Seattle WTO Shutdown 9 Year Anniversary: 5 Lessons for Today

What lessons can we learn from the shutdown of the 1999 WTO
Ministerial in Seattle 9 years ago today and from the last decade and
a half of global justice organizing as we face today's major crises
under an Obama Administration? This was the question a group of
organizers from different parts of the last decades of global justice
organizing responded to last week at a forum in New York City put
together by Deep Dish TV, an independent video/media pioneer. Here are
my thoughts.

Nine years ago today:
Tens of thousands of people from across the US and around the world
rose up against the WTO's meeting in Seattle, as movements
demonstrated across the planet, we shut down the WTO with mass
nonviolent direct action and sustained street resistance all week in
the face of martial law, police and national guard violence, arrests,
tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets. By the end of the week, the
poorer countries' government representatives, emboldened by the street
protests and under pressure from movements at home, refused to go
along and the talks collapsed.

Nearly 15 years ago:
On January 1, 1994, people of Chiapas- calling themselves
Zapatistas-rose up against the prototype free trade agreement, NAFTA
(the North American Free Trade Agreement).

Nearly 14 years ago:
Exactly one year later, January 1, 1995, the World Trade Organization
(WTO)-a brainchild of the annual ruling class World Economic Forum-
was officially launched from out of the post-WWII General Agreement on
Trade and Tariffs (GATT).

Four months ago:
Last July, 2008, the WTO collapsed again, very likely for good. It was
a desperate attempt to revive the WTO, using the pretense of the
global food crisis in an effort to intensify the very policies that
had caused widespread hunger and food riots around the world in the
first place. Longtime global justice organizer Deborah James wrote,
"When the history of the seismic shifts occurring today in the global
economy is written, the failure in July 2008 of corporate interests
and some governments to expand the World Trade Organization (WTO)
through the Doha Round will stand as a watershed moment."

James explained, "It was in this lakeside town where negotiators threw
in the towel on their seven fruitless years of trying to expand a
particular, corporate-driven set of policies, to which the majority of
governments have said 'no' time and time again (in Seattle in 1999,
Mexico in 2003, and Geneva in 2006). WTO Director General Pascal Lamy
attempted a last-minute push to conclude a Doha deal by calling for an
exclusive, invitation-only mini-Ministerial of around 30 of the WTO's
153 members in Geneva."

In fact, the WTO had become so unworkable in recent years, it had
blown off its 2007 Ministerial meeting which its own constitution
requires it to hold every two years. The WTO now remains in a
near-death coma-a tribute to the power of social movements around the
world. But the global elites refuse to let go of their dream of the
WTO as a vehicle to control the global economy...

Two weeks ago:
The G20 (Group of 20) meeting of finance ministers from 20 top
economies met in Washington DC November 14th to 15th in the wake of
the US-led economic collapse. Again, they used the economic crisis to
issue a statement that included, "we shall strive to reach agreement
this year on modalities that leads to a successful conclusion to the
WTO's Doha Development Agenda."

We face a series of major crises-financial meltdown (the financial
institutions- hardwired to be unaccountable, anti-democratic- need to
be destroyed, but the real crisis is the human and environmental
suffering), climate change, and war (the US-led military empire with
bases across the planet and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). What was
said in the streets of Seattle 9 years ago-"casino economy," "house of
cards," "doomsday economy"- has proven ever more true in recent
months. The Direct Action Network wrote 9 years ago, "Their new
strategy to concentrate power and wealth, while neutralizing people's
resistance, is called 'economic globalization' and 'free trade.' But
these words just disguise the poverty, misery and ecological
destruction of this system."

Soon we will be organizing under a popular Obama Administration. Obama
and his campaign captured people's hopes and desires for a better
country and world, and tens of thousands of people self-organized
outside of the well-orchestrated Obama campaign. His election seems to
lifted off the sense of despair that has grown since the repressive
war-making aftermath of September 11th, 2001, and the following
invasion of Iraq and Bush re-election. This is good for organizing-
people step up out of hope, not despair. It has also left many of us
radicals, revolutionaries and anti-authoritarians, who have a deep
critique of Democrats, political parties, and politicians, conflicted
or confused. Whether this becomes a new space for real positive
changes or an era in which movements and resistance get co-opted
depends on whether and how we organize- and perhaps if we learn key
lessons from past global justice (and other) organizing and also
understand how Obama's campaign (and the self-organized independent
efforts for Obama) communicated, organized and inspired.

