The Institute for Nonviolent Economics

A Year-Plus Since Seattle: Where Do We Stand?
By Sarah Laeng-Gilliatt

This article appeared in the Eldorado Sun, February 2001.

“Despite our extraordinary prosperity, the ability to move forward on various trade initiatives has clearly come to a remarkable stall. We all need to press very hard on the political process to maintain the role once played to see this major advance in civilization come to fruition. "
– Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve

In Seattle, just over a year ago, the world saw the launching of a powerful international civil society movement of broad, cross-sector coalitions and North-South alliances. Fifty thousand people took to the streets saying, "No new round. Turn around." They walked in opposition to a Millennium Round of new trade issues, and in hopes of "turning around" the agenda of the 8th Round of the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which put in place the World Trade Organization (WTO) and created profound changes in how we produce and consume.
People were clear that a system written by and for big business, and a system that allows unelected trade bureaucrats and corporate representatives to rule on policy jeopardizes democracy itself. People knew that a system that allows our overconsumption at the expense of the earth and other peoples is clearly unsustainable and highly unethical.
People walked in solidarity. The slogan "All for one, and one for all" was the spirit of the week, and issues of indigenous peoples, farmers, women, consumer rights, water, forests, labor, democracy, and human rights were all represented in the vibrant, festive, and firm stand against corporate rule.
For the first time, huge numbers took to US streets in resistance to what Johan Galtung, the famous peace researcher, dubbed "structural violence." This abstract, institutionalized form of violence consists of dangerously silent policies which in effect lead to poverty, hunger, death, and species loss. People saw below the surface and didn't need graphic body bags to take action. Citizens of the US were finally following the lead of hundreds of thousands of workers and farmers in Europe, and possibly several million in India and Asia, resisting the move away from traditional agriculture to industrialized agriculture.
While the media focused on broken windows and property damage, positive events took place for a week – a two-day teach-in with members of the International Forum on Globalization; a forum on the WTO and the Global War System; a Jubilee 2000 Prayer Service at St. James Cathedral; a human chain around the opening reception of the WTO pressing for the unconditional elimination of Third World Debt; a debate between leaders in the business community and representatives of the new civil movement; a Forum on Food, Agriculture and Biotechnology; and a Corporate Tribunal- to name just a few of the events in this smorgasbord.
There were powerful new re-alignments, and Europe was clearly not in agreement with the US on agricultural issues – each had their own view regarding rules governing their access to global agricultural markets. Europe recognized the importance of protecting their own traditional agriculture for economic and cultural reasons. For the first time, the developing countries, emboldened by seeing that the US government does not have the support of its people, were united in their resolve not to sign on to commitments that were designed by the richer countries.
On December 4, 1999, The Seattle Times read, "Talks Collapse: Meeting Ends." The delegates were unable to push for further agreements; there was no Millennium Round. As Jerry Mander, Director of the International Forum on Globalization, summarized, they did not get an extension of rules including services (broadcasting, water delivery, public health, and education, among others). There was no new agricultural deal. There was no free logging agreement that would have allowed for the clear cutting of much of the world's remaining forests. There were no new rules which would have made it impossible for countries to ban biotechnology or demand labels for it. There were no new investment rules which would have made it impossible for countries to keep out unwanted corporate entry. There was no codification of the asserted WTO superiority over multilateral environmental agreements like The Kyoto Climate Change Agreement or The Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion or The International Biosafety Protocol. There was no global codification of a ban on all taxes and tariffs on e-commerce which would have given a death blow to many small businesses worldwide.

THE MOVEMENT CONTINUES, WORLDWIDE
The movement which gained such power in Seattle has continued in streets all over the world. In March 2000, thousands in Boston said no to the biotech industry. In April in Washington, 30,000 protesters converged to protest International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank policies. In May, 2,000 poor Thai farmers took to the streets to criticize the Asian Development Bank. The Philadelphia and Los Angeles conventions were met with the message, No politics as usual! In June in Southern France, 100,000 cheered José Bové, the farmer who resists WTO trade sanctions against his Roquefort cheese and the globalization of food through MacDonald's. In September, 5,000 protesters in Melbourne intermittently sealed off entry to the Asia-Pacific Summit of the World Economic Forum. Later that month 10,000 people came to Prague from allover Europe to express their disagreement with the IMF and the World Bank, forcing the convention to abruptly end a day earlier than scheduled. In India, millions resist Cargill and Monsanto's seed and agribusiness monopolies. And in Ecuador, there were protests against the dollarization of their currency. In Bolivia, people understand that the privatization of water represents one more powerful erosion of the commons.

PUBLIC OPINION IS SHIFTING
Lawrence Solomons from Johns Hopkins University has conducted research on civil society in forty countries. He concludes that these progressive movements are growing at an amazing rate, and that if all the members were put together into one country, it would be the eighth largest economy in the world. These movements, Solomons asserts, are the most important political development in the last century.
Clearly, what happened in Seattle is not a fluke. The movement is, without a doubt, a force to be reckoned with. As Gandhi so often said, the human potential is limitless, and just because something hasn't occurred in the past, does not mean it is not possible. Indeed, public opinion is shifting. Business Week reported that 70% of Americans believe corporations have too much power. Leaders like Gorbachev are clear that we need to determine what will and won't allow corporations to do. There are now divisions even within the IMF and the World Bank; and the "Washington Consensus" on economic policy is no more.

