Police attack activists during economic summit

A riot police officer uses a pain compliance hold on an injured protester at the World Economic Forum demonstrations in Cancun on Feb. 28.

By Marwaan Macan-Markar

Cancun, Mexico, Feb. 28 (IPS)— Cancun Wednesday was its customary tranquil self, with US tourists strolling along the tree-line boulevard of the hotel zone in shorts and T-shirts, enjoying the sun and the breeze blowing in from the nearby aquamarine waters of the Caribbean.

However, the return to calmness does little to soothe Araceli Dominguez’s anger at what she calls “police brutality.’’ Dominguez was among some 200 anti-globalization activists who were attacked by baton-wielding police officers while on a protest march Tuesday afternoon.

“We had no intention of pushing our way beyond the police barricades,’’ said Dominguez, in reference to the first of many police roadblocks that had been set up along the boulevard leading to the swanky hotel where business and political leaders were meeting at the World Economic Forum (WEF).

What is more, revealed Dominguez, after some of the protesters argued with the police about “our rights to free expression and rights to free movement, we decided to retreat to Parque Las Palapas.’’ That park in the center of the city was where the anti-globalization activists had conducted an Alternative Social Forum, from Feb. 26 to 27, which ran concurrently with the WEF meeting. It was then, she affirmed, that the police began “beating, kicking and dragging’’ the protesters. “Such violence was uncalled for.’’

Her view of Tuesday’s confrontation is reflected in the reports by the local media, which had headlines on Wednesday that screamed “Brutality’’ and “Violence Arrives’’ over photos of bloodied faces of demonstrators.

According to one report, after a three-hour stand-off, “police charged through the barricades, chasing the protesters.’’ Another noted how the police had “beat and kicked’’ the protesters. In one account, a policeman was quoted as shouting, “Come back, dogs!’’

But the media on the scene to cover this confrontation were not spared either. Among the victims was Raul Guemez Garcia, 20, a photographer for ‘Poe Esto!’, a local tabloid, who was hit on the head. “Someone gave the order to hit everyone who was running,’’ Garcia told IPS.

What is more, he pointed out, the police attacked him despite his wearing a photographer’s jacket with the word “Press’’ on it and his having a camera too. “When I said that I was a journalist, the policeman said, ‘I don’t care’,’’ revealed Garcia, his head still bandaged.

For Hilda Salazar of a Mexico City-based NGO monitoring free-trade issues, Tuesday’s violence, which resulted in close to 30 people being injured and 56 arrests, has sullied the image of Mexico being painted by President Vicente Fox, as a country where “democracy is alive and rights are protected.’

It is “the first time’’ since Fox took over as head of government last December that “violence has been perpetrated openly against the people.’’ Salazar said. “It has been demonstrated that oppression is possible.’’

However, Salazar, who came to Cancun to participate in the alternative forum, is among those who are reluctant to place all the blame on the Fox administration, given that this city and the state, Quintana Roo, are governed by members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (known by its Spanish acronym PRI), whose candidate Fox defeated at last year’s presidential elections.

Such reluctance is understandable in the face of what eyewitness, victims and newspaper reports say: That members of the local police force took a lead roll in attacking the anti-globalization activists and they were assisted by the state police. However, the federal police, sent to Cancun to beef- up security for the WEF, were barely involved.

Magaly Achach, Cancun’s mayor, has gone on the offensive, trying to deflect charges that the order to attack the demonstrators was made by the city government. She was quoted in newspapers Wednesday as saying that “there was no reason for such aggression’’ and that an “inquiry will be conducted’’ to reveal who gave the orders to attack.

Backing her up is state governor Joaquin Hendricks Diaz. He told reporters late Wednesday that the city government’s investigation is “a must” and it is backed by the state. “I guarantee justice will be done,’’ he stressed.

For Hector de la Cueva, however, it does not matter what the city, state and federal governments have to say about the incident.

“For us, the message is clear: that governments will defend the neo-liberal economic policies of the WEF with anything, with violence if they have to,’’ said de la Cueva, executive secretary of the Continental Social Alliance, an NGO that organized the alternative forum.

Jorge Villarreal concurs, pointing to the wounds he sustained during the police attacks as evidence. “I am sad that they attacked us, denying our rights to move freely and to express our opposition to globalization,’’ he said. The 20-year-old student of political science was set upon by “five or six policemen,’’ and he suffered bruises to his body.

On the day before, activists thought they had entered new terrain when they participated in their first face-to-face debate with representatives of the WEF, a group they condemn for destroying the environment and violating people’s rights in the interest of profits.

The unscheduled debate was held in neutral territory -- a hotel almost half-way between the venue where business and political leaders had gathered for the WEF and the place where activists conducted the parallel alternative forum -- and was open only to the media.

The themes discussed included “development and globalization,’’ “democracy and globalization’’ and “marginalization as a result of globalization.’’

The significance of this milestone was not lost on Christophe Aguiton. “It is a clear sign that the leaders in Davos (the Swiss resort town where the WEF is based) have caved into the pressure mounted by those angered by international capitalism’s impact on people, the poor,’’ said Aguiton, of the Paris-based anti-globalization group ATTAC.

