Inside the "Stop the amom new round of WTO talks.
Meanwhile the free trade juggernaut internal was slowed by its own contradictions. Imperialism as a whole
WTO" movement Pictures of the dramatic demonstrations against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle last November filled TV screens all round the world. Last month we presented the main ideas behind those protests. In the following article, Vancouver activist Harold Lavender reports on the difficulties of coalition building, and the internal dynamics of the "Stop the WTO" movement in North America. Although it doesn't quite measure up to all inflated claims, protests against the WTO in Seattle were certainly a harbinger of things to come. It was a graphic reminder that capitalist globalization does not benefit the majority of people on the planet. As a result, over time it is likely to be met by increasing resistance and growing international movements.
The militant nature of the confrontation in the streets of Seattle and the inability of the WTO to advance the agenda of trade liberalization, 14 • International Viewpoint #319 February 2000 deregulation and privatization have helped shatter the illusion that imperialist-led ojis globalization inevitable and cannot be defeated. The struggle will continue, fortified by what is widely perceived as a people's victory.
The success in Seattle was achieved through a partial convergence of politically, socially and culturally disparate forces. A loose alliance was assembled, which include organized labour, the environment movement, the women's movement, a growing citizen's/civil society alternative current, and a more youthful radical direct action wing that formed the backbone of resistance in the streets.
The movement spanned much of the globe. This reflected specific concerns about the far-reaching effects of globalization — in both the advanced capitalist countries and in the South or Third World - and the destruction of health and the environment round the globe.
Despite a variety of differing and sometimes conflicting political visions, strategies, tactical choices and material interests, this heterogeneous movement succeeded in focusing against a specific umbrella target: the attempt to launch a favours neo-liberal policies. But inter-imperialist contradictions and rivalries have far from disappeared. In fact, they are intensifying. Which trade blocks and states will take the lion's share? Who will be sacrificed? ai WTO negotiations expose the contradictions between imperialism -which was trying to ram its agenda down the throat of the so-called Southern nations -- and regimes which, though often far from progressive, don't want to get screwed in the economic power game.
o»The Canadian government was typical in its two-faced hypocrisy. On the one hand, it is one of the most active proponents of trade liberalization to expand Canadian imperialism's share of the pie in the competitive world of survival of the fittest. On the other hand, Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew tried to reassure the domestic public that popular public services like medicare would not be negotiated away and that Canadian sovereignty would not be undermined.
Elected governments remain edgy about public pressure. That's why they prefer to do their business behind close doors and exclude any serious and informed political debate and choices.
When people speak out and visible movements get in the way, governments risk being held accountable to something more than corporate profit
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
RULE TO TRIBA
WIO is поЛою of kin margins. Too vocal a democracy gets in the way of doing business.
These days, defeats are the norm. But a victory was won in Seattle. Was this just an episodic and conjunctural moment that won't necessarily be followed up and repeated? Or does it offer model for future mobilizations? The jury is still out. It partly depends on what lessons are drawn from experience. The potential for massive and multiple international resistance that includes labour, social and environmental movements and radicalizing youth is exciting. But many political pitfalls could block realization of this potential.
In Seattle, the victory resulted from a relative convergence and rise of movements on our side and a relative fracturing of unity in the imperialist camp. However, these conditions are not guaranteed. A fragile alliance
Accounts about Seattle tend to fall into two camps. The most widespread view, including in much of the labour movement, the reformist and civil society currents, tends to de-emphasise and downplay political contradictions and differences. A much smaller current of opinion has a counter-reaction, which highlights political differences and problems.
Some small far left organizations marginalized themselves from the movement by taking a dismissive attitude about the mobilization and its politics. Some radicals involved in the direct action movement tend to draw negative evaluations about the role of labour, or the labour leadership, and reformist forces. Some of their criticisms are valid. But this does not resolve the problem of how to build unity in action with other forces, especially in the labour movement.We need to stress the need to struggle for unity in action.
However, a naive and uncritical approach does little to advance our cause. We should celebrate the rise of the movement. But as socialists and Marxists we need to be clear about the political problems within the broad movement.nod Unity o cannot g be successfully maintained without frank political discussion, clarification and examination of the political role of different forces within the action.
Overall Seattle was a step forward. This was highlighted in a greater level of mass mobilization, including by the labour movement. The AFL-CIO-led march mobilized roughly 40,000. About 10,000 people, predominately though not exclusively youth, participated at various levels in the direct actions and confrontations to shut down the WTO.
Some loose level of unity was maintained. The main organizing coalition in Seattle combined both fair trade and No to the WTO forces. This was an advance that enlarged the possibility for joint action.
