Hong Kong is a dazzling city; a skyline full of towering buildings, in all sizes and shapes, a colourful interplay of steel, glass and neon lights. A gentleman from Sweden, sitting next to me on the Thai Airways flight from Bangkok to Hong Kong, tells me that Hong Kong is the Asian success story. He too is going to the WTO Ministerial, as a member of the official delegation from his country. Yes, Hong Kong seems to be the city of temptations, a city of dilemmas, an Oriental city in three-piece suits, at ease with Kentucky Fried Chicken as well as Lamb Manchurian; here we have the Chinese ethos in English style, the West coalesced with the East.
Here in Hong Kong, HSBC is not merely the ‘world’s local bank’, HSBC runs the Hong Kong dollar. The imposing skyscrapers of HSBC and the Bank of China compete with each other for attention. The airport is one of the biggest and best in the world; sparkling clean, you can see your face in the floor. Once we are in the airport, the friendly delegate from Europe says, “Look at Hong Kong, how impressive, how efficient, how globalised, the right venue for the WTO Ministerial. Here is free market at work.” I wonder: how ‘free’ is the free market for the common people? I look for a Hong Kong beyond the impressive facades, dressed up in neon lights, all prepared to receive more than 25,000 people -- around 11,000 delegates and 15,000 protestors -- to the WTO Ministerial.
But there are pockets of the impressive airport that looked very different. A group of around 30 people from the Philippines wait in one corner of immigration, with small flags and jackets that scream ‘Junk WTO’. The super-fast Airport Express takes you to the city. Once in the red taxi, the driver asks my destination. I give the address. With a friendly smile he says, “Very dangerous place.” There could be violence at the WTO venue and I should be careful, he says. As a second thought, he tells me, “The Koreans are already in town!” Taxi drivers are the best informants in any city, they can tell you so many untold stories about their cities; they are in many ways the real human face of most cities, the ambassadors of its character. I asked his opinion on the 1,500 Korean farmers and students who have come to protest against the WTO. “Koreans are here to make trouble, they may get into violence, the police have warned us about them.” In Cancun, Korean farmers made the most telling statement against the WTO when one of their leaders and a former member of parliament committed suicide in front of the entire world. After a 15-minute chat with the driver I discover two things. Firstly the local media, particularly the Chinese, has painted a picture of the protesting Korean farmers as troublemakers. The underlying historical tension between the Chinese and Koreans is all too apparent here, reinforcing old stereotypes with spicy new additions.
In fact, that has been one of the key preoccupations of the Hong Kong police. When my colleagues met the Hong Kong Police a couple of months ago to obtain permission for various public meetings, processions etc., the police invariably asked whether there were any Koreans in the group. When my friends approached the bus operators to hire buses for the culmination of the Asian People’s Caravan, wherein around half-a-million people in 12 countries participated in protesting against unjust WTO negotiations, they were clearly told to ensure that there would be no Koreans on that bus. As I watched the Korean protestors moving in batches, I thought we were getting into another act of the WTO theatre. I was curious to see how Hong Kong was different from Seattle, Doha and Cancun. I am a bit amused about my own role as a participant-observer in this drama: sometimes a tragedy, sometimes a tragi-comedy and sometime a farce.
A drama foretold
However, the Hong Kong Ministerial was almost like the story of a drama foretold. By mid-November, it was clear that nothing much would come of it. After India and Brazil took a strong position at the key meeting in London in the first week of November, there was little reason to expect any surprise outcome. Those of us who insisted that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ felt relieved. Those big corporations and free market missionaries searching for new market access in ever-growing markets of the developing countries were disappointed. Those global alliances and civil society organisations were in a dilemma about whether they should go ahead with the protest march and programmes in Hong Kong. In fact many of the international organisations and networks downsized the extent of their planned actions inside and outside the WTO Ministerial. Many of the protestors from Latin America and Africa cancelled their trip to Hong Kong. In spite of that, more than 20,000 people landed up in Hong Kong between December 11 and 15. Among them were high-profile trade negotiators, top corporate lobbyists, well-known global activists, and thousands of protestors, travelling abroad for the first time in their life.
The Hong Kong Convention centre, the twin towers with a capacity to absorb more than 10,000 people, the venue of the WTO Ministerial, is probably the most impressive of the WTO venues so far. There were around 5,800 official delegates representing the WTO member countries, 3,200 accredited mediapersons, and 2,200 representatives of accredited non-governmental and civil society organisations. While the largest delegation of around 800 was from the European Union, most of the least developed countries had less than 10 people, and many were represented by just one or two delegates. India had around 60 official delegates, around 50 journalists and around 30 representatives of accredited non-governmental organisations. As you entered the spacious convention centre, you could not fail to notice the key actors and sponsors of the drama. The well-designed and well-lit banner read ‘BMW wish you a very successful WTO Ministerial’, and next to that there was ‘Microsoft welcomes you’, and then you looked around to find the impressive brand-building banners of the official corporate sponsors, waiting for a miracle to happen, so that they can get more and better market access.
