Global Activist Network involving Asia: global continuation and evolution in Japan

Abstract

Since Seattle 1999, plenty of summit protests around WTO, G8/20, IMF, WB, COP, and so on happened in each of the different summit sites in the last decade. Such incidents were amazingly accepted because of their mass actions and widespread networks of activists sustaining a series of mass actions. As some researchers argue, those of generating networks are based on horizontality and autonomy, and they have already prefigured a powerful model for (re)organizing society. However, on the other hand, some researchers also argue the major shortcomings. In theory, the 'Global Activist Network' has been constructed since Seattle, although in practice there has still been a serious spatial gap between the Western part of the world and the other side of the world. Actually, the global activist network has excluded Asia. However, in 2008, the G8 summit was held in Japan. This paper, thus, aims to show that the global activist network since Seattle, which was limited to Europe and North America, has expanded to involve Asia through the 2008 G8 summit in Japan. The 2000 G8 in Japan was right after the Seattle in 1999, yet, due to its single-issue and national character of the movements, globally expanding networks didn't reach Japan. However, movements around the 2003 anti-Iraq war brought in the autonomous character of the alter-globalization movement and referred to the legacy of autonomous activisms. During the 2008 G8, some autonomous activists in Japan took over the diversity of tactics and networks of activists inherited since PGA, DAN and 'Dissent!'.

“Don't Get Arrested!” Trust, Miscommunication, and Repression at the 2008 Anti‐G8 Mobilization in Japan

“…G8 Action Japan” set up the infrastructure, such as an activist camp, legal watch, the counter forum, as well as housing sites. (Higuchi , 470)…”

“…This history of conflict meant that vaguely shared political ideals could not become the basis for building generalized trust, and thus it increased the importance of building interpersonal trust. It also threw a wrench in attempts to create a movement that was tolerant of diversity (Higuchi , 473). Faced with a lack of trust in horizontal politics, a lack of trust in each other (perhaps even a latent fear of violence from each other), and pervasive miscommunication, building such a large, inclusive, and autonomous movement was unusually difficult.…”