However at another level it was a retreat in the sense that unity was achieved by political fuzziness and partial submergence of differences. In
БОЛТ9тА Ллой 1291910) Athe short, there was more unity than in organizing against the APEC Summit in Vancouver, but with the trade-off of often-muddy politics. The role of the labour
The presence of organized labour gave the week of protests a mass and at least a limited sociologically working class character that would have been otherwise lacking. Some more radical and young people tended to view the labour protest as controlled and dull.
But surely it begins to challenge normality when thousands of working class people gather together for a political protest around policy. To a certain extent, labour mobilized its troops - 30,000 people, and on a
However, this was not generally accompanied by collective strike action of even the one-day variety, with the notable exception of the International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU), which shut down US West Coast ports for the day. In a metropolitan area of 2.5 million, that was a good showing, though hardly the greatest protest of the problem was not the mobilization itself, but the politics of labour or more precisely the AFL-CIO bureaucracy. Labour activists in Seattle and elsewhere undoubtedly did good work in building the action, and do not necessarily share the politics of the AFL-CIO leadership. (AFL-CIO President John Sweeney went so far as International Viewpoint #319 February 2000 15
* North America to endorse the Clinton trade agenda prior to the WTO conference.) But the labour march did not represent a clear political break with the leadership.
Labour's tactics seemed to have had a dual character, as was rather clearly explained on a panel by Barbara Shaylor of the Machinists.
On the one hand, it involves real mobilization to defend the interests of workers whose jobs and quality of lives were threatened by unfair trade and corporate-led globalization. The march reflects discontent and concern within the ranks, especially among industrial, which unions have suffered major job losses in recent decades.
On the other hand, the march was oriented to putting pressure on the Democrats to adopt a more pro-labour agenda on trade. At the same time, the official line also remains work like hell to elect the Democrats in 2000.
A related problem was how to protect workers' jobs. The general approach was fair trade, which included enacting minimum labour standards in trade pacts and incorporating them into the WTO.
The Clinton administration was willing to listen and perhaps twist the idea to exclude some imports to the US from countries that did not comply with fair trade rules.
But his idea got a frosty response from southern governments, who saw this as just one more way to stack the terms of trade even more heavily against them. Some southern activists also have a gut reaction against US imperialism dictating terms that might improve the lot of workers in the US, but would do nothing to improve the lot of the vast impoverished and unorganized majority in the world, including women.
International labour standards are a desirable goal, but if done without an equitable power relationship between workers and popular movements internationally, it can be used to line up workers from different countries in competition against each other.ora
There were some efforts to give an international flavour to the protest events. But within labour there are undoubted undertones of US economic nationalism. Most of the labour signs were okay if not great, such as "If it doesn't work for working families, it doesn't work." But some steelworkers carried signs and a float saying "Unfair trade destroys American jobs." o Neither labour ni the accompanying teach-ins gave platform to reactionary protectionist views like those of Pat Buchanan. 16 International Viewpoint #319 February 2000
For the most part, trade unionists and environmentalists managed to coexist surprisingly well. A November 29 fair trade rally of 5,000-plus had a strong presence of both steelworkers and people masked as sea turtles (denied protection by a WTO ruling). But some found this US nationalism offensive. At a labour-environment fair trade rally, Vandana Shiva said that some people had gotten it wrong and steelworker sign should read trade destroys people's
But the most widely noted event was the actions of the AFL-CIO leadership on November 30. The direct action had started around 7:00 am in the morning leading to confrontations, tear gassing and other forms of police violence at some sites. How would the labour march respond when it reached the downtown area at 1:30pm?
About 1,000 marshals had been assembled to control the march. There was no attempt to involve the crowd in the decision. (Afterward, I found out second-hand that the permit to march directly by the convention site had been cancelled and there had been an internal discussion about alternative routes, with those favouring steering well away from the direct action winning out.)
As a result came the great parting of the ways, both literally and symbolically. As directed by the union marshals, the bulk of the march streamed away from the struggle in the streets. But thousands (the bulk of the non-union protesters and a significant minority of labour) voted with their feet and streamed towards the protest sites.
It was a public act no one present could miss. The labour leadership turned its back on solidarizing with engaged in direct resistance on the streets.
The AFL-CIO leadership had opportunity to lead both politically and tactically. But it failed to rise to the task. As a result, it left a political and tactical vacuum that was filled by other forces. Canadian labour
A significant mobilization was built in Vancouver (41 buses went to Seattle). And labour collaborated with its partners on the respectable institutional left (the Council of Canadians, parts of the peace movement like End the Arms Race, the Canadian Federation of Students, some NGOs) to hold a substantial pre-conference of about 1,000 people, which was useful if a little top down and talking heads.
