Six Days in Seattle: A Retrospective Series of Reports on the Battle in Seattle, November 29-December 3, 1999

Unedited updates sent by former Council of Canadians' Campaigns Coordinator Jo Dufay on the ground at the 1999 WTO Battle in Seattle.

Friday, December 3, 1999
Final Days

As you will have heard, late Friday evening, the WTO talks in Seattle collapsed. Far from a victorious announcement of the launch of a new round of trade talks, the WTO found itself in disarray.  This was not the outcome expected at the beginning of the talks.  As late as 8:00 p.m., Friday, Ministers Pettigrew and Vanclief, and Ambassador Sergio Marchi, were telling us that talks were progressing and eventual agreement was anticipated. Less than two hours later, the whole show was over.

The day unfolded in fits and starts, with dramatic changes, with long periods of waiting and with rumours and analysis swirling through the halls of the convention centre.  We learned that conference chair Charlene Barshefsky had overnight closed off the discussion groups that were open to all countries, and instead convened a "green room". That meant that 25 or 30 countries were allowed to send their ministers and one top civil servant into the discussions, and all other countries of the WTO were excluded. Whatever agreements were reached in the green room were then supposed to be rubber stamped by the 100+ countries outside that process. Incredible as it may sound, this is the way that the WTO has operated until now.

Of course, all NGOs are excluded entirely from the discussion groups and the green room.  We spent the day in the halls outside the media centre, sneaking into briefings intended for media in order to garner the latest news. Even so, it was rather like reading tea leaves, as official information was often heavily 'spun' to reflect whatever position was considered suitable for the masses!  By peering deep into the cup, and by comparing messages offered by different countries, it was possible to discern deep divisions between the countries in the green room.

Outside, in the hall, information trickled out slowly and resentment to the process grew.  From time to time, the countries in the green room would agree that some part of their considerations so far could be shared with a slightly wider group. These considerations were then printed as draft text. Within that text, items placed inside square brackets indicated areas of disagreement. And, of course, the entire text was still only a draft. These drafts were supposed to exist only in a "reading room", and access limited to only a few individuals from each country.

As the day went on the security evidently broke down, and by lunchtime a few NGOs had a complete copy of the latest draft text. It caused us both alarm and relief.  It was obvious that there was not agreement to proceed with the ambitious round of talks envisioned by the U.S. and Canada. Most items of significance were stalled -- at best sent to a discussion group. Peppered with square brackets, the document indicated that even this weak agenda was not garnering full agreement. They were in trouble. But there was still cause for concern: worrying statements about trade in services (including health and education), no significant protection for the environment or labour standards, and weak language on cultural protection. Later, draft language emerged that might subbordinate protection of the environment or food safety (read: genetically engineered foods) to trade considerations. And -- astonishingly, given the events on the streets of Seattle and in cities around the world -- there was no commitment to increase openness or democracy within the WTO.

Late in the afternoon, we learned definitively that there was still substantial disagreement between Canada and the U.S. on the one hand, and Europe and Japan on the other, over agricultural issues. Canada and the U.S. wanted discussions aimed at eliminating subsidies. Europe and Japan want to preserve the right to support rural life through farm subsidies. And swords were crossed over genetically engineered food, too.  All day, the green room had struggled with these issues, and had set them aside unresolved, so discussions on other areas could proceed.  Discussions on investment, competition and a host of other difficult areas had not even begun. They were clearly in trouble, and for the first time I began to think that a "no new round" option existed.

Meanwhile, the countries excluded from the green room process were considering their positions. After receiving requests from NGOs, and bolstered by the demands for democracy played out so vividly on the streets of Seattle, many of these countries came together and issued statements of protest at their exclusion, and their lack of support for the outcome of such an undemocratic process. By the end of the afternoon, countries from Latin America, Africa and Asia sent out a message that echoed the message of the street protests. In essence it said 'Not in our name, you don't.'

This extraordinarily strong statement would not have been possible without the moral authority given by massive protests of citizens around the world and in Seattle. In the green room, countries struggling with irreconcilable differences must surely have felt less inclined to make difficult trade-offs and compromises in the face of hostility to their backroom deals. 

Eventually, the wheels fell right off the wagon. In a last-ditch effort to drive the thing home, Charlene Barshefsky apparently tried to use threats to make agreement happen. If they didn't agree by midnight, she said, the National Guard were going home and she could not then be responsible for the security of delegates.  Although no real danger to the delegates existed, many were furious at this apparent blackmail attempt from the Chair. That move appears to have polarised the meeting. Barshefsky stepped out of the chair. It was agreed that a launch of a new round of talks was not possible at this time. Elvis had left the building. The unthinkable had happened -- no new round.

Canada and other pro-free trade countries tried to put a brave spin on the outcome. After a three-month rest, they agreed, countries will begin reconsidering the matter, through their trade missions in Geneva. The so-called Built-In Agenda (items agreed five years ago for further discussion) will proceed. The lesson, according to the ministers of several countries: democracy takes time -- and the WTO has to become more democratic.

So we have an amazing victory -- and the need to press it home. This powerful global organization has stumbled. For the first time, we can begin to think about profound changes to globalization -- including elimination or transformation of the WTO. This will take hard, hard work. We have to be sure that this discussion does not just slide along in the backrooms of Geneva. We have to keep up the demands for real democracy and openness. When discussions begin again -- including the built-in agenda -- we have to be very sure that they move away from the latest positions reached in Seattle and towards protection of the environment, human health, public services, cultural identity and labour standards.

We will get to that work. This unprecedented opportunity will not be wasted. That is all ahead of us. Meanwhile, every one of us who phoned an MP, participated in parliamentary hearings, wrote to the newspaper or talked about the issues with a friend should be pleased and proud. Well done to all of us.

Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Day 5 | Day 6

« Return to WTO index

Information

updated December 4, 2009