Here are five of my own lessons, reflecting on the Seattle WTO
shutdown and global justice organizing 9 years ago.

We can't afford to just fight the numerous symptoms of the system or
organize around single issues. We need to constantly articulate the
systemic root causes of of those symptoms. The WTO and corporate
globalization provided a clear anti-systemic framework for a movement
of movements around the world to converge, take action and understand
ourselves as a global counter-power standing up to global corporate

The 100,000 color postcards and broadsheets that invited people to
"Come to Seattle" each read:
"Increasing poverty and cuts in social services while the rich get
richer; low wages, sweatshops, meaningless jobs, and more prisons;
deforestation, gridlocked cities and global warming; genetic
engineering, gentrification and war: Despite the apparent diversity of
these social and ecological troubles, their roots are the same-a
global economic system based on the exploitation of people and the
planet. A new world is possible and a global movement of resistance is
rising to make it happen. Imagine replacing the existing social order
with a just, free and ecological order based on mutual aid and
voluntary cooperation."

In the wake of Seattle, many used the concept of a single "movement"
focused on the "issue" of corporate globalization to limit and contain
the many varied movements that fight against the system of corporate
globalization. This frame of a single movement is most often used by
corporate media, but also by left writers, usually to contain and
marginalize and to write articles declaring it dead every so often.

There is actually no global justice movement. "Global justice" instead
is a common space of convergence-a framework where everyone who fights
against the system we call corporate globalization (or capitalism,
empire, imperialism, neoliberalism, etc) and its impacts on our
communities can make common cause and make our efforts cumulative.
This anti-systemic framework helps diverse groups and movements to
come together for mobilizations or to support each other. This is the
movement of movements that fights for global justice, often winning,
and has become stronger over the last nine years.

Strategy trainer Patrick Reinsborough writes in his essay, Post-Issue
Activism, that the crises call for "a dramatic divergence from the
slow progression of single-issue politics, narrow constituencies and
band-aid solutions. Too often the framework of issue-based struggle
needs to affirm the existing system in order to win concessions and
thus fails to nurture the evolution of more systemic movements."

In the aftermath of Seattle, many globally-focused activists anchored
their organizing in local struggles against the impact of the global
system (like workers, environmental justice, anti-privatization
fights) and local organizers re-framed their struggles within their
bigger global context (anti-corporate or corporate globalization),
allowing our various efforts to be complementary and cumulative rather
than competitive or unrelated.

When we shut down the WTO in Seattle (or the the San Francisco
Financial District the morning after the US invaded Iraq on March 20,
2003) we had a clear strategy framework for that one city for that one
day. Key elements that made the strategy framework work were:
* A Clear What and Why Logic: We wrote at the time, "The World Trade
Organization has no right to make undemocratic, unaccountable,
destructive decisions about our lives, our communities and the earth.
We will nonviolently and creatively block them from meeting."
* Mass Organization and Mass Training: hundreds were directly involved
in coordination and making decisions, and thousands participated in
trainings to prepare.
* Widely Publicized: Both movement folks and the public knew what we
had planned, when and where, allowing for thousands to join.
* Decentralization: Everyone involved in organizing understood the
strategy, groups were self-organized and self-reliant, and the action
allowed for a wide range of groups to take action in their own way.

As movements, can we develop strategy frameworks for our region,
nationally or internationally, not just for one day but over time?

Most who shut down the WTO in Seattle were involved in local groups
and campaigns, but some who only participated in big actions and
mobilizations and saw that as the movement were lost when
mobilizations became less frequent or movements switched to other
tactics. Organizing for one-time actions or mobilizations or repeating
our favorite or most familiar tactic (marches, conferences, direct
action, educational events, etc) without ongoing campaigns that have
clear long-term goals as well as short term, winnable,
along-the-way-milestone goals can lead to burnout and does not build
long-term movements to make change.

This is essential as we push (or "give cover" to, depending on your
analysis) Obama to bring our troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan and
the rest of the planet and stand up corporations and their economic
system driving the crisis. With Obama in office, the cutting edge of
organizing for change is to clearly define and publicize very
understandable goals. For example, it is not enough to say "end the
war," which Obama also says, but to clearly define what ending the war
means (such as troop removal by the 16-month deadline he committed to
in his campaign, bring ALL troops AND private contractors home, close
all bases and stop pushing for the corporate invasion of Iraq, as in
the case of oil corporations and the US government) scheming to
control Iraq's oil).