But there is no cause for celebration about the role played by the Canadian Labour Federation (CLC) and the British Columbia Federation of trade unions (BC Fed). I found out at the conference that the CLC leadership was unhappy with the protectionist aspects of the AFL-CIO approach. But little public was done about their concerns.
CLC President Ken Georgetti was among the first to dissociate from what he called violent anarchists who had hijacked the legitimate protest agenda at Seattle. This was not representative of the feeling of many in the labour who loreactedwo more positively to the struggle and Georgetti pulled back a little. But this type of statement and attitude feeds into the bitterness and many young radicals feel towards the labour movement.
Labour has important criticisms of the WTO. But its prescriptions don't match its words. The labour-backed New Democratic Party (NDP) has
----- photo credits and running heads -----
P.
capitulated to neo-liberalism like most other social democratic parties round the world and abandoned opposition to trade pacts, seeking only half measures to protect Canadian workers interests.
A defensive pragmatism now reigns in the labour movement. (The Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the notable holdout, is the only Canadian union participating in the People's Global Alliance.) But for the most part, labour wants a voice at table in future WTO negotiations, which is not the recipe to inspire radicalizing youth.
Other forces are more vocal, with economic nationalists like the Council of Canadians leading the argument for national sovereignty and defense of public interests and a citizen's agenda. Environmentalist playing a major role in taking up antiWTO issues.
Globally, there appears to be a rise of kind of civil society, radical democratic citizens environmentally conscious greenish current. This is influenced by a variety of forces from the Zapatistas to left Maude Barlow of the Council of
There were a number of teach-ins and conferences just prior to the opening of the WTO. The most was organized by the International Forum on Globalization. Attendance wise, it was a success: 2500 tickets were sold and others could not get in. A number of very well informed and interesting speakers spoke on continuous panels, including Vandana Shiva, Susan George, Warden Bello, etc. The critique of the impact of globalization international in scope. One panel highlighted "views from the South."
Intellectuals had played a positive role in challenging the notion of no alternatives and winning the battle of public opinion with a wide audience. But I was most inspired by the presence of militant peasant activists like Jose Bove, leader of the French anticampaign, representatives of Via Campesina, which coordinates radical struggles. Indigenous peoples from around the world were also inspiring
However, aspects of the conference problematic. participatory enough. There was too much of a star system, which I found disconcerting. It was held in a posh symphony hall, which gave something of the wrong atmosphere. It felt far too disconnected from the militant struggle that was brewing for the streets.
And the politics, though influenced by some Marxist ideas and a host of ideas from other social/ecological movements, were not that explicitly left
Canadian speakers included Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke from the MAI fight, environmentalist David Suzuki, and Hassan Yousef from the CLC. This makes some sense from a broad alliance perspective. But the voices of the far revolutionary Marxists and radical anarchists — were simply not included.
Others events also drew in broad audiences. I attended a jammed interfaith service around Jubilee 2000's campaign for cancelling the debt of the poorest nations. There was a substantial march and participation in a human chain - perhaps up to 12,000. However, again neither the political framework nor the tactic was galvanizing to radical The marginalization of the socialist left
Seattle indicated a rise of the movement. However, the left wing socialist presence appeared very weak. Part of this is a matter of size - the number of organized socialists has shrunk or stagnated in the last period and is very small compared to the movement as whole. In other cases, groups may not have anticipated the potential of the anti-globalization consequently failed to make it a major priority. But part of the problem is political orientation.
From the self-styled Trotskyist left there were the usual glaring examples of sectarianism and dogmatism. Some groups characterized the protesters in the street as the street fighters of protectionist/US national chauvinism. Others had a purely propaganda presence, and could not resist the urge to lecture the movement about its bad politics, its anti-free trade the danger of supporting protectionists like Pat Buchanan.
The remnants of the US Maoist movement gave enthusiastic support to a parallel People's Assembly, sponsored by Filipino groups associated with the Bayan movement and the Communist Party of the Philippines. The politics were unambiguously anti-imperialist (and this was the only event in which the large majority of participants were non-white). But it seemed a much more marginal force than the "No to APEC!" meeting in Vancouver. Much less preparatory coalition work had been done. About 500 people participated in the People's Assembly contingent which joined the main march November 30th. This is not a high impact in a growing movement.
