From November 29th to December 3rd the last trade summit of the most important millenium was carried out in Seattle, Washington, USA. The Third Ministry Meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO), called the Millenium Round, was meeting for the first time in the United States. The meeting was to begin a new round of negotiations between the 135 member governments and to deepen free trade. The meeting was sponsored by Microsoft and Boeing Co. (the world business leader in the construction of airplanes). But, at the same time, the first impressive global resistance began.

What is the WTO?

The negotiations of the Uruguay Round began in 1987 and ended in April, 1994, when the 123 member governments ended the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which was born in 1947 with the goal of eliminating tariff barriers (fixed prices charged on imports to a country). At that point the beginning of the World Trade Organization (WTO) was decided which would enter into operation in January of 1995. Gaining more access to the markets of poor countries and pressuring for their elimination of tariffs and protections for the agricultural sector are among the primary goals of the WTO. Meanwhile the principal powerful nations refuse to address serious issues, including a lack of internal democracy and a WTO which refuses to listen to the demands of those who are excluded by this project. Meanwhile the most powerful nations continue to amass the world's wealth. As William Clinton said during the Millenium Round, the United States has 4% of the world's population while "we enjoy 22% of the world's income."

In a parallel way, the international network against globalization refuses to allow the superpowers and the large multinationals to define the destiny of millions of people in the world with its globalization policies. Thus, 1,200 organizations of all types, representing millions of people from all over the world, signed a declaration in September of 1999 in a summit held in Geneva, Switzerland. In it, they denounced that the formation of the WTO which was supposed to bring prosperity, global wealth and wellbeing for all of the member countries has, after five years, brought more poverty and injustice, causing a gigantic rift between the rich and the poor.

A Field-Day of Resistence

Just as the intention of capital is to be global, so is the civil resistance and that of the peoples of the world who convoked other protests in diverse countries of the world. In Seattle there was a global meeting of 6,000 people and sectors that had never before gone out into the streets to protest together. Their common demands sought to defend life, work, the struggle against poverty, humanity, the environment, and human and labor rights and to protest the privatization of peoples' lives and exclusive international economic policies.

Workers, truck drivers, union members, students, fishermen and women, dock workers, NGOs, environmentalists, intellectuals, farmers, service unions, gays and lesbians, steelworkers, construction workers, food workers and meat packers, machinists, retirees, Zapatista support committees, human rights organizations, social justice organizations, humanitarian organizations and economic justice organizations etc. came from Alaska, from the north, south, the center, east and west coasts of the United States, Latin America, Asia and Africa.

The majority of the non-violent activists blocked the entrance of the Paramount Theater for the inauguration of the event for the 135 governments. The Secretary of State, Madelaine Albraight, and the United Nations (UN) General Secretary, Kofi Annan, were not able to enter the convention center the first day. Nor were many of the governmental delegations who, frightened, confused and amazed, sought refuge in their hotels or restaurants. The General Director of the WTO, Mike Moore, did not give credit to what he saw. They underestimated society's ability to protest.

The local authorities decreed a civil emergency with a curfew from 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. The pitched battle against the excluded was incredible for a first world power. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the government of Seattle for imposing a prohibition on the protests in the bosom of the American dream, in the "most democratic" country in the world. Police and soldiers had to go out into the street and, for the first time in Seattle, the National Guard established a no protest zone 50 blocks around the meeting to repress, not only North American citizens, but also citizens of others countries. Pepper gas, tear gas, horses, tanks and neighboring police forces had to enter into action, provoking injuries and more than 500 jailings. The promoters of the "new economic order," based on free market and free trade policies, were forced to have their talks amidst chaos.

The radio, television and press presented ample information about what was happening in the streets. Of the more than 5,000 reporters invited by the WTO, more than 3,000 joined the protesters. During the day the rubber bullets and tear gas were shot at thousands of activists who linked themselves together in the corners and to electricity poles. They were well coordinated with walkie-talkies and whistles and carried out all kinds of creative activities: dancing in the streets, dressed up with death masks, dressed as clowns or gigantic puppets and rock groups offered concerts. Many activists arrived with training in "non-violent civil disobedience" actions and when the riot police came using gas masks, they put on handkerchiefs and sat down in the street which obligated the police to carry each one of the protester off.

The national dock workers' union closed operations in all ports, from San Diego to Vancouver in Canada, in support of the protest. The unconformity arose in the innermost recess of the most powerful country. Some of the protesters carried signs that said "radical lesbians," other older women carried their own sign: "rabid grandmothers." Meanwhile, Greenpeace appeared with a giant condom that said "practice safe trade" and a group of pilots joined the protest. It was a carnival against capital. They danced in the streets, inaugurating what they called "the protest of the century."

