Since the end of World War II government officials have gathered every few years to talk about trade. These meetings were usually small gatherings that focused on highly technical matters related to reducing trade barriers. Generally ignored by the media and an uninterested public, the conferees quietly discussed ways to reduce trade barriers between nations and returned to their homes. When representatives to the World Trade Organization gathered in Seattle in December 1999, things were quite different.

There were representatives from the 135 member countries, numerous observer countries, and members of the world media. They were there to discuss trade issues. Critics wanted them to talk about their decision-making process, food safety, endangered species, child labor, cultural influences, or human rights. WTO, members had not yet decided on an agenda. Outside, 40,000 people gathered to protest what they saw as the trade organization's role in harm ing the environment, supporting inhumane working conditions, undermining national sovereignty, and protecting huge multinational corporations.

The protesters represented every conceivable group including steelworkers and Teamsters, supporters of animal rights and human rights, Amnesty International and Greenpeace, environmentalists, Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, makers of Roquefort cheese, radicals, conservatives, anarchists, fans of a Free Tibet, students against sweatshops, and local residents. Obviously, the days of small, quiet gatherings for technical trade talks were a thing of the past.

Over the last decade or two there has been a fundamental change from national economies and trade to the beginnings of an integrated global economy. In recent years this phenomenon has become more visible as the WTO developed and applied rules for nations to follow in conducting trade. Furthermore, the WTO has been effective in instituting rules and settling disputes and, for the most part, member nations have respected these decisions.

In Seattle, some protesters wanted to disband the WTO. Others, however, wanted rules that would address issues related to environmental protection, human rights, and labor rights. Some wanted no rules, others wanted more rules. And most wanted greater openness and representation on how the WTO makes its decisions. As a result of their protests, and the failure of member nations to agree on an agenda, little was accomplished.

The protesters have made their point. Many believe that the WTO needs to consider the issues brought forth in Seattle as well as trade issues. In the future, the WTO will continue to resolve old-type trade issues such as agricultural subsidies and quotas. These disputes are technically easy but politically difficult to resolve. More troublesome will be new, non-trade issues having to do with standards for the environment, labor and human rights. What powers of governance are we willing to allow an international organization? A worldwide answer to this will not be easy to produce, nor is it likely to emerge soon.

Tedd Levy, a former Social Studies teacher in Norwalk, CT is an educational consultant and freelance writer. He has been named recently to the Board of Directors of the American Forum.