The environmental movement had the second largest presence in Seattle, though clearly less than the labour movement. Public Citizen, a group associated with Ralph Nader, played a significant role in the pre-organizing alliance-building that went on for the last year. Mainstream groups like the Sierra Club were quite visible.
There seemed a substantial audience for moderately anti-corporate, public interest, left green politics in Seattle. For some of these activists, Nader will fill a void if he runs a serious campaign for President for the Greens.
However, many young activist rebels have no faith in reform or the
OCIO ferrinat onti-milfors democioto CMC
FOR
AGAINST
A Marxist and feminist analysis of the
European Union.
From taxation to transport policy, the International Viewpoint team analyse and explain the process of capitalist integration of Europe, and the costs involved for working people, women and youth. We ask what alternative policies the left can put forward, and make a few modest suggestions of our own.* erdars of ent, or directiy from International Viewpoi
) Box 27410, London SW9 9NQ, Brita <International_Viewpoint@compuserve.com> International Viewpoint #319 February 2000 17
* North America political system at all. Instead, they focus on direct action. Such an orientation runs risks of self-isolation. But in Seattle this current caught a wave, a growing mood of radical activism among sectors of youth. By riding the wave, the direct action current played a pivotal role in events. The Direct Action Network
The pre-organizing, which built the protests against the WTO, is often ignored in the focus on November 30 events and police violence. One reason the protest was successful was that organizing and alliance-building began at least a year in advance. The Direct Action Network was formed in the spring of 99. It developed an approach based on non-violent civil disobedience (with training by groups such as the California-based Ruckus Society) and a heavy emphasis on the cultural forms of protest - including giant puppets - and street theatre (San Francisco-based Art And Revolution). These elements, combined with a strong participatory, hands-on approach to activity and education, attracted youth.
Many youth, unable to find a place for themselves in the labour scene or the conference scene, flocked to the Direct Action Centre. It became a key site for self-organization. The space was dreadfully overcrowded with about 500 people when I visited (several thousand youth must have dropped in the week proceeding the WTO). The participation of young women seemed substantial. However, the group seemed overwhelmingly white, with minimal participation of people of colour. The youth present seemed to be poor and 18 International Viewpoint #319 February 2000 economically marginalized, although they may come from a variety of class backgrounds.
Some building events occurred. Art and Revolution organized a visually beautiful reclaim-the-streets parade of 4,000. But the main event was planning for November 30's attempt to shut down
The politics were clearly anarchistinfluenced, although I would definitely describe the atmosphere as anarchopluralist rather than anarcho-dogmatist. There was no ideological litmus test -all who wished to participate in organizing and action were welcomed.
Organizing was based around small affinity groups. Larger clusters would together in common action. Coordination and discussion took place through an open spokescouncil of immediately i recallable delegates selected by the affinity groups. (The model was drawn from anarchists in
The plan for November 30 was highly decentralized. Clusters of people would lock down at surrounding conference site. There was loose coordination and communication. But, in stark contrast to the labour march, peacekeepers. The big day
I had concerns about both some of the politics and the possibilities of serious repression on November 30. But my political instincts told me it was important to be there. I was much reassured when a large crowd turned up at a main assembly point./ng
Close to five thousand had showed when we began to parade to the shutdown sites at 7:00 am. A line of horse cops tried to block our way. We simply turned down another street. It was a clear indication the Seattle police were not prepared for mass-based nonviolent direct action. By 8:00 much of the access to the conference was blocked with groups of between 100 and 1000 occupying key intersections.
My experience of the day was mixed. At times, it seemed quite celebratory, effective and together and at others violent, utterly chaotic and divisive. Tactical leadership and communication seemed to make a difference.
I was on a semi-blockade of about 500 to 1000 people with arms linked in an intersection outside one of the hotels delegates were staying at. Some delegates turned away in disgust, others from Africa said they were with us but wanted to work in the system. International media were shooting footage for coverage round the world. Our purpose and instructions were clear and there was no violence and no property damage as agreed in the DAN code of conduct).
The cops were initially passive aggressive. Sometimes they passively observed. At others they launched vicious forays with little warning, liberally using tear gas, pepper spray, batons etc. Some people were prepared with gas masks and face masks but most people including supporters like myself were not, although medical assistance people and teams had been organized
Some people began to fight back, lobbing tear gas canisters back at the police. Later in the day, some dumpsters were overturned and set on fire. Although police assaults made inroads, they had not regained control of the streets by the time I left to attend the labour march.