It was indeed a bit of a corporate playground as well, with well-trained representatives and lawyers from big transnational corporations very well-entrenched and embedded in the official delegations of USA, the European Union, Japan and other rich countries. But there were also significantly influential civil society representatives and policy analysts from very well-known international organisations and alliances among the official delegations from most of the developing countries. Then there were well-acclaimed WTO critics, activist-intellectuals like Dr Martin Khor, Prof Walden Bello and several others, responding , analysing and commenting on the process as well as the negotiations. In the Convention centre, there were protagonists, villains, side characters, supporting actors, cheerleaders, and jokers, getting into multiple performing roles of negotiation, argument, counter-argument, trump cards and all the tricks of the trade, ready for the performance. Then there were backroom actors writing and rewriting the policy nuances and negotiating points and the civil society policy analysts giving timely inputs to the official delegations from developing and poor countries. It was a repeat of Cancun.
The second part of the drama
However, the question was whether the Hong Kong Ministerial was a tragi-comedy or a farce. Outside the convention centre, a couple of miles away in Victoria Park, there were around 10,000 protestors all ready for the counter part of the play. They were the “badge-less people”, as one of my journalist friends described them, indicating that they had landed up only to protest, without official WTO badges. They had invited themselves to Hong Kong -- more than 1,500 Korean farmers, around 200 activists from India, 300 from Bangladesh, many hundreds from the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and so on. They were all ready with innovative means of protest and demonstration. Victoria Park reminded me of a mini World Social Forum meeting, people with hundreds of banners, colourful processions, music, song, dance and street theatre. Now it seems the WTO ministerial and the protest demonstrations are two parts of the same drama. It began with the unprecedented, post-modern global resistance and protest, using the latest of technologies, in Seattle, and continued in Cancun, with the Korean protest statements.
This time too the Korean farmers had a few surprises to offer. On December 13, in fact, they stole the thunder and the media was more focused on them than on the convention centre. Outside the sanitised and air-conditioned convention centre, thousands of migrant workers and representatives of the Hong Kong People’s Alliances joined the protest march along with thousands of activists from other parts of the world. The Hong Kong administration and police struggled to give a sense of democratic space or posturing, while doing everything to subvert, undermine or avoid the demonstrations. Intelligence agents and police tried to get as much information as possible from the Koreans. One police officer smilingly told me, “We do not mind Indians, as they are peaceful people.” (Whatever that means!). As expected, Korean farmers did their act well. As my colleague Adriano Campolina from Brazil was addressing the rally, the Korean farmers moved into an organised and well-orchestrated protest demonstration, surging forward, trying to break the police barricade. Police used teargas shells. But the Korean team was well-prepared with masks and solutions that could nullify the effects of teargas. They also responded with pepper sprays; the Hong Kong police was not prepared for that. As the attention of the police was directed at stopping thousands of surging demonstrators, many Korean activists jumped into the bay, swimming towards the tight security convention centre. They were all ready with life jackets, and as they swam towards the convention centre, the police did not know for a moment what to do. In the frenzy of activism, many from other countries including an activist from Bangladesh jumped into the bay, without any life jackets. Somehow the police managed to get into the water, offering life jackets to those who did not have any and getting others back on land.
Post-modern grassroots movement
The Korean farmers were well-organised and trained, moving with the discipline of an army, with music bands, drums, different dresses for different occasions, and a daily morning march in front of the photo of their leader who gave his life for the cause in Cancun. They never bothered to speak in English. Secret police tried their best to get as much information as possible. However, Korean farmers were ahead of the game. Whenever someone asked for information, they kept their real strategy of the day close to their chest, while giving away some information and some misinformation.
The fact of the matter is that there is a very vibrant grassroots democracy movement in South Korea, with well-organised farmers and student unions. In South Korea, one of the most successful newspapers, with a circulation of 1 million, is run by a cooperative run by journalists thrown out of the corporate newspapers. South Korea has the highest internet penetration in the world. And a journal dedicated to media watch has a circulation of more than 50,000. The farmers groups, NGOs and other civil society organisations have their own fundraising and financial resources and hence do not have to depend on international organisations or NGOs for funds. The South Korean grassroots democracy movement is a post-modern phenomenon. They use the latest technologies to reach out and break the barriers of the conventional media. They are decentralised and to some extend dispersed, but at the same time with substantial influence in the political process.
New smokescreens?
As the protest demonstration unfolded day after day, the negotiation drama was unfolding at the Hong Kong Convention centre. By the afternoon, the stories from the Green Room and the meetings trickled in through text messages, unofficial briefings at the Harbor Kitchen Restaurant and in the corridors of the media floor. By evening, small groups of press people, official delegates and NGO policy analysts from different countries exchanged notes. Around noon on Dec 15, we were told that there was a new formation of countries, the G 110, to block the pressure from USA, the European Union and Japan. Yes, this new rather fragile formation indicates the shape of things to come.
