The Road from Seattle
by Jeremy Brecher, with Tim Costello and Brendan
Smith
Z magazine, January 2000
The Battle of Seattle marks a turning point in the politics
of globalization. It represents the emergence of a worldwide movement
seeking to put limits on global capital. The Road from Seattle
provides greatly expanded opportunities for that movement-if it
can avoid the potholes in the road.
* Seattle showed that thousands of people are so angry about
the direction of the global economy that they are prepared to
put their bodies on the line to change it. It showed that tens
of thousands more are so concerned that they are prepared to break
their daily routine to protest it.
* Seattle called the attention of millions of people to the
fact that there is a World Trade Organization and that it is something
they need to be concerned about. Beyond that, it established corporate
globalization as a public issue.
* Seattle redefined the issues of globalization for the public
and the media, providing a new paradigm for understanding what
is really going on in the world today. It forced into public awareness
an understanding that protectionism vs. free trade is no longer
the issue. The demonstrators reframed the issue as rules protecting
corporations vs. rules protecting people and the environment.
Even though the Seattle protests had the WTO as their immediate
target, they focused on the impact of globalization more broadly,
avoiding the trap of defining the issue as simply one of "trade"-free
or otherwise. The Jubilee Two Thousand movement for the cancellation
of Third World debt, for example, was represented in force, ensuring
a strong emphasis on the role of the World Bank, the IMF, First-World
creditors, and the structural adjustment programs that have devastated
the Third World.
The movement was largely responsible for bringing the WTO
to deadlock. As Washington trade lawyer Peter S. Watson, former
head of the International Trade Commission explained the failure
of the talks, "What you're seeing is the effect of the demonstrations,
as well as some real disagreements among the WTO members"
(New York Times 12/4199). On the one hand, Third World delegates
were encouraged to question whether liberalization was actually
working for them and to resist pressures to simply go along with
the rich countries' proposals. On the other hand, President Clinton
responded to labor pressure by endorsing sanctions against countries
that violate labor rights.
Movement Convergence In Seattle
The movement to control global capital established itself
as a global opposition, representing the interests of people and
the environment worldwide. It demonstrated that, even when governments
around the world are dominated by corporate interests, the world's
people can act to pursue their common interests. (This is what
some people mean when they talk about the movement as an expression
of "civil society. ") The movement in Seattle was international
and overwhelmingly internationalist.
Echoes of Pat Buchanan's neo-nationalism were few. Most meetings
featured speakers from all over the world. According to the Seattle
Post-lntelligencer, the major labor-sponsored rally included people
from 144 countries. "On stage at the rally were dozens of
U.S. workers...who had lost work when their plants moved to poor
countries. Beside them were workers from Third World countries
who have won jobs in U.S.-owned factories but are making less
than a dollar an hour and are desperate to organize unions in
their countries" (Pl, December 1, 1999).
It is hard to think of anything like this kind of internationalism-neither
subservient to any state nor polarized on Communist/anti-Communist
lines-since the death of Rosa Luxemburg 80 years ago. It grows
directly from the realities of the new global economy, in which
working people in all parts of the world are put into competition
in what many speakers referred to as a "race to the bottom."
It's not just in China that workers can't form a union or in Bangladesh
that wages are being driven down by international competition-American
workers at the demonstrations in Seattle knew the same pressures
are being applied to them.
While participants represented a wide range of views on the
ideal balance of local, national, and global power, a broad middle
ground viewed some form of global regulation as necessary, but
saw a return of power to national and local levels as highly desirable.
Few would say that all forms of transnational governance should
be abolished. Conversely, few seemed to believe that globalization
would be hunky-dory if a few global standards were incorporated
in the WTO.
On the road to Seattle there were significant tensions between
organized labor and the consumer, environmental, trade, and other
groups with which it was allied. These tensions were rooted in
both policy differences and long-standing distrust. In the end,
however, this coalition succeeded in working together and avoiding
a split. The huge rally went forward without visible signs of
disunity.
