G-20 Crushes Freedom (Again)

The G-20, the countries with the twenty leading economies of the world, recently concluded their annual meeting in Pittsburgh. As with past meetings, the focus was on the stability of the world's economy. No surprise there.

Also of no surprise to anyone was the ceremonial trampling of human rights. Rationalized as necessary in order to protect the world leaders, what really transpired was the usual practice of making sure that the participants never lay eyes on the wildly dissatisfied and disillusioned people that they purport to represent. A "secure zone" was created, beyond which protesters were not allowed to cross.

While these efforts to keep protesters far away is the usual practice of the G-20, one hoped that in the United States, at least, protesters might at least get within sight of the meeting. That was not to be, with at least 84 people arrested (according to the New York Times) attempting to get their voices heard. Once again world leaders proved that they care little for the rights of their citizens and more for the smooth running of their economies. That should come as no surprise as capitalist care about money, not freedom.

I can buy the argument that there is a necessity to keep world leaders safe. However, when we go beyond safety, to the point of stifling dissent, the line has been crossed. Being able to see protesters would not have endangered them, but it might have made them think. That was the real point in keeping them away - to prevent leaders from being held accountable.

No politician wants to be challenged by their constituents. Tough. That is part of being a politician. Years ago I lived in a small town in Colorado where my Senator, Ben Nighthorse Campbell also lived. In a town of 750 people it's hard not to run into everyone on the street. On one occasion I saw Senator Campbell and approached him to discuss a vote. He was unhappy about being approached and told me so. My reaction was that he should not have gone into politics if he didn't want to be approached by constituents. What was he going to do, have me arrested for discussing a vote?

The point is that Campbell may not have wanted to be taken to task, but he had no choice. What was he going to do, have me arrested for discussing a vote? He didn't like it, but knowing that citizens would approach him on the street at least made him somewhat accountable. For the G-20, that was not a possibility. The lack of face to face accountability is not good for the world, only for the security of those who do not want to face the consequences of their actions. I guess "G" should stand for gangster.