It was clear that the USA and European Union would find it difficult to persuade or bully poor countries into a deal for market access, with the promise of “phasing out” agricultural and cotton subsidies eventually. This time India seemed to be more confident and determined. Brazil was also well-prepared for the showdown if required. Deepak Patel, trade minister of Zambia, was one of the most eloquent actors in the process, leading the Least Developed Countries. When rich countries like USA started bullying tactics at the negotiations, he is reported to have had serious altercations with the chief negotiator of the USA. Even the development package with quota free market access and aid for trade proved nothing more than lip service. Without abolishing the cotton subsidies, even the so-called development package for the poor countries does not mean much. And aid for trade is like mixing milk and lime juice. In fact, the US Trade Representative announced that USA will increase the trade funding level to $2.7 billion by 2010. That is a bit of a joke when you consider that the US gives an estimated $25 billion every year in farm subsidies alone. Compare this with the so-called aid for trade of $2.7 billion by 2010! The aid is supposed to increase the ‘capacity’ of the poorer countries to negotiate in the WTO process. In a moment of candour, US Agricultural Secretary Mike Johanns admitted, “Trade capacity-building is a toll for opening markets”. That is why the development package increasingly looks like a new tactic to create smokescreens.
On December 16, the trade representative came up with another bullying tactic, saying that the US may consider taking its own route if this Doha round is not completed successfully. Then Venezuela, Indonesia, South Africa and the Philippines together challenged the Annexe C of the Draft Ministerial Declaration. In the afternoon, stories emerged of how the big US corporations were trying to persuade the US as well as EU to give some more subsidy “concessions” in exchange for market access to industrial goods and services. They also talked about India giving in at the last moment to possible concessions from the European Union. However, there was little excitement inside the Convention centre, as the story of the WTO negotiation was foretold.
Key marker of change
What was new about Hong Kong? After watching Seattle through to Hong Kong, and after being a part of the advocacy and lobbying team at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles and the UN Summit in New York 2005, I found three distinctive features about the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong. Firstly, this was the first time the poor people from the remote villages of India, Vietnam, Philippines and Cambodia actually participated in the protest. There were more dalit activists from India and the team from Tamil Nadu was well organised. Many of them were making their first trip out of their own villages and countries. Unlike other places, there was also a very well-coordinated effort between the Hong Kong People’s Alliances and other alliances and organisations across the world, primarily from Asia.
Secondly, Hong Kong was more participative. Women, particularly migrant workers from Hong Kong, were much more visible and active in the protest with ‘Women Against WTO’ banners everywhere. There was more convergence between the official delegations, press and NGOs both in terms of perspective, strategies and coordination from many countries. This time there were more linkages and networking between different sections of delegates from India.
Thirdly, this time there were many more social activists and journalists covering political issues, instead of an exclusive grouping of trade experts, policy analysts and enlightened NGO/academic activists as was the case at earlier ministerials.
But the key marker of change was that the WTO has moved beyond the mystified and privileged policy domains to the political domain of mass common sense. More than half a million poor people actively participated in the People’s Caravan for Food Rights and Sovereignty in the villages and slums of 12 countries, with direct outreach to more than 50 million poor people.
The Iraq war and the unprecedented show of unilateral military power has also helped to build public imagination about “powerful countries”, “less powerful countries” and “powerless countries” in a way that exposes the unequal and unjust power relations at play in the international arena. So it was much easier for the poor and common people to understand why powerful countries are using coercion as well as consensus-building to open up the markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while trying to destroy the small farmers in developing and least developed countries. Ordinary citizens and activists now know a thing or two about Green Boxes and Amber Boxes. For the first time politicians across the spectrum have begun to feel the heat and have started conceding that all is not well at the WTO. That is why Indian Member of Parliament Ramdas Athavale preferred to be with the dalit activists outside the Hong Kong Convention centre rather than inside. He walked along with CJ Kuttappan, a dalit folk singer from Tiruavalla in Kerala in a protest march organised by the People’s Caravan. That is why a couple of members of parliament from the Philippines, members of the official delegation, kept coming back to civil society activists and analysts for their feedback. That is also the reason Brazilian official delegates kept in constant touch with civil society activists and analysts to get their feedback. More than ever before, official delegations and trade ministers are aware that they may have to face the music back home if they are perceived to be selling the interests of the poor and common people in their own country. As the WTO discussions spill out of the ivory towers of policy onto the streets and slums, it will not be a smooth road for the Doha Round.
John Samuel is the International Director of ActionAid, one of the largest international development organisations, active in 50 countries across the world. He is also the co-chair of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty and Editor of InfoChange News & Features. |
