New York Times - December 6, 1999
Seattle Protest Could Have Lasting Influence on Trade By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
The surprisingly large protests in Seattle by critics of the World Trade Organization point to the emergence of a new and vocal coalition that will make it far harder for the Clinton administration to move ahead with its plans for freer trade.
In addition, many Seattle protesters hope their movement will last longer than the Vietnam War movement because their target, globalization, is not a single issue that can be resolved by a peace treaty.
"We're really in it for the long haul on the trade issue," said John Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. "We've been working on building this coalition for a few years now, and we'll now put our heads together to see how we build on this."
Most of the more than 30,000 Seattle demonstrators were union members, environmentalists and college students, who wanted not to end globalization but to soften its harshest effects. Almost all were peaceful, and their large protest march and sit-ins were in sharp contrast to the 100 to 200 self-styled anarchists who turned Seattle into a battle zone by smashing windows and clashing with the police.
Many trade experts say President Clinton was mindful of the new coalition's power, and the political damage it could do to Vice President Al Gore, when Washington's negotiators let the Seattle talks collapse rather than accept a bad deal.
If the administration had left Seattle with a deal that the protesters hated, it would have reduced support for Gore from two of his traditional backers: labor and environmentalists.
But Sweeney, whose labor federation endorsed Gore in October, said the Seattle events could help the vice president in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination because in his view the administration fought the good fight in seeking to inject labor and environmental rights into trade rules. Gore did not go to Seattle and has notably steered clear of discussing the explosive events there.
Supporters of free trade fear that this new coalition against the trade group -- an amorphous but well-coordinated opposition that includes teamsters and tree huggers, textile workers and turtle devotees -- will be more effective in fighting free-trade efforts than the nation's one, longstanding foe of freer trade: the labor movement.
In the past, it was easy for lawmakers to discount labor's opposition to liberalizing trade because unions were often derided as self-serving protectionists. Labor led the fight against the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and lost.
Since then, however, labor has learned the importance of forming coalitions and has reached out more to other groups.
It could prove much harder for Congress to ignore this new coalition because it contains a wide swath of Main Street America: not just steelworkers and auto workers, but anti-sweatshop protesters from colleges across the nation and members of church groups, consumer groups, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the Humane Society.
"I think this Seattle movement has legs," said Todd Gitlin, a New York University professor who has written extensively on protest movements. "The issues that brought these people to Seattle are enduring issues. They are not the subject of a single egregious policy, like Vietnam. It's not just about the W.T.O. -- it's about the dominance of huge corporate power over globalization. This greenie-Sweeney alliance has a future."
Jeffrey Garten, a former under secretary of commerce who is dean of the Yale School of Management, agreed. "This movement's power and influence are going to grow steadily," he said. "We've entered a new era of communications, symbolized by the Internet, which they've used to leverage the power of small groups and make these groups literally multinational. Secondly, globalization has become a major issue that no longer interests only pundits and academics. It's entered the mainstream of popular concern."
Even though President Clinton backed the protesters' push on labor and environmental rights, this new coalition has vowed to fight two of his main trade initiatives: his new trade pact with China and his efforts to extend Nafta to other countries.
Many protesters assert that these two agreements share the flaws of the World Trade Organization, saying the agreements promote corporate interests at the expense of labor and environmental rights.
This year and last, the labor movement blocked Congress from approving a fast-track bill that would have allowed the administration to negotiate Nafta treaties with other countries by enabling Congress to approve them in an up or down vote without amendments.
"After what happened in Seattle, it's very clear there'll be no fast track this year," said Bill Klinefelter, political director of the United Steelworkers of America. "It's going to be difficult for any president to get fast track in the future unless there is a recognition that labor, human and environment rights are in the trade agreement."
Labor leaders insist that their objectives in Seattle were not protectionist. Their goal, not achieved, was persuading the 135-nation trade body to create a study group that would recommend allowing trade sanctions against countries that violate core labor standards, like child labor.
Some protesters called the collapse of the Seattle talks a victory. Officials of the Geneva-based world trade group say they will resume talks there this January to try to set an agenda for a multiyear round of talks aimed at removing trade barriers.
Given the many differences within the trade group, prospects for starting such talks are uncertain. Even many protesters agree, however, that they may find it hard to bring together tens of thousands of demonstrators every time there are key discussions on trade.
Some protest leaders fear the coalition could still fall apart as different groups emphasize different issues, with some wanting to reform the trade group and some wanting to eliminate it.
Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director, predicted that the trade group would not be able to put the pieces back together. "It will be hard to resurrect the process," he said. "The concept of world trade rules in which large multinational conglomerates decide 80 percent of what goes on and everybody else gets the remaining 20 percent is finished."