Riots a couple of you have asked me my opinion on this, and after watching the footage of tear gas and bloody faces on cnbc yesterday evening, i actually *do* think it's important to discuss. so i wanted to take a minute and respond generally. geraldo rivera, frustration magnet that he is, called the wto protests "the biggest civil disturbance in this country since the sixties" (apparently, he doesn't consider the l.a. riots a civil disturbance, or perhaps he just wants to deny their political dimension). since even president evasion doesn't feel the need to sugarcoat what happened (and what still might be happening even as i type) the question remains: to what extent can we, or should we, support what the protesters are doing? as i see it, the seattle action has had three positive effects: 1.) it raised consciousness that, despite the hype to the contrary, a substantial percentage of the american people are discontent with at least some aspects of the world capitalist system. also, it reminded us all that egregiously awful working conditions exist, in america and abroad, for low-income laborers. 2.) the more ambitiously violent protesters targeted global branding as the focus of their resentment. no matter what you think of the ultimate emptiness of their actions, you must admit that pillaging a starbucks in seattle, in the wake of the microsoft ruling, is an act rich in symbology, and not one you're likely to forget. if the lasting image from this round of wto talks is a shattered starbucks logo, abbie hoffman himself couldn't have concieved of a more potent device. 3.) as an anti-authoritarian, it always makes me happy when the meetings of international slicksters are turned higgledy-piggledy. not that i think that there's anything progressive about the governor of iowa getting beaten up in the street, but when a highly choreographed, pathologically rule-governed event is disrupted by pranksters or protesters, my sympathy is usually with the disrupters. none of this can obscure the fact that protesting the wto is an inexcusably dopey thing to do. now, most of the people in seattle who are engaged in the protest aren't dopes; as a matter of fact, many are articulate proponents of political positions (conserving environmental resources, saving sea turtles, ending sweatshop labor and human rights abuses) that only a terminal hardass wouldn't support. but by choosing as the de facto subject of their ire an organization that is more or less toothless -- an organization that is a consequence, rather than a cause of the conditions created by a world capitalist system -- they run the risk of looking extremely unsophisticated, if not criminally uninformed. and clinton administration heavyweights and trade proponents have been lightning quick to jump on this, and make the protesters look like a gang of shortsighted simpletons in birkenstocks who'd rather protect owl eggs than the economy of thailand. the irony of this movement is that at the same time that the protesters lambaste the wto for being a powerful international governing body (which it isn't, it's best imagined as a mouse hanging on to the tail of the tiger of global trade, and trying to control the tiger from that position), they simultaneously want the wto to become the imaginary institution they're condemning -- a regulatory commission operating as would an executive branch of government. in a world with 135 nation states, each with their own asinine set of trade barriers, this is completely impractical -- but nevertheless, the american trade ministers *did* in fact go to the meeting to press for many of the restrictions (watered-down, of course, but what do you expect from the clinton administration?) that the protesters supported. now, thanks to the disruptions, there's next to no chance that we'll get what we want this time around. americans, protesters and couch potatoes alike, expect and assume that our positions and our interests govern all international meetings. generally they do; that's what comes from being the nine hundred pound gorilla with all the bombs. but the wto is different. we're in no real position to make economic policy for jordan; in order to do that, we'd probably have to invade. if mexico wants to use trawling nets that kill dolphins, and allow children to work eighteen-hour shifts in maquiladora factories, what the hell can we do but negotiate with them at the wto, in the hopes that they'll conform to the u.s. cultural model? compromise or invade -- those are the options open to us. the mexican trade ministers damn well know that it's in the interests of u.s. capitalists to enforce labor standards on their industries, and not because the fortune 500 is loaded with sea turtle lovers. it takes a hell of a lot of hard persuading for ministers from developing nations to see the u.s. as anything but self-serving and sanctimonious to boot in this context. we -- along with the european powers and japan, but that's laughable now -- created this system. if it's gotten out of hand in malaysia and venezuela, that's because we exported most of the unseemly stuff abroad. the response to this global situation can never be "well, if you won't play by our rules, we're taking our ball and going home" -- nothing could be less responsible, or more ignorant of historical contingency, than that approach. there's nothing progressive or socialist, or even social-democratic about protectionism. protectionism is just defensive capitalism, capitalism with a provincial and tone-deaf edge. meetings of the wto, few and far between that they are, are one of the only occasions where the government can effect any kind of influence on the fifteen zillion transactions, legel, quasi-legal, and downright illegal, that shape our consciousness every day. what's the proper way to protest or act against that system? i think the inchoate concerns and general strangeness of seattle shows that we haven't figured that out yet, and that we're going to continue to flail from site to site, from chant to chant, until we do. i don't think demonstrations are the answer, or even part of it. i know it's hard for many of us not to get behind any sort of mass action, particularly when tear gas is being fired at it. still, i'm pretty sure we need to think harder here. for now, i'm going to leave you with the recent words of kari orr, who, as always, gets right to the point: "if i considered the sins of producers everytime i bought something i would be naked, starving, and trying to head to a polynesian island. everything i have is soaked in blood." that, folks, is the problem. i was in detroit, tris mc call |