S. tried to do so was not allowed under WTO rules. The U.S. government is now considering ways to change the law to comply with WTO.
IMPLICATION: It is possible to catch shrimp without harming turtles by fitting shrimp nets with inexpensive "turtle excluder devices." U.S. law requires domestic and foreign shrimp fishermen to use turtle-safe methods. The goal of saving turtles could be undercut by the WTO's second-guessing of how U.S. policy should be implemented, given the most inexpensive, effective means has been ruled WTO-illegal.
 
THE CARIBBEAN BANANA CASE
CASE: The U.S. argued that European trade preferences for bananas from former European colonies in the Caribbean unfairly discriminate against bananas grown by U.S. companies in Central America.
RESULT: In 1997, a WTO panel decided that European preferences for Caribbean bananas are WTO-illegal. The EU proposed a new policy that the U.S. claims still violates WTO rules. The U.S. was granted authority by the WTO to impose $200 million in trade sanctions against European imports until the EU changes the policy to suit WTO demands.
IMPLICATION: The Caribbean's tiny share of the EU market for bananas is the major source of revenue and jobs in some Caribbean nations where mountainous terrain rules out other crops. If Europe abandons its policy to comply with the WTO, some 200,000 small farmers in very poor countries could lose their livelihoods.
Officials in small Caribbean nations worry that implementation of the WTO ruling will destabilize their economies and democracies. The U.S. drug czar noted that the policy change could make these countries more vulnerable to drug trafficking.

Rotten bananas - Corporate interests trample workers.
According to Caribbean women’s groups, "The assured market for bananas has given thousands of families in the sub-region of the Windward islands a measure of security and has afforded us dignity and self-reliance.
The loss of this security through a sudden change in market opportunities would leave us without resources to build a future for our families and our countries."
Why is the U.S. launching a trade war over a product it doesn't even grow? Perhaps huge campaign donations by Chiquita CEO Carl Llndner are a big reason. According to the Washington Times (8/25/97), Llndner gave more than half a million dollars in 199& in campaign contributions to both parties. The giant Chiquita plantations in Central America are notorious violators of workers' health and the right to organize, but this has not prevented the Clinton Administration from pleading their case.

THE WTO'S   BUILT-IN AGENDA AND THE "NEW"   ISSUES
Different countries and interests have different agendas for the WTO's Seattle Ministerial meeting. There are three sets of issues: First, many WTO agreements (Agriculture, Intellectual Property, Services) have built-in reviews set for specific time periods. These reviews do not necessarily require new deregulation talks. The second category includes commitments made at past WTO ministerial meetings to conduct future negotiations on agriculture and services. The key question that will be resolved during this year is whether a third category of "new issues" will be moved into the WTO. Inclusion of these "new issues," such as investment, competition policy and government procurement, would expand the power of the WTO further than ever before.

EXISTING AGREEMENTS
TRIPS AGREEMENT
The Trade-Related Intellectual Property Agreement (TRIPS) sets enforceable global rules on patents, copyrights and trademarks.

The pharmaceutical industry exercised heavy influence on TRIPS negotiations. As a result, the final TRIPS pact requires countries to adopt U.S.-style intellectual property laws, such as those granting monopoly sales rights to individual patent holders for extended time periods. TRIPS requires nations like India, Argentina and Brazil to abandon many policies that help them to develop local pharmaceutical production and make drugs affordable and available to poor consumers.

Pharmaceutical companies hope that new WTO intellectual property negotiations will enable them to tighten the rules even further, with developing countries losing the modest options left to make essential medicines, including those for prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS, more available.

THE SPS AGREEMENT
The WTO's Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS Agreement) sets constraints on government policies relating to food safety (bacterial contaminants, pesticides, inspection, labeling) and animal and plant health (imported pests, diseases).

The SPS agreement goes well beyond forbidding discrimination between domestic and foreign goods. It also sets limits on the level of safety a country can choose, it even applies it equally to domestic and foreign goods. For instance, the SPS rules undercut countries' use of the "Precautionary Principle," which calls for policies to err on the side of precaution when there is not yet scientific certainty about potential threats to human health and the environment. The SPS rules, on the other hand, err on the side of protecting trade flows at all costs.

