Raj Patel, anti-WTO activist 0

Tuesday, 30 Nov 1999

SEATTLE, Wash.

Monday was way too long and disconnected, rather like this diary entry, but a number of important things happened. First off, I spent the morning with the African Caucus. You've got to wonder when the marginalization of Africa and Africans will ever stop -- the meeting took place a half-hour bus ride away from the center of town. Despite being called at the last moment, though, a good 70 people turned out to hear a variety of speakers bear witness to stories of globalization in Africa. Among the speakers was a woman who did a fine job explaining how the economic violence that puts women in sweatshops is systematically connected to violence against women in the home. This connection isn't one that's made nearly enough. Where, after all, do we learn to treat women's bodies differently from men's? This isn't something you pick up in the workplace, though it is repeated and relearned there. Gender relations get produced and reproduced in the home, and the speaker reminded us that it was important to keep the space within the home political. The word "patriarchy" is one which we need to be unafraid of using when we talk about women in sweatshops.

After that, a quick dash across town back to the WTO conference center, for the official WTO sponsored "dialogue with civil society." I had expected to miss the start of this, but luckily there had been a security breach -- those naughty direct action pixies had managed to slip into the conference facility -- and no one else had been allowed in for a couple of hours while the police scratched their heads to figure out how the breach had occurred. This threw the whole timetable back a bit and meant that I'd not really missed anything, except lunch.

A number of big-ish names spoke. Britain's usually entertaining and outspoken Minister for International Development, Claire Short, gave a disturbing speech in which she patronized developing countries and argued that poor countries were being foolish in wanting the WTO to hold its horses. She said that the best way to address developing countries' concerns was not to stop liberalisation, but to have a broader "development" round of negotiations that takes their concerns into account. At the same time she praised the developing countries for their new confidence in trade negotiations, she asked them to be a little more compliant with the will of developed countries. The Minister was trying, in a very Blairite endeavour, to find a "third way" between no round and a round dominated by the usual suspects, Northern corporate interests. This seems to be the WTO's new ideological direction. The Northern countries know that without developing country consent, the new round won't be able to go ahead. They're worried and, if Ms. Short's speech is anything to go by, desperate.

Two other speeches deserve special mention. The first is Mike Moore's. He is the director general of the WTO, and a frightening man. He doesn't like the way he is being forced to defend himself and his organization against the barrage of international criticism, and he has recently taken to lashing out against his critics. Here are three quotes -- the first from a speech Sunday night to labor activists, the other two from Monday's NGO special session.

For some, the attacks on economic openness are part of a broader assault on internationalism -- on foreigners, immigration, a more pluralistic and integrated world. Anti-globalization becomes the latest chapter in the age-old call to separatism, tribalism, and racism -- the "them" versus "us" view of the world. When I was a young man the word internationalism was a noble word. It was also a word that had real meaning for labor. We took to heart the old songs about international solidarity and the brotherhood of man. But now the idea of internationalism has become something to be feared or attacked. It concerns me that many of those who sincerely want a better and more just world now find themselves aligned with those who stand against internationalism in all its forms. I guess globalization is the last "ism" to hate.

Moore is right in some ways. There are some groups that are fiercely isolationist and chauvinist. Some European right-wing groups, for instance, tried to spin the meaning of the June 18, 1999, protests against capitalism into being anti-Semitic. For them, resistance to globalization is an act of hatred. But these right-wing groups are very much in the minority. In fact, Moore gave his speech to a room in which 120 countries' labor movements were represented. The pertinent "them/us" distinction was not a "tribal" one, but rather the simple difference between the haves and the have-nots. And it is unlikely that Mr. Moore could have found a better example of transnational solidarity than the group staring him in the face. Suffice it to say that he didn't fare well in question time after he accused the international union movement of racism.

