Anti-Global Seattle Movement

Estimates ranged from 50,000 to 100,000 protestors. Protesters came from all over the world, not just the developed countries. They ranged from human rights groups, students, environmental groups, religious leaders, labor rights activists etc wanting fairer trade with less exploitation. Even right-wing protectionist groups were there also arguing against the current corporate-led free trade, (although the protectionists were there for very different reasons).

The fact that 50,000 to 100,000 people turned up in the pouring rain, through all the police crackdowns etc indicates the sheer number of people who are concerned at the current issues, as obviously not everyone could be in Seattle. How many more would have turned up had it not been raining so bad!

While the majority were non-violent protestors, a small group started some violence and looting that led to the Seattle police and National Guard declaring a state of emergency (it was even termed as Martial Law by the Mayor of Seattle at one point). This led to the issuing of curfews, arresting, tear-gassing, pepper spraying and even shooting rubber bullets at innocent, non-violent protestors. This became the mainstream media’s major coverage focus often portraying all the protestors as “loony leftists” or violent groups with no clue as to what they are talking about. (Remember, the mainstream media is corporate-owned as well and certain media conglomerates make up some of the largest multinational corporations that directly benefit from the current form of free trade)

The media’s portrayal of protestors interfering in global trading missed the point that as history has shown, progress has also been made thanks to a variety of public protests: women’s rights, civil rights, civil wars and revolutions in Europe, in Latin America and other former colonial countries such as, India, East Timor, and so on.

Most Protestors Were Not Against International TradeMost people were pro-democracy activists protesting at the dangerous unfairness at the current model of free trade, while agreed that international trade is beneficial to everyone, if it is fair. Instead, the mainstream media preferred to distort the protestors’ concerns saying that they were all anti-trade etc and concentrated mainly on the motives of the right-wing protectionists from industrialized nations. (The previous link has some detailed examples from the US).

This misconception that allwho are against the current system of the WTO must automatically be against international trade etc is unfounded; the issue at Seattle was about protesting the current rules and implementations of these ideas. Most will agree that international trade will be beneficial and help developing countries raise their standards of living. Many will also agree that international trade can promote peace through internationally agreed standards or rules of that trade, helping reduce the likelihood of tragedies such as World War I and II which arose through trade battles between the former imperial countries, whose greed got the better of them.

However, that then doesn't mean that any form of international trade is acceptable without any thought! Protestors are concerned at the corporate drive in international trade where national safety standards, laws and rules are often deemed as barriers to trade and a largely unelected set of WTO officials can make these decisions. Criticism is also towards the corporate influence on the way the actual rules of trade are made (and what the rules are), as corporations are not democratic and yet the rules that they are pushing forth via the WTO affect everyone. Coupled with the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment policies making developed countries dependent upon industrialized countries, this is a concern as the beneficiaries of global trade in its current form is seriously skewed.

Both developing and developed nations could benefit from international trade. However, currently only the developed nations have really benefited (and that has also been at the cost of rise in poverty in their own nations). This has meant that those who have benefited (including enormous global media conglomerates) urge the same formula to continue—after all, if it works for you, why change it?

As developing countries have been increasing their frustrations with the WTO, many are alternatively suggesting that the UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade And Development) would be a far more inclusive and democratic a body to house global trade issues.

The Occupy Wall Street movement began in New York City when thousands of protesters descended on Wall Street, which is seen by most citizens as the center of the American financial sector, to show widespread dissatisfaction with corporate greed and wealth disparity. The protesters marched and set up a makeshift camp site that will "occupy" the area until they feel appropriate change has been enacted. Occupy Wall Street has inspired similar movements in cities and towns across America, including Occupy Boston, Occupy Oakland, and Occupy Portland, as well as several solidarity events around the world in places such as the Netherlands, Brussels, and Egypt.

While individuals and groups within the Occupy Wall Street movement advocate various issues, the overarching theme throughout the movement is closing the wealth gap, decreasing corporate political power, regulating corporate activities, increasing corporate responsibility, and decreasing the size and power of corporations in America. Occupy Wall Street protesters have adopted "We are the 99%" as their motto, which has become ubiquitous in their street and Internet campaigns.

This slogan is meant to describe the injustice of 1% of the U.S. population controlling a large majority of the country's wealth. Websites, blogs, and twitter content tagged with this slogan serve as statements of solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement and pictures and stories tagged with "We are the 99%" are used to illustrate the death of the American dream and the plight of those that do not control large amounts of wealth and privilege.

Perhaps more than anything else, Occupy Wall Street embodies the frustration of many U.S. citizens at the current economic climate and infrastructure in America. Many perceive that corporations engaged in reckless and even unethical practices over the last decade, leading to an unsustainable financial system that eventually fell apart. When this happened, the unemployment rate skyrocketed while the average and median wages for American workers plummeted. However, the most powerful players within the institutions that caused the worsening economy continued to be paid wages that sustained their excessive wealth.

Instead of the institutions responsible for the meltdown being held accountable, they were deemed "too big to fail" and given large amounts of government money to remain in business and the leaders of these institutions continued to receive exorbitant salaries and bonuses. While many Americans lost their jobs, savings, pensions, houses, and other sources of comfort and livelihood, large corporations profited. In fact, many of the institutions that had contributed largely to the downturn had constructed systems in such a way that they would profit from a national macroeconomic collapse.

The government agreed to financially "bail out" large institutions that were suffering from the downturn under the supposition that the improved health of these organizations would create jobs. However, after the government money was received, these corporations continued to lay off workers while posting record profits and paying no taxes. Indeed the only thing that seemed to increase were the bonuses of the top players in these firms.

Occupy Wall Street not only strives to illustrate the wealth gap in America and the irresponsibility of Wall Street culture, it also tries to bring to light the social injustices among the economic classes. Not only do the 1% control the wealth in America, they are also enormously influential in politics, government, and law and therefore determine who is treated in what way.

Occupy Wall Street uses examples of arrest, prosecution, and sentencing trends among various socio-economic groups; corporate interests mirrored in legislation; and the profound increase in corporate contributions to political campaigns as evidence of this trend toward economic oligarchy. Occupy Wall Street operates with the goal of taking this nearly universal power away from the corporate elite and placing it back into the hands of the citizenry as a whole.

Within the larger liberal context, Occupy Wall Street embodies the ideas of government regulation of business practices, the unsustainable wealth disparity the exists in the U.S. and the need to end it, and the social injustice that exists among the economic classes. Many smaller and more specific liberal ideals have also come into play during the course of the Occupy Wall Street movement including unionization, living wages for every worker, outsourcing and the fallout of fair trade agreements, the burden of economic and healthcare costs on the middle and lower classes, the need to break up monopolies, and the benefits of environmental, health, and workplace regulations.

To the overall liberal movement, Occupy Wall Street is the tangible result of the rise in corporate power and devaluation of the community, citizenry, and individual worker.