"Just when a nonviolent movement is becoming particularly effective and powerful, there is unequaled resistance to this power. At this point, it is absolutely vital to continue without losing faith."
Public opinion is changing for many reasons, not the least of which is the data. In the pre-globalization period from 1960-1980 Africa had income growth levels at 34%, Latin America at 73%. During the implementation of the globalization agenda from 1980 to the present, Africa's income growth has been at minus 23%, Latin America's at 5%. The great successes in Asia didn't follow the model: China does not have a convertible currency and had a protected industrial policy. The Asian Tigers did a lot of exporting, but not much importing. The per capita gap in income between rich and poor countries tripled from 1960 to 1993. The World Bank's own statistics indicate that there are now more poor people in Africa, Latin America, and Southern Hemisphere Asia than there were two decades ago. A recent UN study calls the WTO a "veritable nightmare" for the developing world. The US Federal Reserve reports that the top 20% of the US population owns 84% of all the wealth in the country. And lest one thinks that massive corporations mean massive employment, the 200 largest corporations employ less than one half of one percent of the global workforce (with 28% of the world's economic activity).

THE CHALLENGES AHEAD
Thomas Kuhn, author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, explains that when paradigms are in the process of changing, the proponents of the old systems cling all the more to the old ways despite their increasing obsolescence. George Lakey, a teacher of nonviolence, describes a similar phenomenon when he explains how just when a nonviolent movement is becoming particularly effective and powerful, there is unequaled resistance to this power. Though the stiff resistance may make it seem the movement has lost power, this is an illusion. At this point, it is absolutely vital to continue without losing faith.
And so, indeed, it appears that as the people's movement becomes stronger, the challenges seem greater. Though the WTO will be unable to have a meeting of another round of negotiations in Qatar (Qatar withdrew their offer to host it in fear of protests), they nevertheless are still pushing for a new round of negotiations. This new round may come as early as 2001 and will likely involve issues of investment (what the aborted Multilateral Agreement on Investment was unable to do), government procurement, competition, and labor and the environment.
Europe and the US are working very hard to overcome their differences, and as soon as they do, they will use their combined might to push for new negotiations and new far-reaching commitments. In the meantime, as a global process of agreement is proving difficult, agreements are being carried out at the regional level, for example through the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the US Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) , as well as through bilateral agreements.
Despite the fact that even the most enthusiastic WTO supporters realized during Seattle that the WTO was fundamentally undemocratic and non-transparent, no longer is there much discussion of reforming the decision-making process. In fact, Director General Michael Moore has gone so far as to say that the “Consensus/Green Room" system – that spurred the developing countries' revolt, and that is considered "far from consensus" – is "non-negotiable."
Walden Bello, Executive Director of Focus on the Global South in Bangkok, has recently written that the reform initiative of the G-7 (the seven richest countries) of reducing the servicing of the external debt of the 41 Highly Indebted Countries has delivered a debt reduction of only $1 billion since it began in 1996. This represents a reduction of only three percent in the past four and a half years!
The discussion of a "new international financial architecture" that emerged after the Asian, Russian, and Brazilian financial crises has led to merely cosmetic reforms. However, there is renewed debate, in some quarter at least, that is addressing the inherent instability of the international financial system with its unregulated financial flows. Tobin-like taxes on speculative capital and capital controls are advocated by many. Also, there is strong support for examining whether a return to fixed exchange rates would be wise. Participants delegates at a UN regional meeting: in Jakarta on Financing for Development last August criticized the lack of progress in the reform process and called again for action. Hopefully, pressure will build at other regional UN meetings, eventually culminating at a UN high-level meeting on Financing for Development this year.
In the American region we have the upcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting scheduled for Quebec, April 18-22, 2001. In December of 1994, US officials organized a Summit of the Americas in Miami. Since then, 34 countries in North, Central, and South America and the Caribbean have been secretly negotiating an expansion of NAFTA, their aim is to impose the NAFTA model of increased privatization and deregulation on the entire hemisphere. Though no texts have been made publicly available, it appears that the key issues will be services, investment, agriculture, and intellectual property. The agreement is to be completed and implemented in 2005, or so they hope.
It is crucial that the viable and inspiring alternative to globalization – localization – is pursued.

On the agricultural front, the developing countries still are not allowed to control food import or increase subsidies to farmers, while cheap imports from abroad are flooding their markets. This is despite the fact that export dumping (putting products on the market that are priced below the cost of production – domestic anti-trust law calls this "predatory pricing") is against WTO rules (but is enforced selectively). It is also despite the fact that the total value of agricultural subsidies in OECD countries has increased over recent years!
The numerous appeals from the South to extend the transition period for the implementation of the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (global rules on patents) have continually met with a deaf ear. The African proposal to prevent the patenting of life forms (such as seeds and medicinal plants) to allow developing countries to protect their resources and knowledge from being patented by large companies in the North has also been met with negative responses. Hundreds of cases of biopiracy are continuing unabated.

TOWARDS A TRUE INTERNATIONALISM
A year-plus since Seattle, we find ourselves at an historic turning point. The international civil society movement for democracy and diversity is strong and recognized to be extremely significant. Grassroots efforts have now successfully halted two attempts at granting the President Fast Track authority to negotiate trade agreements quickly without the usual input of Congress. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment was aborted due to a brilliant campaign that prevailed despite the media's silence and the secretive nature of the negotiators. And in 1999, civil society helped to block the Millennium Round.
The expectable backlash is evident; the deeply-entrenched, moneyed interests are striking back. It is vital at this time that the initiative remains in the hands of civil society and that economic globalization is fundamentally questioned. It is crucial that the viable and inspiring alternative to globalization - localization - is pursued. It is by protecting the local, globally, that local economies can become vibrant, that people can have a deep sense of belonging to their communities and bioregions, and that a true internationalism can emerge that is based on social needs being met and the environment being restored. Time is short, and it is in everyone's interest to create alternatives from the ground tip to this highly unstable and unsustainable system, and to include all possible allies: even the growing number of billionaires depend upon clean air and water and healthy societies!