AFTA DELEGATES ENGAGE PROTESTERS
by John Baldridge Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:50 PM
wrkrcoop@email.arizona.edu 520-313-0954

An account of delegate-demonstrator interactions on Monday, 30 Nov 2004, and Friday, 3 Dec 2004. The article includes description of delegate-demonstrator dialog, but also a commentary advocating a two-pronged action/engagement approach to anti-"free" trade activisim.

protesters.jpgjscupw.jpg, image/jpeg, 300x455

AFTA DELEGATES ENGAGE PROTESTERS

Monday, 30 November 2004

At the TCC protests of the AFTA negotioations, I was party to an important dialog betweeen one of the AFTA delegates and one of the anti-AFTA protesers. One of the Peruvian delegates debated with one of the anti-AFTA protesters face-to-face, and thus revealed his own human face as we struggled to make our messsage heard.

"Are you from Peru?" asked the middle-aged delegate to the protester.

"No," said the young man holding the sign.

"Do you know any Peruvians?" asked the Peruvian AFTA delegate.

"Not personally," answered the young protester.

The AFTA delegate then proceeded to lecture the demonstrator, and all of us in earshot, proclaiming that this protester could "not speak for the Peruvian people," and exhorting him to go home and let the "representatives of the Peruvian people" handle the negotiations without interference. The delegate left without addressing the questions of other nearby protesters, including one who asked him, "Do you speak for all of your people?"

The importance of this exchange should not be ignored, as it indicates, first and foremost, a willingness of these trade delegates to engage in dialog with peaceful demonstrators. Despite this delegate's unwillingness to answer questions, he at least took the first step of engaging in direct communication. In future exchanges, it may be possible for protesters to widen the conversation and make their voices heard without the often stifling intermediaries of mass media.

Second, the nature of the delegate's comments highlights an elitist nationalist perspective which must be addressed by "free trade" critics. Even as the delegate insisted that non-Peruvian voices had no place in the negotiations, he himself had joined delegates from Colombia, Ecuador, and the United States to hammer out plans for major economic policy changes. This delegate's willingness to accept Jim Kolbe (Congressman, Arizona) as a legitimate voice, while rejecting the voices of American anti-AFTA protesters, points directly to the question of access--who is permitted to participate in economic planning, and who is not.

Friday, 3 December 2004

Following the Friday action at the Marriott hotel, where over a hundred demonstrators gathered, spoke, and held signs in protest of the AFTA negotiations, dozens of marchers walked to the Tucson Convention Center. Again, we discovered that delegates were willing to engage in dialog, and the group looked on as a delegate from Colombia spent about fifteen minutes debating and discussing the economic plan with several protesters in the crowd. While the delegate insisted that the agreement was necessary to avoid tariffs, and that the agreement would create well-paying jobs, the protesters countered with reminders that the example of NAFTA shows that the jobs would likely be short term and in sweatshop-like environments. The delegate also assured us that workers' rights were being considered, and that they would receive better than average benefits as a result. Demonstrators suggested that a better arrangement would guarantee benefits for all workers--not just those at export factories--and that labor unions were not receiving adequate protection. During the conversation, one protester was able to enter the meeting room outside of which we were gathered and post an anti-AFTA sign, visible to the delegates within. She was soon ejected, and her sign returned, after she was outside.

Encouraged by the willingness of the Colombian delegate to speak with us, I broke away from the main group and sought out delegates as they left the Convention Center and walked to conference rooms at the Radisson hotel. I was able to speak with a handful of delegates from various Andean countries, and most of them were open to a brief conversation. Each of them had their own take on the negotiations.

One delegate, with whom I spoke in Spanish, said the negotiations were going slowly. Another echoed this sentiment, and spoke with me at greater length. When I brought up the issue of workers' rights to organize and receive fair pay, this delegate claimed that he was not part of the "political negotiations," but was working on more "technical issues" of hygiene and waste management. When asked, he confirmed that the AFTA negotiations were broken down into a number of interest groups, each of which had separate tasks to undertake. He acknowledged that the political issues surrounding workers' rights were "very sensitive" and that strong opinions were being exchanged.

