VICTORY IN
SEATTLE!
Millennium Blues Lifted
The failure of last year's WTO
Ministerial in Seattle has interrupted the
trade liberalization process being pushed
so hard by many governments and businesses.
This significant campaign victory provides
a unique opportunity to reconsider what
international trade is for: how can people
exchange the goods and services they need
in ways which are fair and
sustainable?
FoEI's campaign to Stop the Millennium
Round came to a dramatic full stop - well,
comma - when WTO talks in Seattle collapsed
in early December. Even the most optimistic
among us had expected governments to at
least spin the conclusions, produce some
kind of optimistic-sounding document and
devise an agenda for further talks. But
hostilities were such that nothing was
agreed at all. For people and the
environment, the result simply could not
have been better.
There were four reasons for the collapse
of the talks: opposition from civil
society; conflict between developed and
developing countries; disagreements amongst
developed countries; and shockingly poor
procedures.
Civil Society Revolts
The approximately 50,000 demonstrators
in Seattle indicated the strength of
opposition from groups in the US and around
the world. Public opposition was widespread
- the 'Stop the Round' statement attracted
sign-ons from nearly 1500 organizations of
all types from almost 90 countries. Forty
FoEI representatives from 20 countries were
present in Seattle, and presented a clear
argument against the new round for both
environmental and developmental
reasons.
The vast majority of Seattle protestors
were peaceful throughout. Disturbances were
due to the response of a city authority
unaccustomed to dealing with large-scale
non-violent direct action and the
activities of a small group of individuals
who were less restrained. The police
ultimately deployed tear gas and rubber
bullets and imposed a curfew. These actions
outraged demonstrators, prolonged the
protests and heightened global media
coverage. All in all, it was quite evident
that the demonstrations and subsequent
delays in official proceedings had a
significant impact on negotiators.
Furthermore, it is clear that civil
society opposition encouraged different
countries to oppose various elements of the
proposed negotiations. In other words, it
became easier for governments to resist the
usual pressures to conform. This was the
precise goal of the coalition opposing the
Millennium Round.
North-South Conflict
From the start, some developing
countries, particularly in Africa and Asia,
were opposed to the inclusion of any new
issues for several reasons: a lack of
capacity, the WTO's track record, and
concern that uncontrolled foreign
investment will not benefit them. Previous
WTO agreements on issues like agriculture
and intellectual property rights have been
biassed towards rich countries and have
worked against the interests of poorer
ones.
On a procedural level, the chair of the
working group dealing with new issues, such
as competition and investment, was
extremely dismissive of developing country
interventions. Some of these countries were
also refused access to key 'green room'
meetings. More generally, the US
consistently refused to deal with the
implementation issues that developing
countries had prioritized.
North-North Conflict
There were disagreements between
developed countries that also remained
unresolved. In particular, France, Norway
and Japan maintained varying degrees of
resistance to proposals to reduce
agricultural support. In addition, the row
between the European Commission and member
states over biotechnology was very
significant. The majority of EU member
states themselves - including the UK - were
opposed to a working group on
biotechnology, a key US demand.
WTO Procedures
The procedures employed during the
meeting were the final straw for many
countries. It was highly inappropriate that
the chair, Charlene Barshefsky, was also
the main trade negotiator for the US. Ms.
Barshefsky appeared to be manipulating the
agenda to suit US concerns, and refused to
acknowledge procedural objections from
developing countries. When questioned, she
threatened to use even more restrictive
procedures if working groups failed to
reach agreement.
FoEI in Action
With a delegation of 40 activists from
around the world, FoEI maintained a lively
presence both inside and outside the
Seattle conference centre. With so many
campaigners present, FoEI was able to field
teams to cover both the official and NGO
centres, take part in protests, participate
in key daily government briefings, hold
several press conferences, issue timely,
regular and informed press releases, and
initiate stunts on forests and
genetically-manipulated food inside the
official press room (which were well
received by journalists, if not by the
CIA!). Most campaigners also kept in
contact with their own governments
throughout the week, providing FoEI with
excellent information, including advance
warning that the talks had collapsed.
During the talks, FoEI also organized
the first annual WTO Earth-Wreckers Award
with certificates for specific governments
and corporations that have relentlessly
promoted damaging trade policies. The
winners were Canada and Monsanto (for
pushing GM foods down our throats); the US
and the and the American Forest and Paper
Association (for failing the world's
forests); and the European Union and Nestlé
(for pushing unwanted investment on the
developing world).
The WTO and the Future
In the wake of the spoiled negotiations,
pronouncements are being made left, right
and centre about continuing the round, but
they all seem decidedly shaky. The EU and
the US are still sparring over the results
of the conference - whether they should be
dumped or used for further talks - and it
is rumoured that nothing will happen before
the US presidential elections in
November.
The level of opposition to the proposed
Millennium Round of new issues demonstrates
the need for fundamental reform of the
international trading system. The system is
inequitable, unsustainable, and designed to
benefit large TNCs through deregulation and
increased market access.
A fundamental reform could include the
following: a thorough review of the social
and environmental impacts of trade
liberalization; the introduction of binding
regulations to control the activities of
TNCs; the removal of agriculture from the
WTO; the removal of the requirement to
patent plant varieties and microbiological
processes under the WTO's Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs)
agreement; the removal of biodiversity from
the TRIPs agreement; a new UN agreement to
clarify the status of multilateral
environmental agreements; substantial new
commitments to capacity-building for
developing countries; a moratorium on WTO
disputes relating to environment and
development in the WTO; and the creation of
an alternative, binding international court
which does not prioritize trade over the
environment.
The Seattle success means that FoE and
other groups now have an unprecedented
chance to press for positive change in the
global trading system. We'll be pushing for
a system based on equity, environmental
limits, precaution and corporate control.
It won't be an easy task, but it is one
that FoE is well placed to take on
board.
Ronnie Hall, FoE
England, Wales and Northern Ireland
