Riotous in Seattle

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks in Seattle, in December, brought together 120 ministers, 5000 delegates from more than 135 countries, and 60,000 protesters in explosive cocktail that has changed the face of the WTO forever.

Civil disobedience on a scale not seen since the 1960’s saw a rainbow alliance of protesters - unionists, consumer advocates, environmentalists and anarchists - take to the streets. Add hundreds of riot police, and Seattle became an urban war zone.

But it was much more than the protest that resulted in the failure of the talks to reach an agreement to launch a new round of trade negotiations. Explanations for the failure varied.

Some blamed US President, Bill Clinton, for pushing labour issues against the wishes of developing nations, others blamed the European Union or simply the massive scale of the agenda.

The WTO’s Director-General, New Zealander Mike Moore, said the protesters were merely a distraction: “You can’t blame the protesters outside,” he told the convention. “You can blame the people - ourselves - inside.”

Conference Chair, US Trade Representative Charlene Barshevsky, put it this way: “Governments were not ready to take the leap - it’s that simple. We could stay there all night, we could stay there for five days - it wouldn’t matter. Governments were not ready to take the leap!”

While the fault lines within the WTO are many and varied, the governments most unwilling to take the leap were those of developing nations. It is they, who were most incensed about not being adequately consulted by WTO heavy-weights and about Bill Clinton’s call for trade sanctions on developing countries not meeting core labour standards.

Developing countries have also missed out on the benefits of an organisation that, until now, has been dominated by the West.

Take tariffs, one of the central WTO issues. Overall, tariffs have been coming down but tariffs on industrial goods (in which developed countries are more competitive) have been coming down faster than tariffs on textiles and clothing (in which developing countries are more competitive).

Similarly, in agriculture, requirements such as onerous quarantine or health standards have become insurmountable trade barriers for developing countries, particularly Pacific island nations trying to export tropical produce, but have been little touched by the WTO.

In the context of events in Seattle, it is worth remembering

that the only other time Western nations got together to draft an international agreement without the involvement of developing nations (the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) initiated by the OECD), that agreement foundered.

The forces that killed the MAI - a broad alliance of western non-govemment organisations linking up through the Internet and third world opposition - are the same forces that contributed to the failure of the talks in Seattle.

The big difference is that in this case the developing nations want the trade negotiations to go ahead, just on more favourable terms. It now looks as if trade talks will not be restarted for 12 to 18 months, until after the US Presidential election and Bill Clinton’s departure from the White House.

That breathing space will give many a chance to rethink their agendas. For the Pacific that means finding a solution to a number of crucial issues, including protection from the loss of special preferences currently offered by the EU for many agricultural products and by Australia, New Zealand and the US for garments (an issue which pits the Pacific against other developing nations that do not receive these preferences).

Other crucial issues include the very onerous requirements placed on small countries wanting to accede to the WTO and the problems for some nations in replacing tariff income when they reduce their tariffs to meet WTO conditions.

Over and above these issues, there is the even more basic question of the WTO’s legitimacy in the eyes of the ordinary citizens of member countries.

After Seattle, it is clear this is a question that can no longer be ignored by governments of any country, rich or poor.

There is now a widespread belief that the WTO is to blame for giving huge global corporations a free rein, creating an increasingly competitive world that is making life difficult for ordinary people, taking jobs, impoverishing countries, ruining the environment or threatening people’s health with inadequately labeled products.

Although the very purpose of the WTO is to set down rules for the operation of global capital and provide a tribunal in which disputes can be resolved, it has not been able to do this in a way which convinced people that it is not just the strong-arm of already overly powerful corporations.

If something positive is to emerge from Seattle it will be a new way of negotiating within the WTO.

To take account of the views of all 135 member nations, as well as the legitimate concerns of small non-member nations and of NGO’s from both developed and developing nations, world trade talks will have to be more participatory.

That may make the talks slower, and even more cumbersome than they already are, but it could also mean a much fairer result.

For negotiators, already reeling under many competing claims, the task of restarting and progressing trade talks, will be Herculean. But there is no alternative. In this modem world no country can survive as a self-sufficient haven shunning trade and therefore, some form of international trade regulation, is necessary. ■

Jemima Garrett

Sydney