By Chris Stetkiewicz
SEATTLE, April 13 (Reuters) - A new breed of activist born in Seattle last year has changed the rules of engagement in the running battle to keep corporations and governments focused on human rights and the environment, not just profits.
Police grappling with activists threatening to shut down International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings this week in Washington face crowds energised by a wildly successful protest against unfettered free trade in Seattle in December 1999.
Environmental and labour activists said they put aside decades-old differences and claimed more victories in the U.S. Northwest recently, vowing to keep pressuring corporations and governments to stop ravaging the planet and its work force.
Last week a band of environmentalists worked with truckers and longshoremen to keep a load of PCB-laden military waste out of Seattle and this week Starbucks Corp. (NasdaqNM) agreed to a deal that could triple wages for thousands of coffee farmers.
``Now we cooperate rather than fight over these things,'' said Cliff Caton, an organiser for the Alliance For Sustainable Jobs and the Environment.
``Environmentalists have a lot of heart and drive, but sometimes lack organisation. That's where labour has been able to help them,'' added Caton, a steelworker locked out by Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (NYSE) since Jan. 14, 1999.
BATTLE OF SEATTLE REVISITED
An assembly of tens of thousands dodged rubber bullets and tear gas to block Seattle streets and disrupt a World Trade Organisation (WTO) conclave in December 1999.
The unprecedented success of that protest, alleging the WTO weakens global environmental and labour protection, galvanised activists and may have boosted donations, ensuring major confrontations will follow the ``Battle in Seattle.''
``This week is one more demonstration that the roots of what happened in Seattle go deep,'' David Schorr, director of sustainable commerce at the World Wildlife Fund, said of the IMF protests. ``Seattle definitely gave us a boost. This is not just a fad.''
Corporations like Nike Inc. (NYSE), which saw its Seattle Niketown store looted as the WTO protest devolved into riots, have tried to address the protesters' concerns.
Nike claims it checks on its Asian sneaker assembly plants, run by independent contractors, to ensure safe conditions and above average local wages. Critics say the effort falls short.
Big companies should engage activists, said Gardner Peckham, a managing director at Washington-based consultancy Black, Kelly, Scruggs and Healey, who compiled a list of more than 50 groups at the WTO protests.
``These groups are building a lot of momentum going forward. We are suggesting that our clients ought to establish a dialogue with the activists, though not all groups are interested in a dialogue,'' Peckham said.
World Bank President James Wolfensohn on Wednesday said he was ``demoralized'' by the protests and defended policies that encourage growth and financial reforms in developing nations.
Protesters say the bank spreads poverty and stunts environmental protections by loading struggling nations with debt to fund dams and other construction projects.
MENDING OLD FENCES
Labour groups once resented environmentalist efforts to reduce logging or certain types of coal mining. But traditional fears of job losses are yielding to a strength-in-numbers approach.
``Environmentalists were perceived as job thieves in the past. The argument that you can either have a job or you can have the environment -- large corporations have perpetuated that myth for 50 years,'' Caton said.
Activists have found common ground in trade deals, jointly fighting for labour and environmental safeguards as the United States entered the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada in 1994.
Today the battle has shifted to a looming U.S. congressional vote on granting China permanent normal trade status, a crucial step in Beijing's campaign to join the WTO.
About 15,000 union activists rallied in Washington on Wednesday to convince undecided lawmakers that such a move would legitimise China's alleged labour abuses and could cause huge U.S. job losses.
Proponents of the trade agreement say it calls on Beijing to lower trade barriers, which would boost U.S. exports and related jobs.