The Dangers

The agricultural theme is one of the most preoccupying parts of the Millenium Round's agenda. Here there are two large gangs: the United States and the European Union, who together control 50% of the agricultural markets. There is a tendency towards monopoly in some transnational corporations who, between ten corporations in the world agrochemical production sector, control almost 90% of the market (see bulletins # 165 and 175). In fact, while the Millenium Round was happening and just while the discussion about the alteration of seeds called transgenetics is brought to the limelight, two of the ten corporations, Novartis of Switzerland and AstraZeneca with British and Swedish capital, announced that they merged to form the largest agroindustrial corporation in the world. This new corporation has a value of US$15 billion (December 2) and will now be called Syngenta, having its base in Switzerland with annual sales of US$7.9 billion. With this agreement 3,000 jobs will be lost (12.5% of the total of both corporations) while increasing profits by reducing costs by US$525 million per year. These corporations will not listen to the repudiation of the poor nor actions like those in India, which brought the people to the point of burning Monsanto's fields of experimental transgenetic cotton.

The United States--and the government of Mexico as one of its allies--wants to liberalize agriculture, eliminate subsidies and tariffs on agricultural products in other countries while they maintain them in their own country. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, Norway and Switzerland speak of the "multifunctionality" of agriculture. For them, the rural sector plays an important role in the society, culture and environment. Therefore it cannot be considered just another merchandise. The rural sector guarantees food security, provides employment in agriculture, and depends on nature and therefore policies to protect the environment are fundamental. For that reason, to Europeans the agricultural sector should not be discussed in trade negotiations and should have special protections, supports and subsidies to maintain the development of this sector and its population.

In the case of Mexico, the government had already eliminated subsidies for the countryside--of corn, of tortillas, and credits. The privatization of Conasupo warehouses that stored, distributed and regulated the prices of basic grains led to their closing. The future end of the Diconsa rural stores will be the tombstone for campesinos and indigenous people. All of this is occurring at a time when import quotas for grains from the United States have already passed the limits stipulated in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The problem of the liberalizaiton of agricultural and agroindustrial trade goes hand in hand with another important issue: intellectual property rights, which can include the intellectual property rights to virtually any form of life. Intellectual property rights involves the patenting of specific plants, genes or any other form of plant, animal or human life. The governments of the poor and underdeveloped countries must guarantee the protection of property rights; if not, multinationals are free to commit biopiracy of the biodiversity of regions where species originate, as is happening in Chiapas with the Pulsar Group and Monsanto. Thus, the issues which surfaced in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) have not disappeared, they have merely camouflaged themselves in many forms and have moved to the WTO.

The Proposals

There are numerous proposals that have been formulated worldwide for the rural sector, in this concrete case. Among many others, there is one that prohibits the privatization of any form of life. It is known as the Convention on Biological Biodiversity. This convention regulates the import, export and research of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), Genetically Transformed Organisms (GTO) or Transgenetic Organisms, whichever they are named. It further states that subsidies for the countryside should not be eliminated and just prices for campesinos and producers should be established and controlled. It also states that any tendency towards the formation of a monopoly which would control food production and seed production should be avoided, imports should be controlled to protect small farmers, that the discussions of the WTO be open and public with the voice of civil society being taken into account, that workers rights be protected, etc.

It would be wrong to say that in Seattle there was only confrontation. There were also proposals brought forth. The networks, organizations, unions and other excluded sectors have environmental proposals, policies favoring education, work, rural agriculture, human rights, external debt, etc. that have not been heard although their actions have be able to stop some advances of reckless globalization and have be able to penetrate public policy. The networks in Seattle bring with them many proposals from different sectors.

A Successful Global Mobilization

The global mobilization of society in December of 1998 in France was able to stop the advance of the secretive Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). The MAI was originally pushed forward by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an organization that is made up of the 29 richest countries in the world. But now attempts are being made to move the MAI to the WTO (for background on the meaning of the impact of the MAI, see Bulletin #109). The global mobilization caused the government of France to withdraw and the negotiations of the MAI were defeated.

