Do you agree?
June 9, 2007
Find out about our impressions of the P8 concert tomorrow.
Tell us your opinion.
Your G8 blog-team!
Famous Faces
June 9, 2007
The G8 – summit 2007 in Heiligendamm is an occassion for many more or less well-known celebrities to pretend political interest or socialist thougths. In fact, it is proved that celebrities and even normal inhabitants of industrialized countries could help most if they donated their money (or at least a certain amount of it). But instead they just deliver speeches, or blame the politicians, or both. And the widly- spread fairy tale that famous people would help to get children and teens interested in political issues may be partly true, but what for? Now there are more kids who know that they can’t change anything. They know about political issues they can’t influence at all. And if they try anyway they are held down by the police and the government.
Nevertheless, there is one positive aspect about the famous faces – Rostock gets a great concert with some great artists, but they better perform and not just talk the entire time about politics!
written by K.S., 30.05.2007
Expensive security during the G8-summit
June 9, 2007
MV has to ensure the security during the G8-summit. The costs for this summit are financially irresponsible and unbearable for the federal state. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has to pay approx. 33.6 million euros. That is three times the amount which was estimated for that event in Heiligendamm.
But the situation has changed, as usual. 17 000 policemen and women are deployed while the 8 richest countries have their big meeting at the Baltic Sea. The costs for this action are enormous. This deployment is going to cost another estimated 34.3 million euros. The policemen will also come from other federal states (not just MV). It is understandable that these federal states don’t want to pay the 35 million euros. It seems to be a risk-summit, because nobody knows the real sum of costs which MV and the Federal Government will have to pay.
Doubtful is also the question if the overall costs will “only” be 92 million euros or if it has to be feared that the sum will rise to 110 million euros. It seems as if MV has to spend and invest the biggest part of the costs, especially for security. To find a solution and a helpful agreement between state and federal government is precious and necessary. But what wouldn’t we do for security?!
written by A.K., 22.05.2007
The special role of the USA
June 9, 2007
A very important topic of the G8 summit will be the climate change. An unparalleled heating-up threatens the earth with a rise of droughts and heat waves, enormous storms and a strongly- rising sea level in this century. According to the ICPP (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperatures will rise approximately around 1.8 to 4 degrees around the globe until the year 2100.
The warming-up process, clearly caused by humans, is irreversible in the long term (world climate report): greenhouse gases which are already stored in the atmosphere will contribute “more than over one millennium” to the heating-up. The sea level will also be raised by melting glaciers and ice sheets by around 18 to 59 centimeters. Heat waves, cyclones and precipitation would appear more often and stronger.
The role of the USA concerning measures against the climate change is quite an important one being the leading emitter of CO2. 7068 million tonnes of greenhouse gases were emitted into the atmosphere by the USA in 2004. That is in fact over 60% more than the 4288 million tonnes emitted by the EU.
But for the USA the climate change plays only a subordinate role. That’s why the negotiators of the USA have so far denied any concrete commitment to the protection of the climate at various international climate summits. The US Government opposes concrete G8 decisions concerning climate protection. The resistance is also directed against new, already weakened suggestions of the German G8-presidency for the agenda of the summit in Heiligendamm (The Washington Post and Süddeutsche Zeitung). “The treatment of climate change runs counter to our overall position and crosses multiple ‘red lines’ in terms of what we simply cannot agree to,” quotes the Washington Post from a document written by US negotiators.
Minister for the Environment Sigmar Gabriel reproaches the US government with immovability. The Washington Post writes that the delegations have already come to an agreement concerning all the other G8 issues, but the topic of climate change remains still unanswered. The resistance of the US Government is directed against four central points in the German draft resolution. These points are: the global rise of temperatures which should not exceed two degrees, a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 50% until 2050 (compared to the conditions of 1990 negotiating an increase of the energy efficiency around 20% until 2020), an increase of energy efficiency around 20% till 2020 and the point that “the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change” (G8 Summit Declaration, June 6th 2007). Concerning this issue, the USA is in opposition to the German position. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel tries to find a compromise because this topic concerns many countries, even the whole world. The fight against the climate change should be “an obligation, not a choice” to everyone.