Beef Hormone and The Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle was eviscerated in the WTO's Beef Hormone ruling. The SPS Agreement puts the burden of proof on countries to scientifically demonstrate that something is dangerous before it can be regulated. The WTO dispute panel declared that the European Union lacked sufficient scientific proof that artificial hormone treated beef can threaten human health. The EU must eliminate the ban or face trade sanctions.
Exotic Pests
Invasive "exotic species," such as the Asian Long-Horn Beetle, are second only to habitat loss as a cause of species extinction and cost the U.S. economy approximately $123 billion annually. Under SPS rules, governments must prove that a particular pest or exotic species could be harmful before applying safeguards intended to keep it out. Yet scientists agree that it is impossible to predict all forms of damage posed by all insects or pest plants. Without the precautionary principle, forests have to be infested and devastated by beetles before a safeguard can be applied.

Food Labeling
The WTO declared an obscure agency — Codex Alimentarius (an agency known to have a thick corporate presence) — as the arbiter of food safety standards for the world. This move was seen as a significant threat to hard-won consumer protections. Even worse, the Clinton Administration now argues that SPS rules restrict a country's right to label products with information that consumers care deeply about, such as the production method (e.g. "organic") or genetic manipulation. This would dramatically limit consumers' right to know.

"There would be no value to labeling where there can be no perceived benefit
to the public other than that some sector of the public thinks it is their right to know."
                                                                                                           -Arnold Foudin, USDA

The entire Agriculture Agreement, including SPS, has a built-in review. Instead 0f launching further deregulation talks, the SPS agreement should be reviewed with a view to changing it to protect our environmental, health and safety laws.

GATS:  IN WHOSE SERVICE?
Services, as in "goods and services," includes nearly all economic activity not involving manufactured goods, raw materials or farm products.   Since many services, such as patient care or teaching, require person-to-person interaction, it used to be almost a truism that services would remain localized. No longer. Today banking, insurance, and data management have all become part of the global economy.

"Since 1987, U.S. services exports have more than doubled, reaching $239 billion last year."
                                                                                                   - U.S. Dept. of Commerce

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is one of 15 Uruguay Round agreements enforced under the WTO. GATS calls for continuing negotiations, although major telecommunications and financial services deregulation agreements have already been completed in the past four years, further services talks are still on the WTO's built-in agenda. Indeed, the industry and now U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky are calling for new coverage of health and education under WTO rules. Explicit coverage under GATT terms of water and water systems, including municipal drinking water, may also be included on the GATS agenda.

GATS terms include commitments by each country to deregulate each service sector. Further financial service deregulation is one of the "back doors" to slip parts of the MAI into the WTO.

THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE
The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture set rules on international food trade and on domestic ag policy. These rules have accelerated the rapid concentration of agribusinesses and undercut poor countries' ability to maintain food self-sufficiency through subsistence agriculture.

The agreement assumes that rather than being self-sufficient in food, countries will buy their food in international markets using money earned from exports. However, many "less developed" countries face low commodity prices for their limited range of exports.   During the WTO's first four years, the prices of agricultural commodities fell to record lows, while food prices remained high. This system can hurt both farmers and consumers and paves the way for TNCs to dominate markets, especially in poor countries.

Rules are needed to address the rapid concentration in agribusiness. A small handful of companies trade virtually all the world's corn, wheat, and soybeans. For example, were Cargill to succeed in its current bid to buy Continental's grain operations, it would control more than 40% of all U.S. corn exports, a third of all soybean exports and at least 20% of wheat exports. This increased consolidation has led to near monopoly conditions in both the farm supply industry and in the food processing and distribution systems.

NEW ISSUES
MAI IN THE WFO
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) aimed to set strict global rules limiting governments' right and ability to regulate currency speculation, investment in land, factories, services, stocks, and more. It was negotiated in secret for two years at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a club of 29 of the world's richest countries. Negotiations were pushed by TNCs and major business lobbies worldwide.
In 1997, the deal started to unravel when activists exposed the potential corporate power grab. By December 1998, the OECD threw in the towel and ceased negotiations. Now many OECD countries want to revive the MAI by putting it in the WTO.

The MAI would have:
*       forbidden consideration of company or country human rights, labor or      environmental records as investment criteria
*       prevented governments from promoting local economic development by granting big foreign corporations new absolute rights to enter markets and get                preferential treatment
*       banned certain investment 'conditions' altogether, such as requiring recycled or domestic content in manufacturing or hiring local workers
*       forbid regulating hot money speculation - the very cause of the devastating Asian financial crises.

The MAI even included provisions empowering foreign corporations to sue national governments in MAI tribunals for monetary compensation if they believed government policies undercut their future profits.

