What you are seeing, Mr. Pettigrew, is the desire to stop you from
having *exclusive* meetings. It is a demand for an *inclusive* style
of government, where each person has their opinions and choices given
equal weight by the decision making process and the ability to take
part directly in that process. The sentiment is against meetings held
behind closed doors where rulers make policy decisions in secret that
will directly affect vast proportion of the earth's population with
apparent complete disregard for their welfare.

There is an article just produced by the Canadian Press entitled
"Pettigrew criticizes globalization protestors". Though it is included
completely herein, with commentary, for reference, it can be found at:

http://www.canada.com/montreal/story.asp?id=08CBA75D-9BED-46BF-A34D-5AC9...

> The stubborn opposition to globalization by some protesters
> is only hurting poor people in developing countries,
> International Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew said Friday,
> prior to a three-day World Trade Organization meeting that
> begins Monday in Montreal.

It is abundantly clear from virtually all of the writings of activists
that may be found on the internet, that the activist community is not
interested in "hurting the poor people in developing countries". A
keyword search on the Web with the terms "activist", "poor",
"developing countries" should suffice to convince those skeptical on
this point.

Further, there are people living in poverty in this very country as
well, albeit rarely as extreme as in many "developing" countries. And
there exist groups of anti-WTO activists made up of these very people.
There are also groups of activists in "developing" countries that take
a similar position with respect to the activities of the WTO and
related organizations and the manner in which those activities are
carried out.

It is absurd to suggest that these people are attempting to worsen
their own situation. If the argument is that they are simply
misguided, that they misunderstand their own situation, then that
should be taken as a sign that they should be included -- directly --
in the processes that determines the future evolution of their
situation. That way, perhaps they will understand their own
circumstances better.

It is not enough to simply say, "trust us, we know better."

> "If they want to stop us, fine, good luck," Pettigrew told
> a news conference.

What you are seeing, Mr. Pettigrew, is the desire to stop you from
having *exclusive* meetings. It is a demand for an *inclusive* style
of government, where each person has their opinions and choices given
equal weight by the decision making process and the ability to take
part directly in that process. The sentiment is against meetings held
behind closed doors where rulers make policy decisions in secret that
will directly affect vast proportion of the earth's population with
apparent complete disregard for their welfare.

> "I tell you that we have very impressive security," he said
> of the WTO meeting.
>
> "I trust the police of Montreal but they (protesters) bear
> the responsibility that what they're trying to do is really
> to screw the African cotton farmers and the African HIV
> victims as well," Pettigrew said.

The mind boggles. Do you really think that anybody is attempting to
screw cotton farmers and HIV victims in Africa? Please, find
someone in the crowd that seriously advocates this.

It is unlikely that the organizers of the WTO meetings will make
available so much as (1) a complete list of the issues being tabled at
the meeting and (2) the positions taken by each of the parties
involved on each of the issues, let alone a transcript. If such
materials were made available, perhaps the activists would realize
their error. The fact that they are not made available supports the
criticism of lack of democracy of the meetings. Not only are the
people not allowed to participate in the negotiations, they are
not even told what has happened.

On the other hand the market capitalization of Glaxo-Smith-Kline --
the makers of AZT, a prominent but controversial AIDS drug -- is
"greater than the GDP of 143 of the world's nations." [1] Yet their
repeated and strong assertions of their intellectual property claims
maintains the price of this drug at an unmanageably high level. This
is hardly fair behaviour towards sub-Saharan Africa which is in
desparate need of an "inflow of aid, debt forgiveness and a fairer
trading environment" [2].

The plight of these people is far more important than the ability of
the already immensely profitable pharmaceutical industry to enrich
themselves further. The rejection of capitalism that you will find
among many anti-WTO activists has something to do with this sort of
behaviour.

Contrary to popular belief, many activists are not against trade. They
are against unfair trade, where, for example, artificial scarcity is
introduced by way of intellectual property claims such that profits
and misery are both maximized.

One is hard pressed to find anti-WTO activists making claims of
ownership of intellectual property. They are not the ones inflating
the price of medicine, nor are they lining their pockets.

> Monday's meeting will include representatives of 26
> countries who will discuss trade issues before a full-scale
> World Trade Organization meeting this fall in Cancun,
> Mexico.
>
> Pettigrew said the Montreal meeting is important to help
> participants continue to address disagreements on
> agricultural subsidies, trade barriers and pharmaceutical
> drugs.

Yet the fact that there exist groups of activists that focus on these
specific issues goes unmentioned. That they are in general well
informed and might even have something to contribute to the matter can
be dismissed out of hand, right?

> He said he welcomes the initiative of anti-globalization
> protesters outside North America who seek alternatives and
> trade improvements.

So the initiaves for alternatives and trade improvements that North
American activists seek are not welcome? In fact, North American
activists work in concert and solidarity with their counterparts on
other continents.

> Pettigrew said there will always be opposition to change as
> there was with the Industrial Revolution and the
> introduction of the telephone. "It's a normal reflex
> against change."

The argument is not against change per se. Things change. Things
always change.

Anti-WTO activists are actually attempting to *effect* change. They
are profoundly dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, and the
perception is that the activities of the WTO and related institutions
are perpetuating, even worsening the situation.

If this perception is inaccurate, what better way to show that than by
exposing the WTO meetings to the clear light of day and public
scrutiny.

Incidentally, there are instructive parallels to the introduction of
the telephone and the introduction of the Internet. The latter is a
technology that has brought great change and of which anti-WTO
activists have made extensive use.

> Protesters said Friday they have plans to "disrupt and shut
> down" the Montreal meeting.
>
> The group, which calls itself the Popular Mobilization
> Against the WTO, said in a news release it considers the WTO
> to be anti-democratic.
>
> It said the meeting is another "capitalist mascarade that
> will further aggravate the already unacceptable and
> disastrous consequences of extreme poverty, war, misery, and
> famine.

Mr. Pettigrew, you also are presumably against poverty, war, misery
and famine. Clearly this group has been duped into believing that
you're not on the same side. One would think that if you adopted, a
more inclusive methodology you might be able to demonstrate with your
actions that they in fact are wrong.

The activist movement is noteable for its inclusiveness. Everyone is
welcome. Perhaps you should take your cue from them. Perhaps they are
not so misguided after all.

LB

--
References:

[1] http://www.duke.edu/web/mms190/team2/industry.htm
{2} http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/know_that.html