People directly asserting their power can win changes and shift the
underlying power relationships; from the WTO shutdown, to its near
death last summer, to anti-corporate victories like the Coalition of
Imokalee Farm Workers recent victory over Burger King, or the Water
Wars in which Bolivia's movements drove out multinational corporation
Bechtel, who had privatized their water. This means also creating
directly democratic, participatory organizations and asserting our
power from below to force changes or remove those who have taken power
from above if they refuse to make needed changes.

If movements don't articulate their own people power-based strategies
to achieve changes, our movements will be demobilized every two or
four years as people get drawn into the official, established channels
for change, national elections. We saw this in 2004, when, lacking a
viable well-publicized strategy framework to stop the Iraq war, many
people instead worked to un-elect Bush. Whatever ones belief about
elections or parties or politicians is, most would agree that it is
always independent movements who force (or support) politicians into
making positive changes either in conjunction with or in place of

Nobody knows exactly how to change things. New forms of resistance,
communication and organizing from experimentation have been key to the
successes of the global justice movements. Alternately, when we repeat
a tactic or rhetoric that worked once or fetishize and build our
identity out of a a certain tactic (like parading giant puppets,
reclaiming street parties, black bloc, vigils or Seattle-style
shutdowns), they not only can be more easily repressed or co-opted,
but the system can inoculate the people against them. Our actions are
experiments in a laboratory of resistance. The value of any experiment
is when we analyze and reflect together on what worked and what did
not and why. Creating a culture of creativity, reflection and analysis
is key.

The world is made of stories, and our battles for social change are
battles of competing stories. Out actions can be our most powerful
storytelling, like the Zapatista uprising, the Seattle Shutdown, or
the Feb. 15, 2003, global antiwar protest of millions everywhere. The
system fights back by trying to take control of the meaning of our
stories and by telling its own stories, like the post-September 11 War
on Terror. We need to be able become powerful storytellers, to fight
and win control of the meaning of our stories. Many of us have been
giving "Battle of the Story" storytelling skills trainings developed
by to be able to better fight and win stories and have
fun and keep engaged in the process.

My sister Rebecca Solnit wrote in her essay in the soon-to-be
published booklet The Battle of the Story of the Battle in Seattle:
"Official history is an accretion of acceptable versions. Before those
arise there are great ruptures when the world actually changes and no
one yet is in control of the meaning of what has happened or what kind
of a future it will lead to. In these great pauses, much is possible,
including a change of mind on a broad scale. November 30, 1999 was one
of those ruptures. Before Seattle, the WTO had seemed indestructible,
its agenda of taking over the world and creating the most powerful
monolithic institution in history inevitable. What happened in Seattle

Since then corporate media, cops and even a movie
actor-turned-director have tried to assert control of the meaning of
November 30th, 1999. That's why we who are part of that history need
to become historians and tell our own people's history, because what
people think happened in Seattle shapes what we think about
capitalism, resistance and repression. It matters. That's why a small
group of us Seattle WTO shutdown organizers set up the Seattle WTO
People's History Project website,, and have
invited people who were there to tell their stories, and invite
everyone to read them.

Next November 30th will be the ten-year anniversary of the shutdown of
the WTO. As I write this, a global network of climate justice groups
is meeting in Poznan, Poland, to organize around their call for mass
global direct action next year against the root causes of and false
solutions to climate change. The call reads in part:
"On November 30, 2009, exactly ten years after the historic WTO
shutdown in Seattle, world leaders will come to Copenhagen for the UN
(CAPS) Climate Conference. This will be the most important summit on
climate change ever to have taken place, but there is no indication
that this meeting will produce anything more than a green-washed
blueprint for corporate control of the world. We have to take direct
action against the root causes of climate change during the Copenhagen

David Solnit organized with the Direct Action Network in Seattle in
'99 and currently organizes with Courage to Resist supporting GI
resistance. He edited Globalize Liberation and has co-written/edited
with Rebecca Solnit the forthcoming book The Battle of the Story of
the Battle of Seattle
(AK Press).

For the Copenhagen 2009 call for action:

Seattle WTO People's History Project encourages everyone to enjoy or
post people's history at:

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.