Local officials realized how the MAI would jeopardize their ability to serve their communities. Many city councils, such as San Francisco, Seattle, Geneva and others rallied against the MAI by passing local resolutions declaring their communities "MAI Free Zones." It will take the continued alliance of activists, local governments and unions to prevent the MAI from being reborn at the WTO.

GLOBAL FREE LOGGING AGREEMENT
The Clinton Administration has made it a priority to have a "forest products" agreement signed in Seattle. The proposed "Global Free Logging Agreement" would expand global consumption of paper, pulp and other wood products by 3-4% says industry. It also could restrict certain pro-environmental government policies. It could pose a major threat to endangered forests, ecosystems or biodiversity. Eliminating tariffs on forest products will result in an increase in consumption and logging at a time when the world's native forests are facing extinction. According to the World Resources Institute, nearly one-half of the world's original forest cover is gone. Of the remaining original forests, most is severely degraded, while only 22% remains as large tracts of relatively undisturbed frontier forests.
"It is critical that the international forest products industry set aside parochial interests and join together
to support a WTO trade liberalization agreement in [forest products] this year."
                                                        - W. Henson Moore, President and CEO of the American Forest & Paper Association

The negotiations could also threaten important environmental rules that the WTO considers to be non-tariff barriers to trade: for example, the federal ban on the export of raw logs from most public lands which was created to protect endangered forests. Popular eco-labeling or certification policies (such as those in Arizona, New York and Tennessee) which require tropical rainforest wood purchased by government to be sustainably harvested, could also be considered non-tariff barriers.

The Clinton Administration should be living up to its "pro-environment" rhetoric by writing trade agreements that protect forests and ecosystems rather than pursuing a Global Free Logging Agreement.
COMPETITION POLICY
TNCs view efforts by governments to foster local economic development by restricting TNCs' access to local markets as being an anti-competitive practice. With support from the European Union, TNCs want new absolute rights to enter and operate in any country to be agreed in the proposed WTO Millennium Round. Proponents cynically argue that local firms, especially in developing countries, will "benefit" by becoming more efficient when facing competition from abroad. In reality, removing governments' ability to avoid monopolization of markets by huge TNCs will only lead to more of the takeovers, mergers and other consolidation of industry that is undermining real competition.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
The Uruguay Round even included rules on how governments can spend our tax dollars. Under these rules, governments cannot take political, social, environmental, or justice issues into account when deciding what or from whom to buy. Basically, the rules forbid all non-economic considerations, such as preferences for recycled paper or bans on products from certain nations. However, unlike all of the other rules enforced by WTO, not every country was required to sign on to the procurement rules which cover 26 countries and some U.S. states. Now some countries want these rules to become compulsory for all WTO members (and for the states, provinces, and regions within each country) in the proposed "Millennium Round" of negotiations. Government procurement dwarfs current trade flows in dollar value.

Burma Human Rights. In 1996, Massachusetts passed a law to discourage state government purchases (procurement) from companies doing business In Burma to protest the Myanmar military dictatorship's egregious human rights abuses. The law was identical to state legislation passed in the 1980s to support the anti-apartheid movement In South Africa
.
However, this time the affected corporations used the WTO to protect their interests. With TNC encouragement, the E.U. and Japan challenged the law at the WTO as a violation of the WTO government procurement pact.

Local, state and federal governments use government procurement to achieve domestic policy goals, from increasing local employment to awarding public contracts to firms owned by women or minorities to spur economic development in these groups. In the U.S., thanks to federal government set-aside programs, 23% of firms owned by women of color have some sales to the government. TNCs are attacking these programs and policies as interfering with the "free" market. If TNCs get their way, government purchasers will join the race to the bottom.

a few other choice morsels from WTO history:

against south africans growing herbs to fight AIDS
philipine farmers forced to use pesticides
it is "unfair" to ban gasoline with carcinogenic additives
"silicon valley" workers are poisoned daily, but health issues are "inefficient"

privatization of  education, health care, and welfare
sub-livable wages for youth, who, denied education under WTO policy, become criminals.

