Don't Alienate Anti-WTO Allies

I'm an avid subscriber to the Militant for years, but I feel uncomfortable with this wide swing the paper is taking against the active political opponents of the WTO (World Trade Organization). Although the "America First" crowd is certainly one of the significant tendencies participating in the mobilization of tens of thousands of anti-WTO protesters expected in Seattle over the weekend, they are by no means the only ones.

The Militant seems to be portraying all the opposition as war hawks against China or crass U.S. patriots or dupes of the politicians championing those reactionary positions like ultrarightist Patrick Buchanan and bureaucratic leading members of the labor officialdom like James Hoffa, Jr., of the Teamsters. Surely this element of the opposition is necessary to be aware of and counteract as effectively as possible, but other elements are in full or near full agreement with the Militant's editorial position itself.

Many are outspokenly hostile to the role of U.S. corporations or the U.S. government in the Third World and are going there to protest the U.S. capitalist class seeking to advance its imperialist and neocolonial interests through the vehicle of the WTO.

Environmental concerns are being championed against the world's national ruling classes in these protests- i.e., placing demands on rather than appealing to "their own bourgeoisie" for the solution, in effect shouting, "You can't hide your waste dumping in a WTO smokescreen."

Similarly, many human rights protesters are not simply China bashing or taking up a "white man's burden" approach to Third World peoples, but are demanding that the WTO not be used to mask in "diplomacy" agreements between the US imperialists and Third World governments that compromise living conditions for millions of the world's toilers.

Not all labor protesters are simply for "protecting American jobs" or harassing Mexican truckers; many would prefer parity in job conditions across the planet and are instead opposing WTO complicity in establishing exploitative "sweatshop" conditions or suppressing union movements.

Plenty see the WTO primarily as a symbol of capitalist aggression and would agree with the Militant that the WTO is just an "arena" short of war for the big imperial powers to resolve trade and other conflicts. No doubt there are those, too, who would join with the Militant's slogan of "abolish the WTO."

These positions and tendencies do not seem a mere "progressive veneer" on capitalism or national ruling class interests. They are also not necessarily revolutionary stances, since many forces would advocate a reformed "progressive" WTO, overlooking its inherent nature as a tool of the capitalist class like any other similar pseudo-international quasi-organization, including NATO.

Yet if teams from the Militant are out in Seattle to discuss the nature of the WTO and the international political priorities for the working class today, they should not be alienating themselves from the protesters or portraying them to workers and students as definitive class enemies.

Allies may not be particularly correct or adept in their analysis, and they are by no means above criticism, but they are allies nevertheless and do not warrant being lumped in categorically with incipient fascists and jingoists of many stripes.

Brian Miller 
Union City, New Jersey 
 
 
The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of general interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home