written by F.H., 22.05.2007
Music
June 9, 2007
“Together we can save the world”, says Herbert Grönemeyer. Famous and local musicians also want to protest against the poverty in the world. Their campaign is called “Move against G8”. “The heads of government of the seven big industrial countries and Russia can’t ignore our concerts. They have to hear us, although there are fences and police everywhere; we’re just too loud.”, says Kettcar. On June 2nd there are going to perform: Wir sind Helden, Madsen and Eva Briegel and Jonas Pfelzing of Juli, the day after Jan Delay and Chumbawamba are going to perform for free in the Rostocker Stadthafen. On June 5th and 6th Kettcar, Mediengruppe Telekommander and members of the famous Rio-Reiser band Ton Steine Scherben can be seen and heard in G8 opponent-camps.
The biggest event will take place on June 7th in the IGA-Park. For 2,50 Euro, everybody can watch the concert of Herbert Grönemeyer, Bono of U2, Silbermond, Sportfreunde Stiller, Fantastische 4, Toten Hosen, Seed and 2Raumwohnung. Their slogan is “Your voice against poverty” and 100 000 people are going to attend this event.
But local musicians also want to take part in the fight against G8. “The whole world visits our country and we are not involved!”, says Martin Pollok. He, Dana Bauers of LAG-Rock&Pop, Susi Koch, Christian Kuzio, Philipp Bodin, Frank Richter and Wolfgang Schmied have produced the song “Schein Heiligendamm”. It’s about the G8 and the fact that one of the big villas in Heiligendamm was meant to be pulled down for a stage for the press. The LAG-Rock&Pop also called upon other local bands to write songs about G8 and to send it in to the local radio station LOHRO. To raise their voices is their way to do something against the G8 and they use them, as we can hear and see.
written by S.D., 30.05.2007
ART GOES HEILIGENDAMM
June 9, 2007
There are a lot of articles about the G8 summit in the newspapers every day and the demonstrations are at the centre of their attention. Although nobody knows exactly what will happen in Rostock, most think that there will be thousands of people from all over Germany in Rostock to be a part of this event. A lot of famous people and artists will join in, too: From May 24th until June 9th there will be an artistic project in Rostock called “Art Goes Heiligendamm”.
This project brings together artists, globalisation critics, politicians and the population. It tries to encourage comprehension and dialogue between these people. For this reason a programme was created which includes theatre, music and workshops. The cooperating partner is the Office of Culture and a lot of famous people will come to join this event. Twelve pillars with work of art, made by important international artists, will be put up in the city of Rostock.
The project “silver pearl” created by “ramlabor Berlin” will probably be the most eye-catching piece of art in the city. Its name is an ironic allusion to the “Weiße Perle” Heiligendamm. There will also be a “Kurhaus” with the façade of the hotel complex Heiligendamm, with hotel, spa pool, and bar.
Rostock’s institutions and clubs as for example the “Volkstheater”, the “Stubnitz”, the Literaturhaus Kuhtor” and the “Frieda” cooperate with “Art Goes Heiligendamm”. There are still a lot of artists announcing to support this project. The organizers are convinced that this art project will set an example to the following G8 summits. The next one will take place in Japan, Arts Initiative Tokyo (AIT) is already interested.
written by L.M., 22.05.2007
Who is going to pay for all the destruction?
June 7, 2007
Last Saturday there were some violent protests in the city of Rostock. The militant demonstrators fought against the police. They threw stones into the windows and burned cars. But the question is who is going to pay for the high costs of all the destruction.
First of all the police should find the responsible persons who wore masks and threw stones. They should be taken into custody. In most cases they are guilty of the destruction and that is why they have to pay for it. The problem is that some of them are unemployed so that they don’t have much money to pay for the high costs. Because of that they have to go working or maybe do some social work.
On the other hand, people who are affected by the destruction often have an insurance on their shops or cars and they pay a lot of money for it every year. That is why I think the insurance can pay for it, too – the owners took it out for those cases. Nevertheless, the insurance companies often say they won’t pay if the affected people knew about the danger before. So the only way for the owner is to secure their shops with strong wooden boards or to park their cars somewhere else.
