Last week’s editorial on the upcoming World Bank/IMF protests, (“Wanted: Police protection,” Sept. 5), while supporting the easily defendable sentiment that safety is important and that everyone should feel secure, nevertheless completely misses the essential issues, relying upon the faulty premise that spending more money to provide more police officers and more riot gear is the best way to ensure safety and security for the city.
It might not be apparent from our hilltop, but this is a very poor city. East of the Anacostia River, there is no Wisconsin and M, there are few grocery stores, no movie theaters, failing schools, few full service restaurants and, since the closing of D.C. General Hospital last year, no accessible health care. The city fails to clean up the streets and the residents feel hopeless and abandoned. If the federal government, or the District, wants to spend millions of dollars on something that will reduce crime and increase security, it would make more sense to put it into development of the poverty-stricken areas of the city such as Anacostia. Economic development targeted there would give people hope, jobs and something to do, doing much to reduce crime and increase security.
The District, already in weak fiscal condition, ought not be forced to foot the $15 million bill to safeguard the interests of economists and bankers effectively representing multinational corporations. They will meet downtown in a huge, expensive building for which they pay no property taxes, yet they expect those of us who do live here to pay for their security. Perhaps they wouldn’t be so concerned about maintaining the secrecy and security of their meetings if they would discuss real solutions to global development instead of plotting to further the corporate agenda through structural adjustment programs that simply drive poor countries deeper into debt. If they would open their meetings to democratically chosen representatives and engage in meaningful social dialogue through the media, there would be no protests. There could be real discussion.
Safety and security are important for the District, but more funding for the police will not provide these things. At anti-corporate globalization protests worldwide the actions of police have caused confrontations to escalate to violence. Protesters do not fire tear gas canisters or pepper spray. Protesters do not show up with batons and guns. The editorial mentions the “riots” in Seattle in 1999, claiming they could occur here without “proper police presence.” Not mentioned is the fact that protesters have pending a class action lawsuit against the Seattle police for their violent actions during that protest and that the Seattle police chief was forced to resign due to criticism of the violent and confrontational tactics used by his force during that time. Neither is it noted that none of the “riot”-like activity?breaking of corporate storefront windows and other minor vandalism and property destruction?occurred until after roving bands of heavily armed police began beating, gassing and arresting protesters en masse.
Before demanding that money be spent on a police presence that is more likely to instigate violence than to prevent it, we should look at where else we could be devoting our attention. Perhaps instead of sending thousands of police officers into the streets, we ought simply to have them arrest the bankers and economists soon coming to D.C. who are responsible for the the continued rape of the peoples and environment of the developing world. Only then will we be able to focus on enacting policies for real sustainable development, both within the District and within the developing world as a whole.
