Beyond Seattle.

• Author: Ritchie, Mark
• Position: World Trade Organization protests

The recent World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial talks in Seattle failed largely because the negotiation process was undemocratic. Negotiators from nearly all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean and parts of Asia bitterly condemned the talks as coercive and exclusionary, Accordingly, these representatives of the South would not agree to a new round of talks.

These complaints were not new; in fact, the WTO process has been described as undemocratic for years, both from the "inside" by delegates and from the "outside" by non-governmental advocates. In the past, however, protesting delegations had always been forced by superpower pressures to go along with the prescribed agreement.

But this time it was different. There was near unanimity between and among the key forces: leading Southern country delegates to the Ministerial and non-governmental representatives inside and outside the meetings. Several Third World delegates confirmed that they found the strength to hold to their positions in part from the powerful, ever-present voice of public protest outside the meeting halls.

These protests included newspaper advertisements opposing expansion of the WTO from groups ranging from the Swiss Parliament to the Humane Society of America. It was the first time, in my memory, when the developing nations stood fast against the trade agenda of the economic superpowers.

The Broader Implications

"WTO Seattle" was, as the papers called it, the first post-modern global gathering--both within and outside the Ministerial. Freed from Cold War-era alliances and constraints, and taking lessons from past trade agreement failures, the nations of the South combined with representatives of civil society to write a new chapter in global governance. The outcome creates the possibility of far-reaching change in the WTO, in the broader Bretton Woods economic system, and in global governance. Civil society has moved to the center stage in these affairs.

Inside the WTO, the old process, whereby the United States and European Union cut a deal and then imposed it on everyone else is, I believe, a thing of the past now. Almost all the member countries, rich and poor, are insisting on a new process--one that is more inclusive and democratic.

At the same time, major changes are needed to include civil society in a formal way in both future ministerial meetings and in the on-going WTO process. If the WTO cannot be changed sufficiently to accommodate these demands...