Another delegate, from Colombia, with whom I spoke was working in the special interest group focusing on intellectual property rights. I asked him about the patenting of biological organisms, and the potential for American corporations to either buy out existing patents on plants, or gain possession of other heretofore non-patented indigenous plants. His only response, before he broke away and went into the conference room, was that Colombia had allowed the patenting of living organisms for years. He did not address the questions of patent acquisition and its effects on local farmers and indigenous peoples.

My attempts at conversation outside the conference room were cut short, however, by the arrival of a Radisson hotel manager who first addressed me by saying, "please don't" as I attempted to engage yet another delegate in dialog. While I explained to the hotel manager that, if delegates wanted to talk to me, they were free to do so, the manager implied that he, and the hotel, would only permit communication between demonstrators and delegates off the hotel property.

The Tucson Police

Despite a history of violence in response to large protests, the Tucson Police Department displayed very little overt force in response to the anti-AFTA gatherings. It is unclear whether citizen outcry following the wounding of several peaceful anti-war protesters on November 3, 2004 had an influence on their policy at this rally, or whether the relatively small size of the peaceful group simply reduced police anxiety about crowd control. While the police maintained a presence, it was a light display of force, and the demonstrators were able to make face-to-face contact with trade delegates and engage in direct debate. There were no arrests, and I witnessed no attempts by police to interfere with the delegate-demonstrator dialog. Whether this low-profile presence will be maintained in the future during other, larger scale actions remains to be seen.

Commentary: The Future of Dissent

While direct action has proven a powerful way to reveal oppressive tendencies in government and a critical element in speaking truth to power, this meeting has taught us another lesson: the smaller scope of regional trade agreements gives dissenters the option of engaging decision makers directly. Let there be no mistake, mind you: our voices are not privileged. Let us also remember that a few minutes on the street do not amount to any real representation in the trade negotiations. However, the example of the Tucson AFTA talks shows that it is possible to open the door to some grassroots influence on the delegates, personally.

What if, at the next round of talks, a few articulate representatives of the resistance, well-briefed on facts and prepared for debate, joined a group of delegates for lunch in the hotel restaurant? What if, in every town where these smaller scale economic negotiations are held, local dissenters were able to insert themselves into the discussion in some substantive way? Local groups could demand that, as part of the social mechanics of holding these negotiations in their town, local voices must be heard in both the opening remarks of the meeting, but also in the negotiations themselves, perhaps with "observer" status, or some other label which would allow us access to these meetings. Naturally, the counterweight of direct action would add the leverage to make this possible.

In politics, as in business, a lot of positions are formed during informal meetings. We might not be able to successfully undermine government-given guidelines under which negotiators operate, but we might be able to give sympathetic delegates the words and wherewithal to add some of our objections to the agenda. While direct action is still required, the potential of direct engagement must not be overlooked.

John Baldridge Tucson, Arizona

John Baldridge likes Irish music, irreverent humor, social justice, and is a graduate student in geography at the University of Arizona.

add your comments

see caption
by John Baldridge Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:50 PM
wrkrcoop@email.arizona.edu 520-313-0954

protesters2.jpgkibjwo.jpg, image/jpeg, 300x199

add your comments

see caption
by John Baldridge Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:50 PM
wrkrcoop@email.arizona.edu 520-313-0954

protesters3.jpguqput6.jpg, image/jpeg, 300x220

add your comments

see caption
by John Baldridge Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:50 PM
wrkrcoop@email.arizona.edu 520-313-0954

cops.jpgyrv7mb.jpg, image/jpeg, 300x240

add your comments

see caption
by John Baldridge Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:50 PM
wrkrcoop@email.arizona.edu 520-313-0954

peru_delegate.jpg0jdhaz.jpg, image/jpeg, 300x220

add your comments

see caption
by John Baldridge Friday, Dec. 03, 2004 at 6:50 PM
wrkrcoop@email.arizona.edu 520-313-0954

speaker.jpgbpgovo.jpg, image/jpeg, 300x250

add your comments