WYTS: Seattle Seahawks. Original post here.
On January 26th, 1856, a coalition of Spokane, Yakama,
Nisqually, and other tribes attacked the new settlement of Seattle. The town
had been named in honor of a half-Suquamish and half-Duwamish native leader,
Chief Seattle. But relations between the tribes and the increasing numbers of
white settlers turned sour and there was war all across the Washington Territory through the 1850s. The Battle of Seattle was a short engagement,
where the Natives were quickly repelled by land artillery and the guns of the
nearby sloop, The Decatur. By the end, the pioneers had lost three men, mostly to
friendly fire, while the enemy coalition had lost maybe 28. Their commander,
Chief Leschi, was hanged in 1858. The Puget Sound and the rest of Washington
was firmly in American hands forever after.
Anyway, that's one Battle of Seattle. There was another. I actually want to talk about the 1999 anti-globalism protest that was a big rallying cry for the political left for awhile. But we need context. Always we need context.
So, it's the 1940s, World War II is over, and we won,
congratulations! After that, the United States had the opportunity to remake
the global order in whatever form it wanted. At various conferences like
Bretton Woods, Britain was sat down and politely told to retire as the global
superpower. There's a new sheriff in town. The US had already been the economic
powerhouse of the world since about 1890, and thanks to its European rivals
destroying themselves in a couple big wars, it would rule the rest of recorded
history unquestioned. Sure, there was the USSR... but the Cold War was never an
even fight, economically. The important point of the post-war consensus is that
old colonial empires were the past. You could try to hold on desperately to
Vietnam if you were France, but you’d just end up getting Dien Bien Phu’d. The
smart bet was in decolonizing now, such as with Britain and India. And if the
old European powers got too big for their britches, America would simply remind
the old guys of the pecking order, such as in the Suez Crisis of 1956. This new
global empire would not need colonies. This was a post-modern empire, with
sophisticated ideas like self-determination and globalization, and of course,
free trade.
Also, it was very unsophisticated when it came to opposing
Communism. Don't you fucking dare self-determine that your country wants Communism. We'll murder you and your whole family and a lot of priests too if you're in Latin America.
I can't explain the entire macroeconomic history of American
hegemony because A) it’s too big, B) frankly I'm exhausted after 32 of these, and C) economics is uninteresting to me. Didn't care about the gold standard in
the 1890s, don't care about the Nixon shock either. What is interesting to me is the effects
of power, not the fancy graphs with the curves or whatever. I’ll greatly
over-simply all of this.
Anyway, the US creates a system where the global economy would be ruled peacefully by non-state actors, a bunch of boring technocrats, all related to the UN. These are things like the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and something called the "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade". That last one will later be reborn as the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995. People use a very slippery term called "neoliberalism" around these organizations, which is a clue that nobody likes them. Whatever “neoliberalism” means, it’s bad, basically. All I remember out of the one PolySci course I took was that the IMF is an instrument of pure evil. It forces austerity and privatization upon the third world, keeping up the first world's neocolonial dominance. Somehow despite decades of IMF loans, things keep going badly for many countries, especially Argentina.
Now the issue of "Free Trade" is a rather thorny
one. Back in the 1990s, the politics on this stuff was exactly in the opposite
direction of where it is now. The global left was pushing for protectionism for
labor, environmentalism, and human rights, while the entire mainstream
political spectrum, Republican and Democratic, loved globalization and NAFTA
and all that jazz. Most dominant powers through history want to have free trade
because it is to their benefit, they have all the money and most of the goods,
so let us knock down these barriers and get richer.
Is free trade good? I don't know, is gasoline good? Yeah, it
could set me on fire, and might destroy the world in a few decades, but at this
very second I need to go to work, so I dunno. It's good that we all have access
to anime, it's bad that copyright protections extend infinitely and forever, backed up by limitless violence.
Maybe if you’re an arch-racist you end up in the ballpark of the right answer
for the wrong reason. But let’s get back to the 90s, *Smash Mouth riff plays*.
So, it’s the 1990s, the Cold War is over, and we won,
congratulations! Communism is dead. Francis Fukuyama is telling a one-year-old
me that it’s the End of History, while post-modern leftists such as Hardt &
Negri are imagining this is the final phase of capitalism called Empire. Empire is so infinitely powerful that it is inescapable
like gravity. Politics are not real anymore. The right choices have already
been for us. We’re just pushing a few buttons and adjusting some dials to have
free capitalism and democracy and goodness for everybody forever.
Except already people
are unhappy with the End of History or Empire. Labor in the US has been losing ground for decades, in India free
trade means Monsanto has IP control over their entire seed stock, and somehow
after fifty years of American beneficence, most of the third world is still
very poor. The WTO becomes instantly the corrupt Cryptid to be blamed for all
these miseries.