The tens of thousands of participants also expressed an unaccustomed
unity. There was a convergence of so many issues and of subcultures
that it is hard even to list them all. While conventional labor
leaders and environmentalists spoke from the same podium, blue-collar
workers mingled in the crowd with young environmental activists
decked out in turtle costumes. Neither side seemed to feel contaminated
by the presence of the other. Seattle seems to have marked at
least a temporary truce in the culture wars. In the dozens of
forums, teach-ins, and workshops that accompanied the battle,
such interaction often went beyond mingling to respectful mutual
education.
There was also a surprising tolerance for different styles
of activism. On Tuesday morning thousands of direct actionists
challenged police with extremely confrontational forms of nonviolent
action, in a surprisingly successful effort to prevent the WTO
meetings from going ahead. (Ironically, WTO Secretary-General
Mike Moore confirmed critics' charges by saying the disruptions
didn't matter because the real work of the WTO was accomplished
not in the canceled public sessions but in private meetings behind
closed doors.) Meanwhile, more than 30,000 protestors, the largest
group of them blue-collar trade unionists, gathered for a peaceful
rally and march. At the end of the march most of them returned
home, while a few thousand joined the direct actionists in the
streets. Each group seemed content to share the world-or at least
Seattle-with the other. Both groups took a strong stand for nonviolence
and the direct actionists on the street did far more than the
police to restrain the few dozen people who broke windows and
trashed stores.
The Future of Unity
The unity that was achieved in Seattle is vulnerable, both
because of the diversity of interests and cultures involved, and
because an effort to buy some groups off and play one against
another is a no-brainer for the promoters of globalization.
The movement really is unified around the proposition that
global corporations, markets, and capital must be sufficiently
controlled to protect the well-being of the world's people and
environment. But it is also composed of specific groups with specific
interests. Everyone who participates in this movement has a responsibility
to represent not just their own interests and concerns, but the
general interests of people and the environment worldwide. The
"race to the bottom" makes these indivisible. We need
to see our particular interests and concerns as part of that broader
objective. We need to grasp that our power to address our particular
concerns depends primarily on the growth and unity of the movement
as a whole.
The movement's surprising level of unity has been achieved
without centralized organization, either nationally or globally.
It is composed primarily of locally and nationally based issue
groups, transnational linking organizations, and a huge amount
of networking conducted via the Internet. It seems unlikely that
such a diverse global movement could ever develop a centralized
organization and leadership. Unity will have to be maintained
and deepened by other means. The strongest force for unity is
the pressure of rank-and-file activists who understand and want
it. The Internet allows them to network across organization lines
and pressure leaders and organizations to remain unified.
Many of these issues will be posed concretely in the forthcoming
struggle around China's admission to the WTO. President Clinton
has negotiated a deal for China's admission to the WTO. But for
this to happen, Congress will now have to agree to permanent most-favored-nation
(MFN, or as it is now euphemistically called, "normal trading
relations") status for China. A Congressional vote is currently
projected for February. The period from the Seattle WTO till then
may well see the most important battle over globalization that
has yet occurred in the U.S.
The Clinton China deal provides huge and specific benefits
for U.S. banks, insurance companies, retailers, airlines, and
entertainment companies. These corporations have pledged to mount
an all-out campaign to pass the legislation needed. They will
be joined by those who are ideologically committed to the idea
of unregulated globalization.
There's a hitch, however. Over two-thirds of Americans oppose
bringing China into the WTO without further progress on human
rights and religious freedom. (Four out of five want labor rights
and environmental protections incorporated in trade accords generally.)
Organized labor seems to have decided to take a stand on the
China issue. Before Clinton's China deal, John Sweeney persuaded
the AFL-CIO to make an early endorsement of Al Gore, and even
signed a letter with top corporate leaders appearing to endorse
Administration bargaining objectives at the WTO. But when Clinton
announced the China deal, Sweeney called it "disgustingly
hypocritical" and promised "a full and vigorous campaign"
to block permanent MFN status for China.
