http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Group+hails+dropping+protest+charges/3674898/story.html

Organize a peaceful protest near the summit, but in a place where nothing is likely to get damaged. Invite like-minded (ie peaceful) protestors to join you in that space, which can easily be arranged by facebook/twitter/etc nowadays. And then invite the media to your location. The goodwill that you will engender by making such a move will be more likely to garner attention to your ideas/cause than you’d likely receive by being part of the mob causing mayhem. In fact, you might even get your message across and a chance to be heard. I know that during summits, I only see news reports about the violence outside the summit, and the ideas that happen inside it. It would nice to finally have a mostly peaceful summit… and a chance to hear the actual viewpoint of the people protesting it.

Those may be more officially a UN job, but the G20 can always put financial pressure on someone like China on Darfur, or just ante up funds to help like for Haiti.

I do realise the need for meetings and coordination as you state however. Perhaps they’ll make a better go of it in the wake of the world financial crisis. In UK we’re going even further now into the ‘pain and sacrifice’ stage of it. And at that, we remain far better off than many nations the G20 likes to talk about helping, but not really do so.

Aside from the hoodlums and anarchists, the G20 brings in a hodgepodge
of activists for numerous issues ; some eco / green, some human rights, some fearing globalization of the economy. They seem to show up no matter what the host city is, no matter what the prior preparation for them.

The peaceful expression of causes and objections, is important of course. The free world is at it’s base a marketplace of ideas, and it thrives for that very reason. You don’t fear dissent, but rather welcome it as a crucible for testing and challenging concepts and viewpoints. That allows some – the superior ones – to validate, flourish & spread. You’re stronger as a society for it, not weaker.

I’ve mentioned before how you need to be trying for cooperation & coordination & agreements in these international venues, even while they usually get only partial results. You keep at it as a world. You’re not going to solve dire problems that affect everyone, by taking your marbles home. One of Obama’s greatest strengths, is an inherent understanding of that.

So I like these summits in any case, anytime. And we’re doing it more now, and probably a little better with each one.

People often expect Progressives to be anti-globalization – as in pro-labor / protect jobs from global competition. I don’t see it that way at all;

a) The global economy is here. There’s no reversing that.

b) Trade has been an engine for mutual gain between nations & upward prosperity, for centuries.

c) If communications and transportation technology have accelerated those capacities in recent decades, nations should look to harness the benefits in that – not try to shield themselves and miss out while other nations step in and cash in.

d) Globalization of industries, ultimately puts the world’s workers in the same boat with respect to our interests.

The banking meltdown for example, crashed economies all over the world. It’s in all of our interests to demand proper regulation of them, and oil drillers, nuclear materials, polluters, pharmaceuticals, safe consumer goods, on and on. With the advent of the WWW we can connect & unify
on some of these matters for the first time, whereas historically we were completely cut off from one another. That in my opinion can and will lead to a rising labor movement in this century – this time a coordinated one with our counterparts in a homogenized world of commerce. No labor union
opposes that.

e) What is to be protected, is the fortunes and fates of regular people, from the ravages of globalization. Industries and capital will move around. Jobs will be created, jobs will be cut. Looking at the trendlines of trade historically, net growth results from it. What you want to get to is green lights and open borders for it, appropriate oversight and governance of it (G20), and then don’t try to skimp on the safety nets your people need – unemployment stipends, full retraining/education allowances, and public works jobs programs for those not bouncing back right away into a private-sector job.

(That last one, public-sector jobs programs, is where we are in dire need
in the USA at the moment. We think we are too capitalistic to have it, and don’t want to tax the wealthy for it. But you need them in place, very badly. Leaving millions disenfranchised for months and years on end, is neither free, efficient nor humanitarian. It’s only stupid.)

The contention that we as regular workers & people on the planet ultimately have more to gain from globalization than to be fearful of, is one I like to amplify here on Balkingpoints.