Also, the 90s are a big decade for Seattle: Grunge,
Starbucks, Sir Mix-a-lot, Ken Griffey Jr, Microsoft, Frasier, Boeing is still good at making planes, etc. etc. On
November 30th, 1999, to finish the decade strong, it's even getting to host the
1999 WTO Ministerial Conference. Bill Clinton will be there!
Secretly this is already going poorly as the smaller
economies have a lot of complaints about the richer ones. The third world wants
to build their industries and protect their workers and maybe not give up their
entire agricultural industry to Monsanto. And the first world wants them to
shut up, privatize everything, and get back to making Nikes as cheaply and filthily
as possible.
It's easy to come up with fantastic conspiracy theories
about the WTO, especially when its meetings have terrifying-sounding names like
"Ministerial Conference". That's bad branding, you sound like a Doctor Who villain. Something about unelected technocratic
bureaucracies scare people across political lines. It is creepy to everybody from the
AFL-CIO, to proper Bakunin-reading anarchists, to wacky Christian conservatives
terrified of (((globalists))). Pat Buchanan will be on the same side as Ralph
Nader on this one. There would be somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000
protestors outside the WTO meeting at the Washington State Convention Center, a
few blocks away from Pike Place Market. (Worth a visit!)
Seattle's police were unprepared on November 30th. There was
no real leadership to this protest, it was all formless and “internet stuff”,
which regular people were still safely sheltered from. Nobody really expected much of
anything. Instead they got everything, all at once. The AFO-CIO might rally at
10 AM but meanwhile full-blown anarchists in black costumes would break Nike
stores to cause trouble at 9 AM. This was not one protest but about a dozen happening at different places. Many protestors linked hands in chains to stop the
proceedings inside, to make it as loud and clear as possible they were not
happy with the direction the world was moving.
The police, lacking any good response, fired tear gas and
pepper spray at the protesters, which turned mostly peaceful protests into
frenzied chaos. (Nobody ever learns anything, do they? 32 of these and it is always the same damn song!) By the end of the day,
the Mayor, Paul Schell, was calling a state of emergency. Bill Clinton had to sneak
into the city at midnight. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was stuck in
her hotel room as streets were full of teargas. They had to cancel the big
fancy opening ceremony on the 30th.
The next day of protests continued the same police vs activist frenzies on the street. The Seattle PD actually ran out of teargas. They came away looking like apes for corporate power and also completely incompetent at the same time.
The protests would continue for five days, the last of them focused
on the Seattle PD. Many protesters were rightfully furious at the cops, demanding
the 600 or so people arrested be freed. Inside the WTO conference, the
discussions continued to go poorly. Being under siege never helps a tough conversation, see the 1968 Democratic Convention. Basically
nothing had been achieved inside, and the protesters had made a big point: most
people did not even know what the WTO was yet in 1999, and their introduction
to it was mayhem in the Emerald City.
The WTO would reconvene in Qatar in 2001. That's in a petrol
dictatorship, so there was no threat of protests this time. It still did not
get much done. The organization still exists and can exert a lot of pressure on
smaller nations, but its ambition of grand global trade deals seems like a lost
cause now. The direction of the global marketplace today is just whatever an old man
feels like. We haven’t yet boiled away the nation-state into
transnational corporate rule as dreamed of by the villain from the movie
Network.
Seattle's chief of police, Norm Stamper, resigned in March
2000. He was very apologetic about how his men acted, blaming himself for the
chaos. Stamper became a big police reform guy in his retirement, opposing the
death penalty and calling for drug legalization. Police departments did learn a
lesson though: next time there were major urban riots, they needed to be much
more aggressive and have a lot more army surplus heavy equipment.
In 1999, people thought the Battle of Seattle might be the
first steps in shattering Hardt & Negri's Empire. Perhaps a real opposition
could occur to neoliberalism and undemocratic corporate capture. Instead, the
trends continued. Labor power continued to shrink, the environment continued to
die, and "socialism" stayed a dirty word until right now, according to the US House of Representatives. The new left would try similar kinds of
protests again in the 2010s with the Occupy Movement that... let's face it,
failed. That battle against the 1% continues. Still, the Battle of Seattle had been
demonstrated that online activism could affect change. Largely internet-based
movements had indeed pushed the discussion in way neither political party would
dare consider previously. And that went… great, right? How do we like our Twitter
president?
Now in a quirk of history, the anti-free trade movement
turned decidedly conservative. Any good leftist will still despise the IMF, of
course. But post-modern imperialism was too complicated, people needed a more
childish system of power, so now we have Trumpism. We've seen already the difficult line between foreign policy goals of open markets and hating foreigners, it's an incoherent position. But if you hate immigrants
enough you'll choose to burn down free trade eventually, I guess. Tariffs are
so back, baby! We've rewound that clock so far we're aiming for a 1700s mercantilism vision of global trade. (...Maybe? I'm probably assuming too much
of an actual strategy or goal here.) The WTO, for all its faults, was meant to
prevent big nations from shaking down their neighbors with trade warfare. And we
decided that’s actually fine.
Nobody died in the Battle of Seattle. Not many injuries. A lot of arrests, but they did not stick. So, that’s a happy-ish note to end on.
...
And now, Go Broncos!