To summarize all the facts: There is still the question who has to pay for the destruction. But all in all, I think, it would be the best way if the militant demonstrators had to pay because they are responsible for it.
J.M., 05.06.07
Last Saturday people from the “black block” destroyed cars, streets and houses. Our question is who is going to pay for all the destructions now.
In my opinion, the police has to find the responsible people who are guilty of these destructions. If they have no money, they must work for the town (social work). I also think that insurances should pay in one way because it is their job to help in difficult situations. On the one hand, I think that the owners of the cars are innocent and that it is important that they don’t have to pay. But on the other hand, they could have protected their property better because everyone knew that there would be violent protests.
J.S., 05.06.07
Over the last few days we have seen on TV and in newspapers that parts of Rostock have been damaged. Most destructions happened at the “Stadthafen” during the first demonstration. Pavements, cash dispensers and cars were damaged. The “black block” were very aggressive and threw stones and bottles and fought against the police. Even fire engines were damaged. But who will pay for all the destructions? Who is guilty?
In my opinion, the “black block” is guilty without question. The police only do their work and protect us from such stupid and criminal persons. So what I really mean is that people can’t say that the police provoked the “black block”. They only did their job and I think it wouldn’t have been better without the police. I feel safer when I know that there are over 16.000 policemen in our city.
The “black block”is too poor. So they can’t pay for the destructions. The state will have to do that. Bad luck!
A.K., 05.06.07
Who is going to pay for the destruction?
June 6, 2007
This is the third question we have asked ourselves.
Please be patient, our comments on this questions will be published tomorrow.
Your G8 blog-team!
In my opinion, the question is not easy to answer. On the one hand a de-escalation tactic is necessary to protect the majority of demonstrators. They are peaceful and want to present their expectations and demands to the eight richest industrial nations. A defensive police will send the image of a liberal and democratic society to the rest of the world.
On the other hand, however, it is clear that there will always be aggressive demonstrators on G8 demonstrations. The argument that a massive police deployment provokes people who are willing to use violence is senseless. Before the G8 demonstrations had even started, aggressive demonstrators put stones into their backpacks. They are aggressors and their aim is violence.
F.T., 05.06.07
I think that question is debatable. On the one hand, it is quite good for peaceful demonstrators because they can demonstrate without the intervention of the police. On the other hand, the huge deployment of aggressive demonstrators from the “black block” has to be controlled by the police. If the police runs the de-escalation tactic, sooner or later the members of the “black block” will attack them nevertheless. So in my opinion, the police should use a more aggressive strategy regarding violent demonstrators during G8 demonstrations. They could use hard rubber bullets, for example.
F.L., 05.06.07
In my opinion, this tactic is stupid and dangerous. The de-escalation tactic means that the police wait and observe what happens before they do anything.
That means that it could be too late if some violent demonstrators start throwing bottles and stones. The police would not have the time to react and to protect everyone and so peaceful people could be injured. Besides, they wouldn’t have the chance to protect themselves.
In my opinion, the police have to split that violent “black block” very early and take suspicious people into custody. If these groups of thousands are split into groups of hundreds, the violent power of these groups can be weakened. I know that this is not the ‘normal’ way but the police have to use violence to protect other people and to protect themselves.
P.P., 05.06.07
In my opinion, the de-escalation tactic is helpful for G8 demonstrations!
Most demonstrators of the “black block” would feel provoked if the policemen dispersed the crowd. They would say the police have taken away their civil right to demonstrate and the right of freedom of expression. There would be more violence against the government and the police. The reaction of the “black block” would be unpredictable. Violence is the only way they see to fight for their rights. Besides, the presence of the many policemen is a provocation for every demonstrator of the “black block”.
In my opinion, there is no perfect way to protect the rights of demonstrators and to guarantee safety at the same time.
A.N., 05.06.07
I think it is difficult for the police to find the right strategy to prevent aggressive outbreaks on G8 demonstrations in future because people like the demonstrators of the “black block” are mostly not interested in a peaceful demonstration where they can present their political opinions. They often just want to fight against the authority of the state and so a de-escalation strategy might be impossible.