Perhaps Mr. Moore could avoid this sort of critique by arguing that the people in the room with him yesterday weren't representative? He did exactly that in his speech today:

Trade is not the answer to all our problems, but it provides part of the solution. Fifty thousand people may be demonstrating against us at Seattle. But remember too, that over 30 countries -- some 1.5 billion people -- want to join the WTO. They know what it offers and they want to be part of it. Ask them what they want.

It is, of course, pure fancy to think that the billion people in China, or the hundred million in Russia, have, with one voice, made an informed decision about membership in the WTO. In fact, the reason that 50,000 people are on the street is precisely because the governments that claim to speak in their name at the WTO haven't secured their consent about WTO membership at all. Frequently, though, Moore uses the rhetorical tactic of letting the actions of a small minority represent the voice of many. Another example:

We all want a fairer world, a world of opportunity accessible to all. Just ask the mother with a sick child who wants the best medical advice the world has to offer -- whether it's from Boston or Oxford or Johannesburg.

This cheap trick, in which some fictional mother and child are meant to put a benign human face on globalization, was burst, heartbreakingly, during question time by a representative of the Africa Trade Network. The representative told how, last week, she buried her aunt and cousin, both of whom had died of preventable diseases -- medicine which would have cured her relatives was not available because it is protected by the WTO patent system and cannot be reproduced generically for another 10 years in southern Africa.

The other speech I want to mention, quickly, is the one given by Yash Tandon, of the International South Group Network. As I mentioned yesterday, Yash was probably more radical than anyone else in the room. His speech was delightfully incendiary. First, he criticized himself, together with other members of civil society, for failing to do more to inform and criticize during the early 1990s. He criticized the governments of the South, for signing away the birthrights of their people. His final criticism was leveled at the corporations and developed country governments that call the tunes to which Southern governments, often reluctantly, dance.

Question time was the chance for other members of civil society to have their say. Unions voiced their concerns that labor standards are not included in the WTO (much to the consternation of trade economist and self-proclaimed intellectual leader of the free-trade movement, Jagdish Bhagwati). Environmental groups talked about how the WTO was overriding existing multilateral environmental agreements. A range of business groups did some slick work to push their own agendas. This is all fairly standard for these sorts of affairs.

There were, however, a range of other groups whom you might not expect to have seen. The women's caucus tried to point out that international trade theory rests on some pretty gendered assumptions, but they were brushed off by Bhagwati, who accused them of being "illogical." The relief agency Medecins Sans Frontiers -- Doctors Without Borders -- was there, arguing that patents on medicines are killing their patients. And the World Union of Librarians was there arguing for a robust domain of public information, and putting the case against the commodification and homogenization of culture.

We'd do well to remember, though, that despite a farrago of star speakers, there were many silences. Very few women's movements made their presence felt. And everyone except the French spoke English. Surely there are people who can't speak English, who nonetheless have trade-related concerns? In any case, Mr. Moore had, by this time, left the room. He seemed less interested in dialogue than monologue, and many NGOs criticised the process for not even having the veneer of participation. The whole afternoon appeared to be merely an opportunity for NGOs to vent, without actually influencing anything. This consultative session was more a testament to the WTO's fear of civil society than any sort of willingness to engage with it.

So many other things happened today. There was a 10,000 person human chain in support of debt relief, at which a great many more than 10,000 showed up, thanks in no small part to fierce organizing by the U.S. unions. There was a People's Gala, at which Kevin Danagher of Global Exchange claimed that we're on the brink on the first Global Revolution. Although I'd question his sense of history, there does seem to be something electric in the air. There's certainly a feeling that tomorrow, the main WTO protest, is going to be big. And noisy. The WTO is right to be afraid.

Reports from the streets tomorrow!

If you're interested in knowing more about what went on, visit http://www.iisd.ca for a comprehensive summary of the proceedings. The International Institute for Sustainable Development is a fine organization, and are likely to do as good a job with this as they have with past efforts.

• Next Page:
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
• View as Single Page
• Comments