The Battle of Seattle has already provided a kickoff for that
campaign. The public starts out much more concerned-and much better
informed-than in past trade battles. The coalition is in place,
experienced, and relatively united. But there are still dangers
of splits, co-optation, and branding of opponents as "special
interests."
The battle can only be won if it is not defined as an issue
of trade with China or of protectionism vs. free trade, but rather
as an issue of what kind of global economy we want. John Sweeney
made a good start on this framing when he told the National Press
Club, "The debate isn't about free trade or protectionism,
engagement or isolation. The real debate is not over whether to
be part of the global economy, but over what are the rules for
that economy and who makes them."
While the issue of human rights in China is important, bashing
China for its poor human rights record will not suffice. The last
two fights in Congress over MFN status for China were framed in
this way and, as a result, did not get even a respectable vote
count. For the past decade, Congressional opposition to MFN has
depended on a large scandal in connection with China (e.g. the
1989 massacre, fundraising, weapons technology, and spying.) But
the farther away from 1989, the fewer votes have opposed MFN.
Further, the case that bringing China into the WTO will weaken
government repression is at least plausible and is supported by
important human rights groups both inside and outside China.
MFN for China needs to be made into a national referendum
on what kind of global economy we want to have. China must be
made emblematic not just of human rights abuse, but of the race
to the bottom. After all, there are hundreds of millions of unemployed
people in China who have little choice but to work for pennies
an hour. Far from raising the living standards of the Chinese
people, studies by the National Labor Committee and others demonstrate
that China's insertion in the global market is already lowering
them.
Another vulnerability of this campaign is that it can be portrayed
as representing the special interests of privileged American workers,
rather than the broad interest of the world's people. This needs
to be countered in several ways:
* The struggle can only succeed if it is conducted by the
broad coalition of environmental, consumer, farm, labor, and human
rights groups that opposed NAFTA and blocked Fast Track. Sweeney's
repeated emphasis on labor's dependence on its allies is on the
right track
* The campaign must outspokenly reject themes that are anti-foreigner,
anti-Chinese, or anti-Asian. We should learn from the NAFTA struggle
the power that came from working together with Mexican workers,
and we should put Chinese labor and human rights workers at the
center of the campaign
* The campaign needs to be transnational. The strongest way
to show that we are not protecting narrow interests of American
workers is to define the campaign as one battle in a worldwide
effort to shape a different kind of global economy
A major vulnerability at present is that the campaign can
be portrayed as anti-Third World. Its participants need to take
on as part of their core message a commitment to reshaping the
global economy to benefit the Third World. This obviously includes
such matters as debt cancellation, an end to structural adjustment
programs, trade advantages for poorer countries that meet labor
and environmental standards, and some kind of revival of the North/South
Dialogue on the shape of the global economy-in a UN, not a WTO,
framework. As Sweeney has pointed out, those who will be hurt
most by Chinese competition are those Third World countries that
don't want to be forced to exploit their workers and environment
as badly as China has done. If the issue is "what are the
rules for the global economy and
who makes them," we need to project our vision of the
answer. This is the best way to show that we do not represent
narrow or backward interests, but rather a superior vision of
what's needed for the future.
This struggle can only be won at the grassroots. Conventional
lobbying won't do it-only grassroots mobilization has a chance
to succeed. The original struggle against NAFTA provides a starting
point
As in the NAFTA struggle, the main leadership will have to
come from civil society organizations; while politicians can play
an important role, they should not be in the driver's seat. The
movement will have to further expand its capacity to function
as an opposition force that determines what happens in the political
arena by shaping its social context. How this struggle is fought
may be as important as its outcome. The goal should be to come
out of it with a still more powerful worldwide movement that will
not simply block MFN for China, but which will be able to impose
new rules on the global economy.
World
Trade Organization