On the morning of November 30, 1999, trade ministers from around the world tried to reach the Paramount Theatre in downtown Seattle for the opening of a World Trade Organization conference. Many never got there. Thousands of protesters had moved into the streets and linked arms with each other across intersections, aiming to shut down the WTO meeting, and the opening ceremony was canceled shortly before 1 p.m. The four days that followed became known as the Battle of Seattle, or “N30” after the first day of action.
For an hour-by-hour account of the Battle of Seattle, see our timeline of the WTO protests in Seattle.
What was the Battle of Seattle?
The name refers to the street protests around the WTO’s Third Ministerial Conference, held in Seattle from November 30 to December 3, 1999. Officials from the WTO’s 135 member countries came to launch a new round of international trade negotiations.
Protest groups in Seattle and other cities had prepared for months. Crowd estimates for November 30 run to 40,000 or more, one of the largest political protests Seattle had seen.
Why did people protest the WTO in 1999?
The World Trade Organization was founded in 1995 as the successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Its rules covered services, intellectual property and agriculture, and its dispute panels could rule that national laws violated trade agreements. That power drove much of the 1990s free trade debate.
Critics of the WTO raised several other objections, each with their own constituency:
- Labor: Unions such as the Teamsters and the United Steelworkers wanted enforceable labor standards in trade rules and worried about their members’ jobs moving to lower-wage countries.
- Environment: Environmental groups objected when national rules were challenged as trade barriers. A WTO ruling against U.S. limits on shrimp caught in ways that kill endangered sea turtles explains why many marchers wore turtle costumes.
- Food and consumers: A WTO ruling against the European Union’s ban on beef from cattle treated with growth hormones upset food safety advocates.
- Democracy: Critics described the WTO as secretive and said closed-door panels could override laws passed by elected governments.
- Developing countries: Small farmers’ groups argued that the rules favored multinational companies over local producers.
Supporters of free trade, including trade economists, many governments and companies, argued that lower tariffs and shared rules spur growth, create jobs and reduce poverty, especially in developing countries. In Washington State, which depends on exports more than most of the U.S., Governor Gary Locke and most local leaders backed hosting the conference, and exporters such as Boeing and Microsoft helped sponsor it. President Bill Clinton supported the WTO but urged it to take up workers’ and environmental concerns.
Who took part in the protests?
The protesters formed a loose coalition with different goals and tactics.
| Group | Main concern | Tactic in Seattle |
|---|---|---|
| Labor unions (AFL-CIO, Teamsters, Steelworkers) | Jobs, labor standards | Permitted rally at Memorial Stadium and march downtown |
| Environmental and consumer groups | Environmental and food safety rules | Marches, the “turtle” contingent |
| Direct Action Network (DAN) | Stopping the conference itself | Nonviolent blockades of downtown intersections |
| Anarchists in a black bloc (about 100 to 200 people) | Anarchist critique of corporations and the state | Property damage, not part of DAN |
| NGOs, students, faith groups (e.g. Global Exchange, Jubilee 2000) | Debt relief, global fairness | Rallies, lobbying, street presence |
On November 30, up to 10,000 people blocked streets around the Paramount and the convention center, the Washington State Convention and Trade Center. The AFL-CIO rally at Seattle Center drew tens of thousands, and more than 35,000 marched into the downtown area afterward.
The Direct Action Network trained its blockaders in nonviolent civil disobedience and banned property damage in its guidelines. For the ideas behind that approach, see Walter Wink’s “third way” of active nonviolence. A separate group of anarchists in a black bloc broke store windows during the morning and spray-painted downtown businesses.
What did the police, the city and the state do?
On the first morning, Seattle police could not clear the blockades and began using tear gas and pepper spray from about 10 a.m., first at 6th Avenue and Union Street. At 3:30 p.m. on November 30, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell declared a state of emergency and set a 7 p.m. curfew for much of downtown. Governor Locke called in the National Guard and state troopers.
