"anti-trade" movement regroups

[Peter K.]

[A lengthy, comprehensive piece from today NYT
Business section.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/28/business/28GLOB.html

New York Times/Business
October 28, 2001

For Trade Protesters, 'Slower, Sadder Songs'
By LESLIE WAYNE

NEXT month, international financial and trade officials will gather in two
important meetings — one in Doha, Qatar, and the other in Ottawa — to resume
a series of talks that were scheduled before, but questioned after, the
attacks on Sept. 11. As they meet, anti-globalization groups will be holding
some type of protests, perhaps candle vigils, perhaps marches, in cities
around the world.

Their message, protesters say, warns about the ill effects of globalism,
capitalism and world trade on poor nations. But how they express that
message, even some leaders of the movement say, will probably bear little
resemblance to the marches — often erupting in violence — that put them on
the map in recent years.

Strident demonstrations against globalization may occur in Europe, but
protesters in the United States are scrambling to see if they can hold
together a movement now that their most effective way of getting attention
is out of sync with the national mood.
"I don't think we are going to be in the spotlight as much as before," said
John Sellers, director of the Ruckus Society, a human rights group based in
San Francisco that has organized marches against global trade. "There's a
strong concern about marches since Sept. 11. What would happen if 10,000
people turned out for a peaceful march and then 4 of them burned a flag?"
That is the quandary facing the anti- globalization movement — which has
gained its strength as a confederation of environmental groups and trade
unions, anarchists and respected advocacy groups. Many of these
organizations remain highly committed to their causes, especially those that
have criticized the lending policies of the International Monetary Fund and
the World Bank. But the terrorist attacks have forced them to regroup and,
they say, they are not sure how, or if, they can be as effective as before.
"A lot of us are in a retreat-and-reflection mode," said Tim Atwater,
national organizer for Jubilee USA Network, which advocates the canceling of
debt to developing countries. "We are having to walk on tiptoes and
communicate very, very carefully. Things are coming back slowly. But we will
be singing slower, sadder songs."
Yet for all the difficulties facing the movement, it is hard to imagine that
it will fade away. The movement has been too long in the building, and it is
too well financed and organized. And many of the issues it has raised about
global inequities between rich and poor appear to have become more relevant
in recent weeks. Even the Bush administration in the last few days has made
the link between poverty and the roots of terrorism.
"We will definitely be there in Ottawa," said Stephen Kretzmann, an analyst
at the Institute for Policy Studies, an advocacy group in Washington. Mr.
Kretzmann was arrested at the demonstrations in Seattle in 1999 that thrust
the movement into America's consciousness. "We have to be very Ghandian in
our approach."
To many, the anti-globalization movement has been a bit of a puzzle since it
first appeared, seemingly out of nowhere. Who are these people? Where did
they come from? How are they financed? How are they organized? What do they
want?
If the perception of the movement is of angry faces and police clashes, the
reality is different, members say. The movement has been building quietly
for more than 20 years, they said, promoting a message about global economic
inequities that does not lend itself to quick sound bites. Some leading
foundations — including the Ford Foundation and one at Unilever
(news/quote) — have supported the movement's efforts financially, along with
church groups, organized labor and celebrities like the rock music group U2.
THE movement's success in gaining a following, especially since the Seattle
demonstrations, has come from a combination of grass-roots organizing,
plentiful position papers and clever self-promotion. In the wake of Sept.
11, protesters say that there are still many issues to resolve and that they
are more at odds than ever with the Bush administration.
While the administration says one way to fight terrorism is by promoting a
global policy that is pro-business, protesters say this approach will only
make the world less stable. In addition, the administration has used the
attacks to justify a new push for "fast track" authority, which would allow
trade agreements to be enacted with little Congressional oversight — another
measure long opposed by protesters and organized labor because it allows
little debate.
This month, at an economic forum in Shanghai, President Bush told business
executives that more free trade and greater unrestricted commerce were
crucial to fighting terrorism. The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan
Greenspan, echoed those thoughts last week, when he said the terrorist
attacks have given new urgency to the trade negotiations in Qatar.
Mr. Greenspan called the protesters misguided and said they offered no
solutions to the "alleged failures" of globalization.
The activists say they are upset with the administration's effort to use the
terrorist attacks as a way to push a pro-business agenda and fast- track
negotiating authority.
John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, said that while
Sept. 11 "stopped our movement," it was beginning to come back. "The fight
has come back in the form of fast track," he said. "Groups are already
gearing up for a big fight."
The movement blossomed in the mid-1990's as more multinational corporations,
aided by loan policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World
Bank, went in search of less-costly places to make goods and new markets for
their cars, hamburgers and basic commodities like sugar and rice. A catalyst
in the United States was the fight against the North American Free Trade
Agreement.
At the same time, a parallel movement was emerging in Europe. Protest groups
there — with names like Attac and Black Bloc — shared many of the same views
as their American counterparts, but with more militancy.
Although demonstrators on both sides of the ocean may look ragtag, they are
anything but. European groups are financed in part by the European Union and
grants from charitable trusts; American groups receive money from wealthy
individuals and foundations that run the gamut from small church-related
foundations to the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
One unusual benefactor was the Unilever Corporation, the consumer packaged
goods company, which recently gave $5 million to the foundation run by its
Ben & Jerry's (news/quote) ice cream subsidiary, a major donor to these
groups. "We like to call it caring capitalism" said Liz Bankowski, a trustee
of the Ben & Jerry's Foundation.

[end clip, much more at website link]