By Samuel Hanina, Year 11,
Whether it be the roar of military helicopters above your home, road blocks or even news updates, Geneva is giving one clear message to anyone attempting to inflict damage or harm to the city: don’t bother trying. As many of the world’s most influential leaders prepare to meet for the upcoming G7 summit, it’s no secret that Geneva is planning accordingly. Interestingly enough, there are many who feel that this is an overreaction, and that the constant worry is pointless, which is exactly the issue that will be tackled. Are these measures displaying a reasonable reaction by the city, or is it all bollocks?
Before exploring the different perspectives, it’s important to give a little bit of context as to why Geneva is actually taking these security and financial precautions, and it’s not for no reason. The most significant of which, is probably the fact that the G7 will be hosting some who are widely viewed as high value targets, meaning that their security is of the utmost importance. It is also important to note that in 2003, when the G8 summit took place in Evian, France, a large number of protestors took to the streets of Geneva, which was expected as the Iraq war had just started. With these protests came rioters as well, which resulted in clashes between police and demonstrators, causing damage to some infrastructure in Geneva, and forcing the city to pay thousands of francs in repair and settle many lawsuits with demonstrators. As a result of these factors, Geneva’s current security strategy is shaped by past regional unrest, even if there didn’t seem to be much damage inflicted on Geneva at the time, people are still concerned.
As some feel Geneva has no business in taking cautious measures, some feel otherwise, with the first argument supporting the rationale of these measures being the fact that preventing a threat is easier than dealing with the expected threat and the outcomes. Authorities are preparing for over 45,000 protestors, in which 4,000 Swiss soldiers have been deployed to guarantee the saftey of the G7 attendees. This is also supported by the idea that visible security acts as a deterrent, reducing the likelihood of any serious disruptions or harmful activities taking place. This sends a clear message that any attempt to cause harm would be met with immediate and overwhelming response. In addition to this, Geneva holds a significant responsibility as a diplomatic hub, meaning that any failure in security could have serious political consequences and reduce the legitimacy and trust in Geneva. Therefore, even if the likelihood of an actual attack is very low, the consequences of failing to prepare would be far more severe, which is why these measures can be seen as rational and necessary.
In contrast, there are also strong arguments to suggest that Geneva’s response may be irrational, specifically concerning the disruption it will create for the thousands of people who live in Geneva. The wide scale deployment of security, road closures, and increased surveillance can make the city feel extremely restricted, almost as if it is under a form of lockdown. For residents, this significantly impacts commute times and general daily routines, which citizens highly depend on. These people may feel highly frustrated that many aspects of their daily lives are skewed for what they feel is an “overreaction from the canton and government”. It is also important to ask whether the scale and intensity of the predicted threat actually justifies such extreme visible measures. These measures might also indirectly intimidate demonstrators, causing many to be restricted when being politically active during the summit. A Year twelve student from Ecolint’s LGB campus, John Kang, reports that “Students are not satisfied with the school’s policies in reaction to the upcoming G7 summit.” As a result, some believe that Geneva’s approach may be prioritising extremities over sensible precautions, leading to many Geneva residents who feel cheated and confused as to why their Government has an inability to develop practical strategies that do not infringe on the lives of citizens and the freedom of demonstrators.
In conclusion, it is evident that many are frustrated with the disruptions caused by the upcoming G7 summit, although it seems that authorities are willing and justified to take extensive protective measures. The challenge facing Geneva’s authorities should not only be security and protection, but how to take measures to limit the unnecessary disruption to the lives of those who call Geneva their home.
