<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<pre>
The lost spirit of Seattle
In 1999, anti-WTO protests made world news. Now, a DC march goes
unnoticed. What happened to the critique of globalisation?
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/25/protest-imf">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/25/protest-imf</a>
</pre>
<p>The only clue I had to the International Monetary Fund/World Bank
protests taking place in Washington, DC last weekend was the
inflatable palm tree floating down the road. On my way to a film
festival, I had run smack into a modest, two block-long protest
march, heading towards the location for the spring meetings.</p>
<p>And I'm sure I wasn't alone in being uninformed. Outside of a few
radio updates (normally, advising drivers to expect delays), the
media were largely silent on the protests. Both the Washington
Post and the Washington Times <a
href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/17/2-arrested-imf-world-bank-protests-dc/">ran
wire reports from the Associated Press</a>, in lieu of actual
on-the-ground reporting in their home city. A search on the
Washington City Paper website, a local indie weekly, only provides
information on protests that happened in 2002. Even searching
online after the fact revealed only scattered support on <a
href="http://www.phillyimc.org/en/event/protest-imfworld-bank-april-15-17-washington-dc">a
few indie</a> and <a
href="http://squattheplanet.com/where/events/13705-16-rallies-dc-protest-wto-imf.html">punk-oriented</a>
message boards, and event coverage was limited to <a
href="http://imfresistance.org/">the most dedicated of outlets</a>.
How the mighty have fallen.</p>
<p>Twelve years ago, the nation was captivated by the Battle in
Seattle, an anti-globalisation protest so vast that it brought the
city to a standstill. The 1999 protests were marked by widespread
media coverage, which sparked conversations about the role of the
three largest global trade governing bodies – and illuminated how
violence can be leveraged by activists seeking publicity. While
the vast majority of the protests were peaceful, <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization_Ministerial_Conference_of_1999_protest_activity">one
dedicated group</a> started a chain reaction by breaking windows
and setting fire to dumpsters, which provided much fuel for the
media interest bonfire. In the aftermath, activists had hoped this
would be the beginning of wider interest in preventing the
environmental and humanitarian damage caused by current global
economic policies. Sadly, though, the need to critically examine
the operation of the IMF/World Trade Organisation/World Bank
triumvirate fell by the wayside after the early 2000s.</p>
<p>Even outside the activist universe, people are puzzled why
protests against the IMF/WTO/World Bank meetings aren't more
brisk, considering their positions as global powerbrokers hasn't
changed a bit. Back in 2010, columnists for the Financial Times
and Financial Policy wondered why there weren't more protests at
the WTO, particularly during the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round">increasingly
bleak-looking Doha round</a>, which was intended to address many
of the policies that were protested a decade ago. <a
href="http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2010/09/the-wto-out-of-the-line-of-fire/">Gideon
Rachman, blogging for the Financial Times, ventured a theory</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think that one of the main reasons why the WTO is no longer
in the line of fire is that the change in the pattern of world
trade over the last decade – combined with a slump in the west
and a boom in China and India – makes the idea that global free
trade is a tool of western domination look increasingly absurd.
The world has got a lot more complicated than that; and even the
anti-globalisation movement has had to acknowledge that
complexity, if only tacitly. These days, it is the developing
nations that are pressing for completion of the Doha round and
the rich countries that are dragging their feet.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Trouble is, the issues with the IMF/WTO/World Bank were
complicated from the beginning. Our shifting global reality only
further compounded an already tough situation. When I was an
idealistic 16 year old, I was dying to join the protests in
Seattle – way before I knew anything about global economic policy.
All I knew was that the WTO was bad and the only way to change the
system was to take it to the streets; it wasn't until much, much
later that I learned enough about economics and trade to actually
follow the conversations playing out in the media. But that
normally didn't matter to the organisations who wanted to see more
bodies on the ground protesting: many people only received a scant
overview of some of the major issues, and the quality and quantity
of information delivered depended heavily on which organisation
one was affiliated with.</p>
<p>Considering the divergent goals and plays to collective rage, as
opposed to policy conversation, it's little wonder that the
streets of Seattle erupted into a battleground, disrupting the
meeting and creating extensive property damage. But that tactic
failed to promote lasting engagement with the gorilla that is our
current system of international trade. The policies of the WTO,
the IMF and the World Bank operate in the context of a complex web
of relationships, against a backdrop of historical mandates to
other nations, power blocks and alliances, which all exist in an
ever-changing political and economic environment. It takes years
of serious study to truly understand what is happening,
particularly the shifting terms of the divide between developed
nations and the global south.</p>
<p>After the protesters left Seattle, did they keep reading the
newspapers to see how things progressed? Did they take their fight
to a different front? Or did the idea of causing a ruckus drive a
lot of the turnout, leaving both peaceful and non-peaceful
protesters feeling alienated?</p>
<p><a
href="http://squattheplanet.com/where/events/13705-16-rallies-dc-protest-wto-imf.html">One
appeal to activists</a> in spring of 2011 continues to cover the
same ground, putting the emphasis on "get[ting] rowdy", instead of
exploring the political nitty gritty:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>HEY TO ALL Y'ALL ALTERNATIVELY MINDED PUNKS! the a-16 rallies
in DC to protest the WTO and IMF need your support! and if you
don't care about the global politics of the world trade
organisation, their [sic] is another protest going on that same
weekend in DC to rally for more environmentally friendly
legislation. So please... come out and get rowdy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, the <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round">Doha
development round talks</a> are expected to end in another
stalemate this week, after years of arguing towards deadlock. The
discussion of Doha has been largely confined to financial media –
a far cry from the public conversation once hoped for by those who
took to the streets in Seattle, which they hoped would encourage
the barons of international trade to put people first in their
policies. And the effects of the debate being marginalised are all
too evident: as the small procession continued up the street, most
people continued about their daily lives, knowing that the
protest, like so many in DC, would fail to create any measurable
change.</p>
<pre></pre>
</body>
</html>