Diverse meetings and events in the WTO were canceled in Seattle due to the "rebellion of the globalized," as some called it. They achieved numerous things: they detained the advancement of negotiations of a few who wanted to define the direction and acceleration of world poverty; they raised the consciousness of many who were previously ignorant to the issues in the United States; and they were able to disseminate what the WTO and globalization are. The struggles of civil society were received better coverage in the press than the internal struggles of the WTO in which there was debate between postures and secret negotiations between a few powerful nations. They were able to unite the hopes and struggles of some of the excluded sectors of Mexico with the struggle in Seattle. They were able to put themselves on the agenda. But, above all, they created a turning point for the struggle of civil society--they globalized it.

There are at least 15 continental and/or world networks which incorporate hundreds of organizations that struggle against the effects of globalization, against free trade, against the borders and the concept of investment. They are: World Alternatives Forum, The Civil Society of the Great Caribbean Forum, 50 Years Is Enough, Jubilee 2000, ATTAC, Ecounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism, Global Forum on Food Security, The Sao Paulo Forum, The Workers Movement of the Free Trade Zone of the Americas, People's General Assembly, The Campesino Way, The Latin American Rural Organizations Coordinator, Bank Network, SAPRIN, Anit-WTO, South-South Meeting, Global Action of the People, among others. All of them are looking to coordinate global efforts to unite the world resistance.

Chiapas, Oaxaca, Guerrero and the Mexican society in general can no longer be distant from the information about this globalizing process that affects all Mexicans, especially the rural sector and the indigenous. Additionally, we can no longer be mere observers of the actions of resistance where alliances inevitably have to transcend borders. And the most radical proposal perhaps is not one of content, but rather of form, in which society demands to participate and to have its voice and needs heard during the planning of the global economy.

For this reason the EZLN had the strongest antidote in 1994, the simplest proposal, but more radical and difficult to accept for the system: inclusion. The democratic participation of civil society in the construction of a more humane and just world, with a more equitative distribution of wealth is the strongest antidote against the accelerated tendency towards monopolization and concentration of the economy, of its system and its benefits in a few hands.

This rebellion of the globalized represents a qualitatively distinct identity from a society that resists dying of hunger. Hopefully we understand, sooner or later, that the WTO, that globalization, that the neoliberal project, that the elections of 2000, that free trade, that privatizations, that the free trade agreement with the European Union, that social spending, that Chiapas, Guerrero and Oxacac, that the guerrilla groups, that the National Human Rights Commission, that the strike in the UNAM, that the external debt, that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), that the World Bank (WB), that genetically altered products, that Monsanto, that militarization, that the refusal to implement the San Andés Accords, that what we are living, are not isolated things. When we put the puzzle together in our organizations, in our families, communities and towns, we will have more clarity, more proposals and more global struggles against poverty and exclusion. A globalized rebel said in Seattle, "we are verifying that the mobilization of the people can change history." For another, "this is the beginning of the end of the WTO."

The Outcome

In Seattle the WTO failed to move forward or make any major decisions. Cuba called the WTO the globalization of cooperation and solidarity. The Vatican spoke out in favor of the protection of the Third World. The United Nations Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights asked the WTO to take human rights more into account in their decisions and not to sacrifice them for "macroeconomic interests."

The President of the United States, William Clinton, had to sell promises for votes and, concerned about future elections and not losing the vote of the working class, agreed to put trade sanctions on countries that violate international labor regulations that other countries are opposed to discuss. Moreover, he said that United States citizens should not buy products from companies that exploit their workers. Delegations from other countries got angry because this theme was not on the agenda, but Clinton did not have any option but to speak out on these issues, these being the fruit of the struggle. Clinton also ratified, in these days of rebellion, a new convention of the International Labor Organization (ILO) that seeks to end exploitation of children. The Mexican Trade Secretary, Herminio Blanco Mendoza, representative of the current government, affirmed in Seattle that the agenda would not be contaminated with labor and environmental themes. "We cannot allow these interests (of the protestors) to contaminate the WTO agenda." He added that labor rights and environmental protection do not have anything to do with the opening of borders to trade or the elimination and/or reduction of tariffs.

We complain about the negative effects that the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada (NAFTA), but we fail to act as the new wealthy cloned by the last government of Carlos Salinas takes advantage of the opportunity to do the same to our Central American brothers with the recent free trade agreement with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador a few days after the end of the negotiations of the free trade agreement with the European Union and at the same time the finishing touches were being but on an agreement with Uruguay. Are the Central American governments negotiating with justice and protecting its people? Again the transition to democracy that demands the participation of the excluded struggles a long battle in time against globalization. Therefore there are two scenarios and poles of struggle: the resistance of Mexican civil society and Congress from where the space for political participation attempts to be reduced; and the resistance of the globalized civil society and the international structures where they attempt to decide the course of the nations.

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168