____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

the following is redesigned from: reflections on seattle
                                                               by the direct action network
                                                               art by world war III
if you came here through a link, WAIT FOR THE GRAPHICS.

                       drawing of bound woman having her head twisted.
         RAISE YOUR HEAD AND YOU'LL BE NEXT - SEATTLE
 a "protest free zone" is a first amendment-free zone. in what part
of the u.s.a. does the Constitution not apply?
                                            - mumia abu-jamal

we want to see our lawyers
we don't bring lawyers in here
the jail surrounded - no one in or out
out after five days
someone is giving a speech, but there are no words
i'm crying, i left them behind

known quantity, concepts easily drawn, into
until life is set loose
convergence, planning, pageantry, trainings
brilliance, and disbelief at shutting down
bearing ugly over-reaction
escalators, escalated
senseless arrests, military tactics, MEDIA SPIN
chilling calculated menacing vigor
sit. tired of chased, gassed, harassed, intimidated
mediocrity of black riot gear intractable violence
surrounded
will you comply?
i declined
dragged to the bus
will you comply
there's no media, no theatrics?
they didn't understand
holding cell to holding cell
cement walls, unfeeling handlers
nonviolent protester
SHACKLED WRIST TO WAIST TO ANKLE
"party's over"
said through a bullet proof window
women becoming accustomed to
crowding, threats, misinformation
shuffling faces, exhaustion
SOFTENING TO ONE ANOTHER
sleep punctured by metal door slam
yelling number, name, order
SLAM hollow booming
never got used to it, EVEN NOW
lawyers in building CAN'T FIND US
tactics change:  
"we've been good to you
you're not respecting us
it's warm up there
blankets, food, friends, lawyers"
changed again:
taunting
"you have no rights
stupid to think so in the first place
NO TELLING WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN"
we are THE PAPER BAG GIRLS
??? - brown lunch sacks littering the floor
the only comfort on NAKED COLD CEMENT
mantra: nonviolent protest, right to remain silent, attorney
JUST LIKE: name, rank, serial number
SLAM. yelling "get up, get up!"
finally practical, sweeping around us, comical
the air vent becomes FRIGID
cell full of uniforms drags one away
then "yea, it's her turn"
arm twisted back and up
THEN UP SOME MORE
joking "gas her" -they didn't  "let the others freeze"
THEY DID
school yard taunts - so little, so stupid, pointless ideology
tired of your whining
brag about the LATEST COMPLIANCE HOLD
someone touched my ankles
unbuttoning my jeans. unzipping
jeans and underwear ripped off
i was yelling
pressed into cold concrete
then shirt and bra  
WEIGHT KEPT COMING
sickly pool of sweat under me
WHAT WOULD MAKE A PERSON DO THIS?
he was watching
slumping, choking, freezing
is it real? will they come back?
next cell, pounding, to comfort me
SHE TOO
we exchange heart beats
some faces at the door LOOK FRIGHTENED
as if my not breaking scared them
lawyers horrified, denied access
"SHE'S VIOLENT, MIGHT ATTACK YOU"
52 hours from arrest to lawyer
never arraigned
released because NO "PROBABLE CAUSE"
REJECT release till others freed
teenagers, grandmothers
sending SOLIDARITY from jail back to the street
you won't have my name
GIVEN BY MY MOTHER IN LOVE
 to misspell, mis-pronounce
I KNOW THIS IS NOTHING COMPARED
TO WHAT OTHERS SUFFER
EVERY DAY with
no attention from "the well meaning public"
life set loose, unknown, in the family of things
                                     -m.o.
            drawing of bound naled woman before grinning police.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

the media showed only the "black block" rioters.
there were worlds of other things happening.
MEXICO, MALAYSIA, PHILIPPINES, GHANA, PAKISTAN
and labor leaders from MEXICO, CARIBBEAN, SOUTH AFRICA, MALAYSIA, INDIA, CHINA
along with  EVERY MAJOR U.S.A. UNION LEADER.

                                    southwest network - embracing 84 organizations, primarily of color
                                   philippino community center
                                   international people's assembly
                                   black AIDS activists

 people of color should PUBLICLY encourage others - activists, unions, churches - to go to demonstrations.

"not learning about organization and support.
they were very disciplined.
it was liberating, i was changed forever."
                                        sleep overs, plane/bus fare, child care, money donations.

 the Direct Action Network, one of the largest protest organizations, is almost entirely white.

 (1) concern about brutal oppression, which they see enough of at home.
(2) lack of funds.
(3) could not take leave from their job.
(4) lack of day care.
(5) LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE WTO/WORLD BANK/IMF.
(6) NO INTERNET ACCESS, which was how most other activists were organized.
(7) PRESSURE FROM THEIR COMMUNITIES, THOUGH IT WAS UNINFORMED, TO MAINTAIN THEIR
     RESPONSIBILITIES AT HOME.
(8) they didn't want to be a part of  "all those white people."

                                                 forward - back