After President Clinton arrived, a second order from Mayor Schell on December 1 created a “no protest zone” of about 25 downtown blocks for the rest of the conference. More than 500 people were jailed that day. That evening, police and crowds clashed on Capitol Hill, where residents of the neighborhood were also exposed to tear gas. From December 2, police largely stopped using gas and rubber bullets, and the remaining protests were mostly peaceful.
Afterward, the Seattle City Council ratified the emergency orders and set up a WTO Accountability Review Committee to investigate. The Seattle police department’s own After Action Report, an outside consultant’s review and a 95-page ACLU of Washington report all examined the response. According to the Seattle Municipal Archives, the committee issued a report naming specific measures to prevent similar episodes. All reviews agreed that Seattle and its police were under-prepared. The ACLU concluded that the city then “over-reacted,” and both the ACLU and the Council found that chemical irritants hit peaceful protesters and bystanders.
City officials said they faced crowds and damage on a scale they had not anticipated. Downtown merchants estimated about $2.5 million in property damage and $17 million in lost sales. Seattle spent $9.3 million on security against a $6 million budget. Police Chief Norm Stamper announced his retirement within days, and Mayor Schell lost the 2001 primary, in part because of the WTO fallout, according to HistoryLink.
How many people were arrested, and what did the courts decide?
Police made 68 arrests on November 30 and more than 500 on December 1. Prosecutors dropped charges against almost all of them within weeks. The court cases ran until 2007:
- 2004: Seattle paid $250,000 to 157 people arrested outside the no-protest zone, without admitting fault.
- 2005: The federal appeals court for the Ninth Circuit held that the no-protest zone was constitutional as written but allowed claims about how it was enforced.
- 2007: A federal jury found the city liable for violating the Fourth Amendment rights of a class of about 175 to 200 people arrested at Westlake Park. The city’s insurer then settled for $1 million, and the city agreed to seal the arrest records and improve police training.
In all, settlements from the WTO week came to nearly $2 million.
What came out of the trade talks?
The WTO conference ended on December 3 without the planned ministerial declaration. Accounts differ on how much the street protests mattered. HistoryLink attributes the collapse mainly to a dispute between the United States and the European Union over farm subsidies. Many developing-country delegations also objected to “green room” talks among a small group of countries, and some threatened to withhold consensus. The chair, U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky, suspended the WTO conference. Two years later, in November 2001, ministers launched the new round in Doha, Qatar.
What is the legacy of the Battle of Seattle?
The Seattle WTO protests became a reference point for what is often called the global justice or alter-globalization movement. Large protests followed at later summits, such as the IMF and World Bank meeting in Prague in 2000 and the G8 in Genoa in 2001. Activists also set up the first Independent Media Center in a donated Seattle storefront. Its open publishing site, Indymedia, went online days before the conference and later spread worldwide.
For protest policing, Seattle became a case study in planning, mass arrests and tear gas. The trade arguments never settled. Supporters point to growth in trading economies since 1999, while critics point to job losses in manufacturing regions and to the environmental questions the protesters raised. Some critics of corporate globalization have since turned to local alternatives, such as building a stronger local economy.
Frequently asked questions
What does N30 mean?
N30 stands for November 30, 1999, the global day of action against the WTO meeting, promoted by networks such as People’s Global Action.
Was the Battle of Seattle a riot?
Descriptions differ. City officials declared an emergency, while the ACLU of Washington called the protests “noisy and disruptive” but not a riot. Most property damage is attributed to a few hundred people at most.
Did the protesters succeed?
They disrupted the opening day, and the talks ended without agreement. Whether the protests caused that outcome is debated, since the delegations were divided too.
Sources
- Seattle Municipal Archives: World Trade Organization Protests in Seattle
- HistoryLink: WTO Meeting and Protests in Seattle (1999), Part 1
- HistoryLink: WTO Meeting and Protests in Seattle (1999), Part 2
- ACLU: Report Says Response to Seattle WTO Protests Was 'Flawed, Out of Control'
- WTO: Statement by Director-General Mike Moore after the Seattle Ministerial (7 December 1999)