Local activist to run for mayor

By Brendan Conley

Asheville, NC, Mar. 6— Mickey Mahaffey, a local activist, will announce his candidacy for mayor of Asheville on Sunday. Mahaffey, a western North Carolina native, is running on a progressive platform that he says will include segments of the population that are often excluded.

“Asheville is at a critical crossroads,” said Mahaffey. “There are voices in our city … that are not at the table right now, so I’ve offered my services to the city of Asheville and to the people who would like to have more of a voice, to come to the table.”

Mahaffey said he has formed a campaign organizing committee, and he will seek the involvement of concerned citizens in his bid for the mayor’s office. His draft platform states an intention to “build people’s power to make change on a local level through participatory democracy.” Mahaffey said he intends to “create a base of empowered, vocal citizens” and “give voice to the concerns, ideas, and visions of the people of Asheville.”

“If we’re going to make effective change in our world, it has to start right here at home,” said Mahaffey. Mahaffey said his platform will include more funding for the public transit system, a living wage ordinance for city employees and employees of city contractors, and an environmental program that would encourage energy conservation and “green building incentives.”

Mahaffey said he would announce his candidacy Sunday at a concert held to benefit the School of the Traveler, an outdoor school that he founded. The concert will be held at Asheville Music Zone.

“I want to do everything I can, whether I’m in office or not in office, to keep our community a balanced community that exists for all the people, from all spectrums,”Mahaffey said.

Editor’s note: watch for AGR’s interview with Mickey Mahaffey to run next week.

Pentagon pain ray unveiled

By James Dao

Washington, DC, Mar. 1— The Pentagon today unveiled what some military officials hope will become the rubber bullet of the 21st century: a weapon that uses electromagnetic waves to disperse crowds without killing, maiming or, military officials say, even injuring anyone slightly.

Known in Pentagon patois as an “active denial system,” the weapon is the fruit of 10 years of research and is intended to help American soldiers in the quasi-military roles they have increasingly been asked to play as peacekeepers or police in places like Kosovo and Ethiopia.

As envisioned by its Pentagon designers, the weapon would fire bursts of electromagnetic energy capable of causing burning sensations on the skin of people standing as far as 700 yards away — without actually burning them, officials said.

“It’s not designed to burn,” Col. George P. Fenton of the Marine Corps, director of the Department of Defense’s Joint Nonlethal Weapons Program in Quantico, Va., said at a news conference today. “It’s a heat-induced sensation.”

Asked if the weapon was simply a militarized form of a microwave oven, Colonel Fenton said no. He said the new system fires waves that are shorter and at higher frequencies than microwaves. That means, he said, that while the waves could penetrate clothing, they would barely enter the skin, reaching a depth of only one sixty-fourth of an inch.

“It’s safe, absolutely safe,” Colonel Fenton said. “You walk out of the beam and the pain goes away. There are no lasting effects.”

The weapon, which to date has cost taxpayers $40 million, already has its skeptics. William M. Arkin, the senior military adviser to Human Rights Watch, described it as a “high-powered microwave antipersonnel weapon” that should be more carefully studied before it is used on crowds containing elderly people, children or pregnant women.

Mr. Arkin said past efforts by the Pentagon to develop “nonlethal weapons” had sometimes proved disastrous. For instance, he said, lasers were widely considered the peacekeeping tool of the future until it was determined that they could blind people.

“If this is a more humane and effective military tool than existing nonlethal weapons, great,” Mr. Arkin said. “But they are going to have to prove some things to us first.”

Pentagon officials said scientists had been testing the weapon on animals and humans for more than three years without finding any evidence that it caused internal injuries, burns, cancer or eye damage. In more than 6,500 tests on 72 people, only one exposure went awry, the Pentagon officials said, when one person received a “nickle-size” burn on his back after a tester programmed the weapon incorrectly.

“It gave us information that helped us understand how it works,” said Dr. Michael Murphy, one of the Pentagon scientists working on the weapon.

To show how the system would work, Colonel Fenton brought a miniature version of an electromagnetic “gun” to the news conference, encouraging reporters and other Pentagon officials to stick a finger under the invisible ray and feel the heat.

“I feel like a barker at a carnival,” said Colonel Fenton, who put his own fingers under the ray repeatedly for television cameras, as he cajoled a balky reporter to try the weapon. Just one second under the tiny ray created a burning sensation equal to 120 degrees, Pentagon officials said. The officials said that the weapon could be adjusted to heat the skin to temperatures of 130 degrees or higher.

The weapon is still in development and probably will not be ready for deployment by troops for at least five years, Colonel Fenton said. In its current experimental form, the weapon looks like the average backyard satellite dish. The Pentagon envisions a version being mounted on the back of a Humvee, but officials said hand-held or aircraft-mounted versions are under consideration as well.

American troops now typically use tear gas, rubber bullets or beanbags fired from shotguns to disperse crowds. The electromagnetic weapon would be superior to those techniques, Colonel Fenton said, because it would have much longer range. He said the weapon would have helped protect soldiers in Ethiopia, where angry crowds frequently clashed with American troops during a United Nations mission there in 1993.

Michael E. O’Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, disagreed.

“Everything I know about this weapon suggests this would not have made one iota of difference there,” he said. “This may be worthwhile, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking it is the answer.”

Source: The New York Times