Of course, an appropriate amount of police officers should be at a demonstration to protect the peaceful demonstrators. The police has to find ways to prevent such aggressive escalations like the one last Saturday, for example by splitting the “black block” into groups or by preventing the demonstrators from getting weapons such as stones.
F.A., 05.06.07
A lot of people think differently about the de-escalation tactic of the police, but most students of our group think that it is not good. The police just seem to wait until somebody gets hurt and then it is too late. Why do we have police there if they don’t help in time? However, one good thing about the de-escalation tactic is that the demonstrating people have more “freedom” and don’t feel constricted.
L.M., 05.06.07
I think that’s debatable. On the one hand this tactic is helpful for a peaceful demonstration so that people can demonstrate without the police escorting them with a massive deployment. On the other hand this tactic can be dangerous because of the enormous potential of violence of the “black block”. A small number of policemen is not able to keep these aggressors under control and the situation escalates.
Wouldn’t it be better to use a more offensive strategy against the demonstrators instead of the de-escalation tactic, as for example hard rubber bullets?
S.St., 05.06.07
In my opinion the police should have intervened earlier because of the “black block”. These aren’t peaceful demonstrators. They want to destroy things and the police have to take precautions for the peaceful demonstrators.
Some people think that the “black block” only wants freedom of expression but fighting in the streets, violence and destruction has nothing to do with freedom of expression, I think. The police is like a red flag to the “black block”, a provocation. But why? They feel restricted by the police. In my opinion that is only a pretext to fight.
During the G8 summit the police have the task to protect the peaceful demonstrators. If there weren’t any police forces the “black block” would also destroy things or fight with other protesters and then people would ask “Where was the police? Nobody protected us!”
Everybody has other arguments but I think if you want to riot you have to live with the consequences. The police want to give the protesters a chance to demonstrate peacefully. Those who throw stones and fight with the police have to expect hard consequences.
A.O., 05.06.07
There are some points for and against the de-escalation tactic. On the one hand it helps the protestors to demonstrate peacefully. The police won’t react immediately to the slightest act of aggression. On the other hand it might be too late if the police wait too long.
The riots in Rostock on June 2nd showed that the police were out of their depth. Therefore there must be a bigger deployment, which acts at the right moment to prevent an escalation.
F.H., 05.06.07
The events that have occured in our hometown in the run-up to the G8 summit have raised many questions that we discussed in class.
Here are the questions we have raised and discussed:
1) How can peaceful demonstrations be protected from violent protest?
2) Is the tactic of de-escalation helpful for G8 demonstrations?
3) Who is going to pay for the destruction?
How can peaceful demonstrations be protected from violent protest?
This question was raised months ago and caused a lot of controversial discussions. A lot of politicians demanded that possible aggressors should be arrested in advance. Others said that the police should take smell samples to be able to recognize aggressors.
No matter which solution was offered, it always encountered resistance and now it is too late and the police forces have to improvise their tactics – on Saturday, they failed.
J.M.S., 05.06.07
Some people might say “If you support peaceful and creative demonstrations, there won’t be a need for violence.” But it is not as easy as it seems. Of course, there are ways to improve the support of peaceful demonstrations but there will always be aggressive people who spoil the positive mood and the pictures which go around the world.
In my opinion, there should be more communication between the security forces and the demonstrators. And of course, the demonstrators should have the opportunity to talk to politicians who will really listen to them to give them the feeling that someone cares about these problems. But, as we all might know, the perfect solution does not exist.
M.E.T., 05.06.07
There has to be more communication between the police and demonstrators instead of reacting to tensions with violence. I can imagine that this is very hard to do because there is a lot of anger on both sides and it happens very quickly that people push each other deeper into their rage. So I don’t really know how to solve the problem and I think no one really does at the moment.
U.S., 05.06.07
There has to be more communication between the police and demonstrators. Maybe some demonstrators could form could function as mediators to solve and prevent violent conflicts between the “black block” and the police.
S.D., 05.06.07