Throughout the day, communications and cohesion seemed to deteriorate. It wasn't at all clear where people coming from the labour march should go or what they should do. At one crowded intersection (perhaps 1000), I saw divisiveness prevail. A handful of people climbed up and literally trashed the Niketown sign. A substantial part of the crowd booed loudly and chanted "No Violence" (some formed a line in front of the store to protect it). I couldn't relate to the no violence against property approach. But the trashing had zero tactical value. I was infuriated by this anti-democratic egotistical action of a few. A small
• E3.50/56.00/40FE. Cheque payable to P. Rousset, IRE, Postbus 53290, 1007 Amsterdam, Netherlands.
minority in the crowd approved of the trashing and snarled back at the "peace police"- and "non-violent liberals with their priorities all screwed up."
Later, I heard that the anarchist groups from Eugene, Oregon and the Black Block claimed responsibility for strategic acts of property destruction of hated symbols of corporate oppression. These acts of window smashing by perhaps less than 100 people of 10,000 took place without respect to DAN guidelines. DAN had developed a moderately cohesive approach, but hadn't figured out any way to deal with those who disagreed.
It is quite possible agents provocateurs were also involved in property destruction. (I have never seen so many undercover cops in my life. In avoiding tear gassing, I stumbled by a dispatch point where about fifteen obvious-looking undercover cops were being sent out to gather intelligence from the street. But without clear proof, raising allegations of agents provocateurs seems a wrong way to reach young radicals. What is clear is that the police made no effort to stop property destruction. And hard liners (perhaps federal agencies rather than local police?) used the violence as the suitable pretextfor an all-out crackdown.
About3:00 p.m., the Mayor declared a state of emergency and a 6:00 p.m. curfew in downtown area. After the labour march had dispersed, and office workers had begun to leave, heavy duty clearing operations began in participants in the protest actions.
Some DAN people tried to organize a semi-cohesive withdrawal from the curfew areas. That evening, a friend reported, some 500 people participated in a spokecouncil. This was divided with both supporters of no property destruction and defenders of property destruction been hissed by the other side. But a majority decided to march again next morning.
But the relationship of forces had changed. The direct action forces had lost some of their wider support and shrunk in size. The police, bolstered by the presence of the National Guard, now used pre-emptive tactics. This includes mass arrests of over 500 people. Repress, divide and conquer
Some naively had believed that because there was some support for the protest within Seattle city council, the police would avoid major violence in the streets.
However, the state clearly showed that when its interests are threatened it will not hesitate to use violence Shutting down the opening session of the WTO and preventing the likes of Madeleine Albright and possibly Bill Clinton the next day from attending a key meeting is a very serious crime in the eyes of the state.
Civil liberties were simply tossed out the window. Creating a substantial No Go zone for protesters is a blatant liss18 violation of the US Constitution. Experimental "non-lethal" tactics of crowd control were employed - i.e. chemical warfare. Hundreds of people have reported atypical symptoms -including spontaneous menstruation — that suggest exposure to something other than tear gas. It appears nerve gas agents may been used in one form or another. There are numerous allegations of mistreatment and beatings from those arrested, as the police tried to break the protesters' tactic of not giving their names.
Police actions have been widely condemned, including by the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International. The police chief of Seattle, who was scheduled to retire this year, took the fall by resigning earlier. Thousand have complained to Seattle council. And lawsuits are forthcoming
Support for the prisoners (a camp in at the jail) led to the release of most detainees within a week. Now, after ongoing criticism, only about 40 people
Public opinion is split. Bill Clinton sought to maintain support by drawing a hard line between good protesters and bad protesters. The bad protesters were characterized as violent in the US bourgeois press, which raised a big hue and cry of "anarchism = violence". But Clinton had cleverly lumped in the many more people who had nonviolently blocked delegate access to the WTO in the category of illegitimate protesters. Clinton's tactic is very clearly to isolate the radical wing of the movement from other, more politically or tactically moderate and pliable, parts of the movement.
Sectors with greater legitimacy and ties to the Democratic Party are to be co-opted. Unprecedented efforts were made to woo NGOs at the meeting Some 770 officially designated were invited half way in to meet with WTO officials off to the side of the conference, although this was a farce in terms of real power. Strong overtures were made to the AFL-CIO labour bureaucracy to keep them in line. And no doubt there were will be further overtures to those who have illusions they can participate in reforming the system. * JUON
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION the downtown. The sound of tear gas
The Gulf War and the New World Order canisters became constant and the presence of gas pervasive. Later, people in residential neighbourhoods were also gassed, he including he many non-
Andre Gunder Fank and Salah Jaber (72 pages A4]
19
International Viewpoint #319 February 2000