The New York Times

Wednesday, December 8, 1999

FOREIGN AFFAIRS / By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Senseless in Seattle II

Now that the Seattle World Trade Organization summit meeting is over we can ask: Was it a turning point, or just an exclamation point? That depends entirely on how the protesters and governments interpret Seattle. Here is my own guide:

What the serious protesters got right: My environmentalist allies say my criticism of the protesters in Seattle was too broad-brush. There were some serious groups there raising serious points, particularly the notion that the W.T.O. has no need or right to be so secretive. If it is deciding that a U.S. law banning tuna caught in nets that also catch dolphins is a trade barrier, the W.T.O. should at least allow environmentalists to file a brief or meet with judges. The W.T.O. can't promote open trade by ruling in the dark. It would enhance its own legitimacy if it opened up.

What the protesters got wrong: The biggest negative fallout from Seattle is the way it smeared free trade. I fear that politicians all over America will look at Seattle and say, "Wow, if that's what you get when you support free trade, I'm hiding."

President Clinton has been a real stand-up guy on free trade -- until last week. I know in an election year he has to tip his hat to the A.F.L.-C.I.O. But we can't afford the full-body kowtow. Mr. Clinton effectively kidnapped the Democratic Party seven years ago, moved it into the Republican economic agenda -- including free trade, Nafta and the W.T.O. for China -- while holding onto much of the Democrats' social agenda. But his tacit ally in this was Newt Gingrich. As long as the "evil Newt" was out there with his extreme agenda, Mr. Clinton was able to hold the Democrats behind him. But what you saw in Seattle is what the activist base of the Democratic Party looks like -- without the fear of Newt. It is a wildly diverse coalition that, without strong leadership from the top of the Democratic Party, could really pull it over a cliff on free trade.

Where we go from here: "It's amazing how caught up some activists are in the old world," says Paul Gilding, the former head of Greenpeace who now advises multinationals on sustainable development. "The old model is you go into the streets, raise the outrage of the community, get the government to pass a law, the companies resist, eventually a compromise is reached and in five years things change."

The groups making the biggest difference today are those working with multinationals and consumers -- showing the companies how they can be both green and profitable, while making clear to them that if they don't upgrade their environmental and labor practices, the activist community will mount a campaign against them through the Internet and consumers all over the world. "The smart activists," says Mr. Gilding, "understand that the market, and global integration, is now king, and this can be a great boon to environmentalists and a great threat to big companies."

Sure, the W.T.O. ruled against the U.S. laws banning tuna caught in nets that also catch dolphins. But I just went to my Giant supermarket and checked every can of tuna. They all said: "Dolphin safe." Now how could that be? Because the smart activists ignored the W.T.O. ruling, mobilized consumers to pressure the tuna companies, the tuna companies pressured the fishermen and Flipper got saved. That's how you change the world. If we didn't have free trade with Mexican fishermen, would we have been able to pressure them into using dolphin-safe nets on the tuna they sell us? Not a chance. "Our decision to go dolphin safe was purely based on consumer feedback," Michael Mullen, spokesman for StarKist tuna, told me. "We get about 1,000 calls and 300 consumer e-mails a week."

Laws and regulations protecting workers, water and trees still matter. My argument is simply that the best way to strengthen those laws, and to get developing countries to abide by them, is by activists mobilizing consumers, pressuring companies and using free trade -- not choking it.

But too many unions and activists want the quick fix for globalization: just throw up some walls and tell everyone else how to live. There was a country that tried that. It guaranteed everyone's job, maintained a protected market and told everyone else how to live. It was called the Soviet Union. Didn't work out so well. In the end it probably did more damage to its environment and workers than any country in history.