The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond

By Stuart Townsend, AlterNet. Posted September 18, 2008.

How do we create meaningful protest?

What does it take to create real and meaningful change in the 21st
century? We hear an awful lot about it. The political conventions from
which I and so many others are still recovering from were chock full
of promises that being an optimist, I am inclined to believe. Is it
sheer numbers, rhetoric, commitment or is it simply the case of an
idea whose time has come that is the real catalyst for change? I have
spent the better part of the last decade and the entirety of the last
two weeks asking myself that question.

In 1999 fifty thousand people, mostly Americans, from all walks of
life, marched on the streets of Seattle protesting the policies of the
World Trade Organization. The event was dubbed the "Battle in Seattle"
and its organizers were clear in their mission -- to shut the talks
down and focus the world's attention on policies that were in fact
harming the poor, the sick, and the environment. After the world's
attention shifted, I felt there was still more of a story to tell. How
did David truly slay Goliath?

The hierarchical top-down nature of the Seattle administration was
defeated from the start by a decentralized bottom-up foe, which had
spent six months organizing using a variety of tools including the
relatively new Internet. After the riot-dust had settled, the Rand
corporation, a conservative Think Tank, was commissioned to do a
tactical study of how the police were outsmarted. The book was known
as Networks and Netwars and gave me, as a filmmaker, an insight into a
Mayor, a police chief, and a Governor who were supremely ambushed by
the leaderless consensus-based decision making of the activists, and
then took a large shovel and began to dig themselves further into a
nice giant hole.

In Denver and Minneapolis I watched as a coalition of veterans,
students, activists and others stage a pair of anti-war rallies. In
both cities, there were spirited speeches, and an energy in the air.
It felt good to be participating and witnessing passionate activism
but when I looked around and saw the concrete barriers that hemmed the
protesters in and the hundreds of riot police caressing their
non-lethal weapons I had to wonder if we were shouting a slogan or
asking a serious, legitimate question, without knowing it. Once at the
convention center, the demonstrators gave more impassioned speeches,
and then it was over. "Mission accomplished" as the President would
say.

But I was left with that big gaping question: what was the point?! Was
anyone listening?

In Seattle as you see in my film, there was a clear tactical objective
to shut something down. There was an inside/outside strategy that
achieved its goal and crippled the talks by the end of the week.
Organizers agitated from inside the talks while the demonstrators
outside brought the corporate-led agenda of the WTO to the world's
attention. Meanwhile tens of thousands of labor union marchers
disobeyed orders to follow they're designated march route and joined
the action downtown causing even more unexpected headaches for
authorities.

What is the meaning of protest besides using your voice to draw
attention to an issue -- or is it simply to do just that? Does protest
now need to move to the next level to be more effective, like police
tactics have, while still maintaining a non-violent approach? Should
protest only be about highlighting an issue or should it be about
forcing an issue?

Seattle was the first major mass mobilization on the streets of
America since the democratic convention riots of 1968. But since those
pre-millennium days in '99, demonstrations have increased dramatically
worldwide.

On the night of John Mc Cain's speech an Iraq War Veteran managed to
sneak inside the convention center and display a sign that said
"McCain Votes Against Vets". All Republican eyes were drawn to this
single voice of dissent, and most media outlets played the clip of the
veteran holding up his sign and McCain appearing flustered for a
moment. The crowd began chanting "USA, USA" to drown out this singular
voice in the stands, who ironically had done more for the USA than
most. McCain then regained his footing by joking with the crowd to
ignore the static. But by that stage the point was made.

One individual took the spotlight for a moment at an event where the
world was watching. He did it because he was tactical about his
protest, deciding to infiltrate and subvert a carefully coordinated
speech.

With an overwhelming police force ready to crush dissent at a moment's
notice it may be time for new strategies to unfold where protesters
issues are forced to be acknowledged by those that have the power to
make the necessary changes.

One simple thing everyone can do to take action in the next few months
would be to vote for an administration that might begin to listen to
its citizens. The first thing it should do to make sure those voices
are heard is to focus on dismantling the rampant media consolidation
where four corporations own fifty percent of U.S. media. Maybe then
the news might begin to cover the issues in depth and begin asking the
questions that need to be so urgently answered.

Here's a clip from Battle In Seattle:

Video: http://www.alternet.org/movies/99439/

Stuart Townsend is the writer and director of Battle in Seattle.