The New York Times / By JOSEPH KAHN
WASHINGTON -- There was something oddly symmetrical about the way the people on both sides of the barricades commemorated the first anniversary of the Battle of Seattle last week. Protesters who helped make the global trade summit a disaster hailed their triumph with a pep rally, where one street leader proclaimed that Seattle meant "no more business as usual" for trade ministers. They showed a feature film that eulogized the anti-globalization uprising.
But trade ministers are having their own bacchanal. The United States announced the opening of free trade negotiations with Chile, just a week after beginning talks with Singapore, a month after wrapping up a free trade agreement with Jordan and two months after signing a trade accord with Vietnam. And many analysts think the Clinton administration is lagging its foreign rivals.
The European Union just sealed a free- trade agreement with Mexico. European nations are also talking about eliminating tariffs and most trade barriers with Brazil and its neighbors, and they are considering the same arrangement with Central American nations - a step ahead of Uncle Sam.
In the Pacific, there is a free-trade frenzy underway. Japan began bilateral free-trade talks with South Korea, Singapore and Mexico, the first time since World War II that Japan has tried to loosen restrictions on trade outside a global agreement. China, on ther verge of entry to the World Trade Organization after a long fight, one-upped Japan with a proposal that the entire East Asian region become the world's most populous free trade zone.
One reason for the rush: trade itself is having a banner year. John F. Kennedy was president the last time the flow of goods and services across borders increased as fast as it is set to grow this year - a 12.5 percent rate, according to new World Bank projections. Every nation wants a bigger piece of the trade pie.
But if the momentum toward freer trade is clearly stronger than the backlash against it, there's also a sense in which the Seattle crowd can claim success.
The flurry of two-way and regional trade talks belies the failure to start a global round of negotiations to replace the one that collapsed in Seattle. The agenda is still in dispute, and there are practical concerns, like finding a venue willing to accommodate the expected demonstrations.
There's more at stake in global summits than when nations hand pick negotiating partners. Only the broader talks force all nations to address the most politically sensitive questions: subsidies for farmers (Europe, Japan), protections for textile workers (United States), standards for labor and the environment (developing world). The regional agreements are like warm-ups for the championship round.
But it is also notable that the events that were supposed to make people slow down and think twice about economic integration have done nothing of the sort. The Asian financial crisis, if anything, unleashed more trade and prompted greater harmonization of economies there. And the Seattle spectacle has simply prompted trade ministers to push tariff reductions in private talks.
Not unlike crisscrossing military alliances in the pre-World War I era, the proliferation of trade agreements is part of world diplomacy - the way nations talk to each other. Europe uses trade to retain influence in Latin America, which Brussels feared would focus exclusively on Washington after Nafta. China's trade push reflects its ambition of becoming Asia's leading nation. Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Vietnam are wary of that trend.
"These free trade agreements are a question of how nations look at their strategic positioning," said Charlene Barshefsky, the United States trade representative. "People don't want to be cut out, not just because of commercial disadvantage, but because these are spheres of influence."
That reality poses an acute challenge to Ms. Barshefsky's successor. The domestic politics of trade have become increasingly poisonous since Seattle, and the sharply divided Congress almost guarantees a fight over any trade accords. But the United States will also be under intense pressure to step up the pace of trade liberalization.
The Seattle coalition will be particularly chagrined if Gov. George W. Bush's current advantage in the Florida count secures him the White House. Unions, environmentalists and consumer groups overwhelmingly backed Vice President Al Gore, partly because he promised not to expand trade without establishing labor and environmental standards first. Mr. Bush is an old fashioned free trader. He wants to expand Nafta now.
"There's a question of how much political capital Bush will want to spend," said Robert D. Hormats, a Goldman Sachs executive who is thought of as possible economic official in a Bush administration. "But we can't just sit around while everyone does these deals.":
