g o v e r n m e n t i n s i g h t s

The 'Battle in Seattle'

S o what was it really like in Seat-i tie at that WTO meeting?"

Throughout the holiday sea­son, I got this question repeatedly from friends who knew I had covered the meeting for C&EN. They did not accept television coverage of the dra­matic tear-gas-filled and glass-smash­ing moments as the final word on the World Trade Organization's four-day conference in December.

As for the streets, most of the time nearly all of the protesters were peace­ful. Thousands of demonstrators non-violently accepted the tear gas, pepper spray, blows, and rubber bullets that law enforcement officers were directed to aim into the crowd. Meanwhile, small groups of black-clad people wearing ski masks scampered around, some clutching cans of spray paint.

Some in the news media and a few industry representatives por­trayed 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 interdepen­dence 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.

Almost all those charged with crimi­nal acts—breaking glass storefronts and looting—were locals from Seattle, not the tens of thousands of people who traveled there to call for reform of WTO. The Seattle city attorney has dropped charges against those who were arrest­ed for failing to disperse and is pursuing felony charges against just a few.

One of those dropped cases involved a young woman I met, a mild-mannered college student from Oregon, who came to Seattle for a day of demon­strations ostensibly to save sea turtles. When police gave an order to disperse, this woman and dozens of other protest­ers tried to leave because they had no de­sire to get arrested. But she and others trying to get away wound up trapped in mid-block between two lines of police of­ficers. Trusting they would not get arrest­ed if they cooperated with the cops, they

followed further police instruction to be silent and stand next to a wall. She ended up in jail for three days. Exhausted and dirty, she left Seattle with a new mistrust of the authorities and a greatly intensi­fied zeal for changing WTO. She is not unique; trade bureaucrats, take note.

I believe that the Seattle Police De­partment was ill-prepared for the WTO meeting and that the city's top brass bear most of the responsibility for the scary situation that resulted. The ac­tions of Seattle officials and law en­forcement officers, I realize, should be viewed separately from the internation­al trade talks. But I believe the "Battle in Seattle" is indicative of a growing world­wide public outcry for reform that will dog WTO until it makes some changes.

As a journalist, Fve covered several international meetings—but all previ­ous ones involved negotiations on envi­ronmental issues. The atmosphere of trade negotiations is different than talks on environmental concerns such as cli­mate change. Those drafting environ­mental agreements focus on crafting pro­visions that will encourage the greatest number of countries to sign final text.

In contrast, the WTO talks ap­peared to operate under the assump­tion that all countries automatically would sign on to whatever emerged from the Seattle meeting because it would be economically foolish for any nation not to, regardless of the details. The assumption that countries would accept any WTO deal rather than get left out of the next step in trade liberal­ization may have worked in the past, but it failed in Seattle.

The Seattle talks were focused on

what countries were willing to give up to get something else. For instance, European Union officials came to Seat­tle opposing establishment of a new WTO working group on biotechnolo­gy. But because EU trade negotiators dearly wanted to maintain the EU's ag­ricultural subsidies, which many coun­tries oppose as trade distortions, they agreed to support formation of the new biotechnology group. In ex­change, several industrialized coun­tries, including the U.S., backed off on their demands for elimination of the EU agricultural subsidies.

In the end, the talks broke down be­cause developing countries were shut out of the down-to-the-wire negoti­ations. U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, who chaired the Seattle conference, allowed open partic­ipation during the first part 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 present-I ed to all nations to take or leave.

But for the first time in trade talks, blocs of developing countries just said no to the final document be­cause they were excluded from the last-minute dealing.

To me, the stance of the devel­oping 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' gov­ernments aren't calling for public ac­cess 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 liber­alize 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 con­tinue 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