The Environment and the Seattle Demonstrations 1

United Kingdom

It will take some time before the recent demonstrations against the World Trade Organisation in Seattle are truly understood. No doubt they will give rise to substantial academic debate and study. What was readily apparent was how the demonstrations were so heavily loaded with irony and how mixed were the messages.

It was ironic that whilst many of the demonstrators were protesting against the relentless globalisation of trade, the WTO itself was a catalyst for the globalisation of environment protest. Groups which traditionally held divergent interests, such as trade unions representing heavy industry and environmentalists, were united. Further, many of the nations which strongly favour the reduction of barriers to world trade are the nations that not only argue that human health and environment protection can be used too easily as a cloak to hide protectionism (the continued ban by France of British beef was given as an example), but also argue that the environment must be put on the WTO agenda (thereby accepting that unless properly regulated, world trade will harm the environment).

There are several messages that can be taken from the events in Seattle. One is that businesses, politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats have to take the time to listen and address the concerns that obviously exist in relation to the environment. We have the experiences of BSE and GMOs to show the problems that can arise when stakeholder concerns are not adequately addressed.

Another message is that trade cannot be divorced from the principles of environment protection (such as sustainable development, and the precautionary, proximity and polluter pays principles). Similarly environment protection cannot be divorced from trade. The WTO cannot proceed effectively without consideration of the environment. However, it cannot become an environment regulator. An effective world organisational or forum to counterbalance the WTO may be required to put the case for the environment. Since the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, there have been roughly 1,000 international treaties, UN Resolutions, declarations and rules of international, regional and other organisations concerning protection of the environment. Protection of the environment is obviously a respected world issue but its promotion is fragmented and hence diluted. This was a concern of many of the protesters.

Otherwise, it is clear that the environment is being used by some as a political football. One side makes accusations that environment protection can be too easily manipulated in order to promote protectionism or, for political reasons, to hinder the process of trade liberalisation. Another side argues that the WTO only pays lip service to environment protection and that world trade is too easily used as a means to drive down legitimate national environment protection measures. Perhaps there are strategists in the various camps who are using the environment as a front for their particular political purposes. Nevertheless an unmistakable message that emerges above such machiavellian actions is that Seattle solidified the environment’s right to be an important item on the agenda. The environment is a national and international issue. National trade is regulated to protect the environment. Logically international trade cannot be an exception. The question that is left is not whether international trade should be so regulated, but how it should be regulated.

This commentary first appeared in AMCHAM News.

For further information please contact Paul Sheridan at at [email protected] or on 0171 367 2186.