By
RICHARD LACAYO
At
the seattle meeting of the world Trade Organization, the bureaucrats
may not have accomplished all that much last week. The chaos that surrounded
them did. In this moment of triumphant capitalism, of planetary cash
flows and a surging Dow, all the second thoughts and outright furies
about the global economy collected on the streets of downtown Seattle
and crashed through the windows of NikeTown. After two days of uproar
scented with tear gas and pepper spray, Americans may never again think
the same way about free trade and what it costs.
At the very least, the dull but profound business of trade rulesÐwhich
are usually hammered out by technocrats in closed meetings with corporate
lobbyists hovering outsideÐwill figure differently in the thinking of
the millions of Americans whom the decisions affect. That might even
happen soon enough to influence the next U.S. election, which helps
account for some of the ways that Bill Clinton, who arrived in Seattle
smack in the middle of the chaos, positioned himself when he got there.
But neither Clinton nor U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky
was able to avert what must be viewed as a disaster: the WTO representatives'
failure to reach agreement on launching the "Millennial Round" of trade
talks. The delegates went home empty-handed.
Not so WTO opponents, who left claiming victory, believing that what
they hate about globalization will now come into focus as clearly as
the familiar arguments in favor of it-that freer trade creates jobs
for everybody and lower prices for consumers. Indeed, free trade has
been an important reason for the '90s boom. Even as Seattle assessed
the damage on Friday, the Dow was soaring nearly 250 points on news
that the unemployment rate was stuck at its 30-year low. But the protesters
were in Seattle to insist that globalization has become another word
for capitulation to the worst excesses of capitalism, a cover for eliminating
hard-won protections for the environment and workers' rights. "Before
Seattle," says George Becker, president of the United Steelworkers of
America, "the big companies had their way completely. Now we've raised
the profile of this issue, and we're not going back." Says Larry Dohrs,
an activist with the Seattle chapter of the Free Burma Coalition: "Strong
majorities of American voters support basic labor rights and environmental
provisions in trade agreements. It's that simple."
Trade issues are anything but simple. Demonstrators who want justice
for poor nations were reminded last week that Third World delegates
to the WTO don't want developed nations to force them to allow union
organizing. Cheap labor is their competitive advantage. Environmentalists
who want the WTO to keep its hands off U.S. laws that protect endangered
species would happily force VenezuelaÐagainst its sovereign willÐto
clean up its gasoline exports.
Because it deals with so many separate issues, from farm subsidies to
intellectual-property rights, the WTO attracts a very mixed bag of opponents,
which is one reason that opposition to it has been hard to focus. Some
of the WTO opponents want to reform the organization. Some want to abolish
it. Virtually all of them resent the secrecy in which the WTO makes
decisions that its 135 member nations are supposed to abide by.
Dohrs' Burma group mobilized against the WTO in part to advance the
right of states and localities to boycott companies that do business
in Burma, now called Myanmar, which is one of Asia's most saw-toothed
dictatorships. But the U.S. State Department sees such boycotts as a
violation of federal sovereignty and free trade. Then there are the
environmentalists. To protect sea turtles, an endangered species, they
want an import ban on shrimp caught in nets that don't have escape hatches
to let the turtles swim away. Congress has adopted such a ban, but the
WTO forbids it; member nations can't block imports on the basis of the
way they are produced. The organization may also eventually forbid American
"antidumping" laws that bar the import of low-cost foreign steel. Those
laws are important to American unions.