Bob Kolasky is the managing editor of IntellectualCapital.com. His e-mail address is bob@voxcap.com

It is already being dubbed the "Battle in Seattle" and the "Protest of the Century." Later this month, tens of thousands of frustrated citizens will converge on the Pacific Northwest, convinced that nothing less than the state of the globe is at stake. Call it the Million Activist March.

The root of discontent

Is the globe at stake in Seattle?

At first glance, the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) might seem an odd place for such an outcry, but once you scratch the surface, it makes perfect sense. It is the "largest trade event ever held in the United States," says Sam Kaplan of the Trade Development Alliance of Greater Seattle, who is helping coordinate the event, and it comes at a critical juncture along the world's -- and the United States' -- path to globalization. Trade policy may seem an esoteric issue, but when you consider the proposed agenda at the WTO meeting, it quickly becomes clear that there is nothing minor about what is at stake.

Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley explains why he is so insistent about reforming the campaign-finance system by making the case that without first reforming the system, it is almost impossible to enact any other significant policy reforms in Washington. That is a good analogy for those who are concerned with trade policy. Until the WTO, and, as an extension, the entire global trading system, is reformed or eliminated, critics argue that it is impossible to make significant gains on other policy areas of concern, including labor standards, the environment, e-commerce, agriculture, food safety, foreign policy and intellectual-property rights.

Whether one cares about protecting the rights of American musicians or keeping children from being exploited in sweatshops, these talks matter. There are also important issues at stake for those who would protect the forests, those who want explicit labels regarding biotechnology on their foods, those who want to keep the Internet from being taxed, and those who want the United States to maintain its share of blue-collar manufacturing and agricultural jobs.

It is a cliche to say we live in one world now, but cliches generally become such because they are true. U.S. policy is influenced by global policy, and the direction of the WTO goes far toward determining that global policy.

That explains why such a broad range of activists are converging on Seattle. One group leading protests is the International Forum on Globalization. Its goal, according to Shawnee Hoover, an event coordinator for the IFG "is a greater awareness of the WTO and a reassessment of the current direction of the WTO."

Zoe Whitney, a volunteer for the Direct Action Network, would take it one step further. Her organization is calling for a "festival of resistance" geared toward the WTO. "We don't need another oligarchy," says Whitney. She calls the WTO "a small group of men conducting secret meetings."

A modest agenda

It is tempting to say that the presence of so many protestors is the key story coming out of the ministerial, and it may be. But long after the activists leave the scene, the content of the talks still will resonate. "The media need to look beyond the slogans and the protests and examine the very difficult and serious issues that will be raised," Kaplan says.

In doing that, what the media are likely to find is a global trading authority rife with dissent. At the outset of the ministerial, which is meant as the formal launching point for the next round of talks among the global trading community -- a round that is likely to last at least until 2002 -- reaching an agreement on an agenda for the talks seems to be a tall order.

Will Clinton set the agenda?

As the host country and the world's leading economy, the United States would like to set the agenda. But it will have a tough time doing so. The protests in the street will remind the rest of the world of America's lack of trade-policy consensus.

The world knows that negotiators from the U.S. delegation only represent the Clinton administration, not Congress, which has failed to grant the president the fast-track trade authority necessary to implement trade pacts easily. Nor do they represent the American people. "Until we close ranks domestically, it is hard to see us taking any leadership," says Peter Morici, a senior fellow at the Economic Strategy Institute.

That fact has not, however, prevented the Clinton administration from crafting an agenda for the talks. It is calling for:

• Other countries to stop placing tariffs on American manufacturing, services and agriculture exports;

• The creation of expanded opportunity for American agriculture;

• Continued freedom in new industries of the future, which includes preventing tax burdens from being placed on e-commerce; and

• Improved labor and environmental standards around the world.

Greg Mastel, director of the Global Economic Policy Project at the New America Foundation, describes the agenda as "relatively modest."

That does not necessarily sit well with the rest of the world. "The talks will likely be broader than the proposed agenda by the [United States]," says Jeffrey Schott, of the Institute for International Economics.

The rest of the world is coming to Seattle with its own agenda. The European Union, among other aims, wants to protect its ability to subsidize European agriculture and to try to establish some sort of standard for labeling genetically modified foods. Meanwhile, Asian countries hope to ease anti-dumping laws to make it easier for Asian businesses to unload a wide range of products on the market. And the primary aim of representatives from developing nations is to ensure that they are protected from the most stringent global rules -- including strong labor standards.

"It is going to be hard to get the developing countries to join in," Mastel says. "They feel like labor protections will rob them of their comparative advantage."

"Our trading partners are talking about a lot of rolling back of the capabilities of the WTO," Morici says. He fears that this will force the institution in the wrong direction. "Are we talking the Millennial Round or the Mercantilist Round?"

The climate in Seattle

So in many ways, it is a global trading regime in disarray coming to Seattle, and the very public protests, which are likely to capture the lion's share of media attention, only will serve to reinforce that image.

The protests will, although not exclusively, largely center around the twin issues of labor rights and environmental protection. And powerful non-government organizations (NGOs) such as the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth, The Sierra Club and Public Citizen will dominate the proceedings.

The AFL-CIO plans a march through Seattle. IFG plans a teach-in for at least 2,500 people to explain the dangers of the WTO. The Direct Action Network plans to put on street theater and puppet shows because, as Whitney explains, "The WTO is a puppet organization." There has been a call for a citywide walkout on the first day of the talks, with Seattleites not attending work or school in protest.

Schott largely dismisses the protests. "They may well create some headlines and cause headaches among those who have to deal with the weather in the Northwest," he says, "but they are not going to undermine government positions,"

Still, it is hard to imagine this meeting in Seattle as the ideal climate to advance globalization. The member countries of the WTO are entering the launch of the Millennial Round with a wide difference of priorities, lacking clear-cut U.S. leadership capable of making the case for globalization and amidst a culture of protest by a united army of powerful NGOs.

"The protests on the street are concrete demonstrations that more than ever, consensus on trade policies is eroding," Mastel explains. Events in the meeting halls are likely to do nothing to change that perception.