As the tumultuous scene of the World Trade Organization events unfolded in Seattle this week, the world was awakening to the realization that the scope of the WTO reached far beyond the closeted world of Geneva and into the very roots of democratic values and the lives of individuals.

Over 70,00 people and 500 global civil society organizations brought the attention of the world to the streets of Seattle where people of all ages, from many countries and all walks of life demonstrated their concerns about the ambitions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to corporatize all areas of the global commons including food security, health care, public education, cultural integrity, water, air, forest conservation, labour standards, human rights,local development, intellectual property rights and patents on plant, animal & even human genetic material.

From the roar of 35,000 trade union representatives chanting “Fix it or nix it”, raising placards and banners reading “If it doesn’t work for working families, it doesn’t work”, to the voices of thousands of others sounding “This is what democracy looks like”- the emerging international global citizens movement sprung to challenge the WTO’s credo that: globalization is natural and irreversible, that it benefits the developing countries and that free trade is really free, despite the volumes of rules governing its form of highly regulated, corporate managed trade.

At the point (Tues. a.m.) at which mass education about the WTO and its agenda was about to become the focus of global media, unknown provacateurs began smashing windows downtown.The first rumour reached the union marchers as they headed to the downtown core. Word was passed that a group of extremely violvent individuals was roaming the streets. As the marchers- including those dressed as sea turtles- and other environmental representatives neared downtown, they were split and diverted away from the main demonstration already jamming the streets and were sidelined to a sitdown protest some blocks away. The disgust of many participants- who envisioned labour as providing need leadership and muscle to remind the WTO and everyone else that it was they who had the power to shut down the West Coast ports for the day- was palpable.

By nightfall the curfew had been announced and first scenes of excessive and indescriminate use of force were starting to be reported and broadcast on television. Stunned viewers saw protestors, largely engaged in peaceful acts of civil disobedience, being brutalized by forces in fully equipped riot gear; true life gratuitous violence, capturing the attention of the world. While media coverage riveted viewers on the street action, the “Battle of Seattle” was also taking place within the Trade and Convention Center itself, and in a myriad of venues throughout the downtown core where discussions and debates flourished.

Rumours were rife, action lines and curfew boundaries kept moving, busses to events were cancelled in largely unsuccessful attempts to thwart public mobility and access; ministers and delegates from developing nations within the WTO scrambled to find meetings scheduled in unknown locations (infamous "green rooms" only announced to select participants) and called the WTO’s own internal process “the ultimate in non-transparency”.

Various delegates and non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives left the Ministerial to give briefings and exchange information on strategies and breaking developments at other independent Media Centers. Often just a handful of journalists were present to hear how intensely and by what means the African bloc and developing nations were being pressured for agreements; or how the U.S. and European Union were proposing the establishment of on-going working forums to side-step the fundamental concensus process in areas of genetic manipulation and bio-genetic organisms.Streamlined recommendations could potentially be passed to committees to draft policies, and then presented to signatories in coming rounds.

Often the chaos being reported from the streets was mirrored in much more subtle forms within the Convention Center itself. The much-touted scheduled NGO Symposium (a WTO first) became farcical after being postponed by three hours to become an hour and a half lecture to the NGO’s by the presiding table chaired by Charlene Barshevsky and Michael Moore on the benefits of trade. Finally, only a small number of NGO representatives were allowed to address the table and “in the interest of time for all”, not permitted to ask questions.NGO’s were firmly told that their only participation would and could be through governmental representation.

Trade ministers from member countries in Plenary Sessions (designed to hear participants positions on the scope of the proposed agenda and their country’s experiences under the first five years of WTO measures) were repeatedly displaced- often when the weight of evidence tended towards opposing views- by U.S.requests for its own speakers.Countries such as Jamaica, India, Pakistan and the African bloc felt they had not only not benefitted being signatories at the first WTO Uruguay Round, but had in actuality been penalized. Their call went out to sign nothing without carefully reading and reviewing of texts.

France, Mexico, Brazil and the U.K.supported addressing the concerns of civil society, creating balanced policies on environment, services and social justice issues (“We can not forget about people”). Trade ministers from Canada, Australia, Hong Kong China, New Zealand, the European Union and the U.S. vigorously pressed for immediate and comprehensive expansion of the free trade/investment agenda and the establishment of a biotechnical working group. Agricultural subsidies and fears of U.S. imposed protectionist union labour standards became the major stumbling blocks.

The words shared by Hamidon Ali, Ambassador of Malaysia upon arrival for registration Mon.morning, proved to be prophetic “I think in the final hours we will stand with the representatives of civil society.”Developing nations stood united in resisting last-minute attempts to force compliance despite threats of severe financial penalties.

Canadians who are wondering what all the fuss is really about and why they need to know about the WTO, need only to reflect on the current lawsuit currently underway.U.S. based Sunbelt Corp which is suing the B.C. government (ie. B.C. taxpayers) for $15.75 billion dollars under NAFTA Section 11 regulations for denial of what it considers to be its right to license for bulk export of B.C. water. Under proposed WTO regulations all multi-national corporations who desire access to resources or markets- even those contrary to existing labour, environmental, health or other sovreign nation’s legislation anywhere in the world- must be compensated if attempts are made to deny such access. And that is only the beginning.

By turning a blind eye on excessive responses police responses at the start, those in Seattle with decision-making power tacitly sanctioned such actions, thus guarenteeing there would little, if any room, left on the television screens for any substantive coverage and questions about WTO’s policies, processes and proposals themselves.

If this was not deliberate strategy, it was one which successfully obscured most telling commentary through malevolent neglect and abuse of the public interest, including that of those unfortunates often herded with teargas and rubber bullets through Seattle streets to locations guarenteeing maximum media exposure. How many people, who knew little about the WTO before the Seattle Round began, know much more about it now, other than to remember the unforgettable images played out endlessly and repeatedly before their eyes?

The challenge to create dialogue between the global corporate agenda,the exclusionary structure and arbitrary decision-making power of the WTO and the voices of people and organizations demanding true participation in the decision-making processes that fundamentally affect their futures, will be actively carried forward globally. The cry “Basante-enough” has been heard around the world and by the WTO itself. Could it be there will begin to evolve just and equitable means to address the pressing question: Who will make the rules that govern us all and how?

The next installment of WTO meeting on Services and Agriculture is already scheduled for January in Geneva. Already there is talk of changing the decision-making process from concensus to something else (top-down as opposed to bottom up). There is little doubt that the major players will attempt to “adjust” the whole process to insure the desired outcomes regardless of whatever opposition there might be either from the inside of the WTO itself or from civil society interests outside, and to do so without even having to talk about it.Speculation about bi-lateral agreements or the U.S. “going it alone” began the day after the collapse of the WTO. Pressures on individual developing nations are sure to escalate in a “divide and conquer” strategy and information on the progress of the WTO will likely become more impenetrable and obscure. It will probably be a very long time before the WTO risks bringing its agenda out into the open again after Seattle.

The process, however, will continue to unfold at an alarming rate under various guises through which well established and entrenched institutions that will be attempting to appropriate the language of protest into written policies and public relation campaigns.

The public still needs to be convinced of the benefits of unfettered global corporatism, where citizens and governments of all nations are left no choice but to become serfs and servants to corporate profits and consumate control. Anyone with investment portfolios- holding pension funds or other financial instruments, may need to inspect their consciences clearly, hold them up to the ensuing darkness of the WTO agenda, and ask themselves how willing they are to be investors in the possible demise of the future.