government
insights
The 'Battle in Seattle' o what was it really like in Seat- followed further police instruction to be silent and stand next to a wall. She ended tie at that WTO meeting?" Throughout the holiday sea up in jail for three days. Exhausted and son, I got this question repeatedly dirty, she left Seattle with a new mistrust from friends who knew I had covered of the authorities and a greatly intensi the meeting for C&EN. They did not fied zeal for changing WTO. She is not accept television coverage of the dra unique; trade bureaucrats, take note. matic tear-gas-filled and glass-smash I believe that the Seattle Police De ing moments as thefinalword on the partment was ill-prepared for the WTO World Trade Organization's four-day meeting and that the city's top brass conference in December. bear most of the responsibility for the As for the streets, most of the time scary situation that resulted. The ac nearly all of the protesters were peace tions of Seattle officials and law en ful. Thousands of demonstrators non- forcement officers, I realize, should be violently accepted the tear gas, pepper viewed separatelyfromthe internation spray, blows, and rubber bullets that al trade talks. But I believe the "Battle in law enforcement officers were directed Seattle" is indicative of a growing world to aim into the crowd. Meanwhile, small wide public outcry for reform that will groups of black-clad people wearing ski dog WTO until it makes some changes. masks scampered around, some clutching cans of spray paint. Some in the news media and a few industry representatives por trayed the protesters as Luddites who oppose world trade and know little or nothing about WTO. But I talked to a number of protesters who recognized the interdepen dence of the world economy and did not necessarily oppose trade. They want changes in the rules governing trade. No doubt some protesters oppose trade in any form. But most expressed serious concerns about the direction that the world trading system is taking. As a journalist, Fve covered several Almost all those charged with crimi international meetings—but all previ nal acts—breaking glass storefronts ous ones involved negotiations on envi and looting—were locals from Seattle, ronmental issues. The atmosphere of not the tens of thousands of people who trade negotiations is different than talks traveled there to call for reform of WTO. on environmental concerns such as cli The Seattle city attorney has dropped mate change. Those drafting environ charges against those who were arrest mental agreements focus on crafting pro ed for failing to disperse and is pursuing visions that will encourage the greatest number of countries to signfinaltext. felony charges against just a few. In contrast, the WTO talks ap One of those dropped cases involved a young woman I met, a mild-mannered peared to operate under the assump college student from Oregon, who tion that all countries automatically came to Seattle for a day of demon would sign on to whatever emerged strations ostensibly to save sea turtles. from the Seattle meeting because it When police gave an order to disperse, would be economically foolish for any this woman and dozens of other protest nation not to, regardless of the details. ers tried to leave because they had no de The assumption that countries would sire to get arrested. But she and others accept any WTO deal rather than get trying to get away wound up trapped in left out of the next step in trade liberal mid-block between two lines of police of ization may have worked in the past, ficers. Trusting they would not get arrest but it failed in Seattle. ed if they cooperated with the cops, they The Seattle talks were focused on
S i
what countries were willing to give up to get something else. For instance, European Union officials came to Seat tle opposing establishment of a new WTO working group on biotechnolo gy. But because EU trade negotiators dearly wanted to maintain the EU's ag ricultural subsidies, which many coun tries oppose as trade distortions, they agreed to support formation of the new biotechnology group. In ex change, several industrialized coun tries, including the U.S., backed off on their demands for elimination of the EU agricultural subsidies. In the end, the talks broke down be cause developing countries were shut out of the down-to-the-wire negoti ations. U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, who chaired the Seattle conference, allowed open partic ipation during thefirstpart of the meet ing. But as the hour for adjourn| ment grew near, she reverted to ι old WTO procedure—assigning | just a few countries to meet behind £ closed doors to hammer out an s agreement that would be presentI ed to all nations to take or leave. But for thefirsttimein trade talks, blocs of developing countries just said no to the final document be cause they were excludedfromthe last-minute dealing. To me, the stance of the devel oping nations echoed demands in the Seattle streets for public access to WTO goings-on, such as pro ceedings that determine whether a country's laws or regulations (such as the European ban on beef treated with hormones) are unfair barriers to trade. But, I note, developing countries' gov ernments aren't calling for public ac cess to WTO, just their own entry into closed-door talks. What will happen post-Seattle? Here are my predictions: WTO nations will eventually work out a plan to liber alize trade further (that's what they were supposed to agree on in Seattle). Developing nations will get marginally more respect in trade negotiations. Public calls for WTO reform will con tinue to grow worldwide. Eventually, WTO will have to institute changes. Allowing more public scrutiny of WTO will make it more effective. It might even promote democracy. And it won't hurt the economy either. Cheryl Hogue JANUARY 17, 2000 C&EN 4 7
