By Leslie Wayne
New York TimesOctober 28, 2001
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 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 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.
More Information on the World Trade Organization`s Fourth Meeting
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
