The Mexican students and artists group Tekpati Sin Fronteras rendered homage to Lee Kyung, the Korean farmer who took his own life in protest against the WTO, by painting a wall. They wrote: In water, patience/ in the wind, illusion/ in the earth, hope/in the future, our heart. THE 5th WTO ministerial summit presented a double challenge for the movement against neo-liberal globalization. First, to bring the summit to failure after the Seattle disaster and the Doha "success" and second, to deepen the coordination amongst social movements, especially after the establishment of the social movements network in Porto Alegre in 2003 and which would have in Cancun its first practical experience after the World Social Forum. The situation was contradictory. The lack of consensus in the WTO before the summit was summoning the ghosts of Seattle upon the meeting in Cancun and the constitution of the Group of 21, headed by Brazil, which was challenging the US-EU domination, generated favorable conditions for the movement. However, the small number of people that made it to Cancun, due in part to its location and to the internal division of Mexican movements - expressed through the separate International Indigenous and Farmers' Forum and the People's Forum-limited the movement's potentialities. The great majority of the activists came from Mexico, but the significant presence of North American activists, mainly from NGOs and non- violent direct action groups, as well as the 180-strong delegation from South Korea, are also important to mention. The number of Europeans was very limited, almost symbolic. From a general viewpoint, the WTO summit was taking place in the context of contradictory conjuncture. On one hand, we are witnessing an incremental crisis of capitalism and neo-liberal policies - for which time seems to be running out-and mounting social resistance. But, at the same time, the concrete victories achieved by social movements both at the national and international level are still very poor. The summit also begun with people having the sensation that Iraq could turn into a swamp for those who invaded it, though it is difficult to believe the anti- globalization movement can repeat the powerful show of forces it performed on February 15th. The mobilizations in Cancun confirmed that there is much work to do on the relationship between the struggle against the war and campaigns against neo-liberal policies, even though the critique of neo-liberal policies has been closely linked to the logic of war and one of the key arguments against the WTO is provides an avenue to impose political, military and economic power over the rest of the world. One of the achievements of the movement against neo-liberal globalization was to trigger the greatest ever protest against an announced war, yet translating the political potential of the opposition to the war into social mobilization against neo-liberal policies has been poor. The years of political defeat suffered by the workers movement facing neo-liberal policies, as well as the dominant policies within the established trade union confederations, still weigh heavily. But this is not all. The anti- globalization movement did not manage to propose a single and unified day of mobilization against the WTO and war around the Cancun summit, and there has been some dispersion of efforts, between the week of protests against the WTO and the 27 September mobilisations against the invasion of Iraq and Palestine. In general, there have been lots of difficulties introducing the Cancun summit into the political and activities agendas of the social movements in each country, and to get those sectors who mobilized against the war but are not part of the anti- globalization movement, to join. In spite of all this, more than 20,000 people opposing the meeting in Cancun, plus the unyielding position of the Group 21, finally contributed to defeat the US and European goals for the summit. This is obviously a victory for the movement, a victory that will mark its future both within Mexico and abroad, and which constitutes an important injection of strength and moral legitimacy in the stand against the FTAA at the November Miami summit. Characteristics of Cancun There are several characteristics of the Cancun mobilisation. Most important is the irruption of indigenous and peasant communities. Second is the context in which the mobilizations were taking place and the impetus of radical, direct and diverse struggles; and third are the events that took place within the summit. The indigenous and peasant explosion The mobilization in Cancun was articulated through different organizational spaces: the International Indigenous and Farmers Forum, the Peoples Forum, the International Women's Forum, the International Trade Unions Forum organized by the Mexican independent trade unions, several activities organized by NGOs and foreign organizations, the Youth Camp by students and youth coming from Mexico D.F. and Chiapas, the Indymedia Center and the International Parliamentary Forum. There were also coordination meetings for social movements, especially around the issue of war, as well as meetings of the Network of Social Movements created in Porto Alegre. Throughout the week these activities provided meeting and reflection spaces on lots of subjects, although the real dynamics of the mobilization revolved around the demonstration on the 10th September, mainly under the responsibility of the peasants and Indigenous People's movements and the protests of the 13th that were articulated mainly by independent trade unions and the students and youth caravans. One problem was that there was a serious 'misalignment' of arrivals and departures of the main groups in Cancun, which meant that there was not one climax of the protests, but two - one on the 10th September and another on the 13th September. The farmers movements developed their activities during the first days and left Cancun on the 10th, while other Mexican groups, such as trade unions and others, arrived just before the protest of the 13th or on the day itself. Students and international delegations stayed in Cancun almost the whole week. From the 9th -13th a lot of minor initiatives (the strongest of them, on the 9th, was a march of about 1000 youth towards the fence that 'protected' the official area) held the summit at bay. Some protests took place in the building where the official summit was held or in the restricted red zone area. Those were the inside mobilizations that were complementing the outside mass mobilizations and protests. Many such protest actions were carried out by accredited NGOs at the official Convention Center while others, such as the four-hour blockade of the main street on the 12th, happened just outside of the Convention Center, with some 150 activists participating. The most relevant organizational space was the International Indigenous and Farmers Forum. This was partly because the agreement on agriculture -which is particularly aggressive on agricultural and peasant communities-was the key to the negotiations at the WTO. But, more importantly, the indigenous and peasants movements, exemplified by V?a Campesina, not only had a correct political understanding of the phenomenon, but also met a challenge that seemed impossible at the beginning: to mobilize 10,000 peasants and Indigenous Peoples to Cancun to oppose the WTO and to define, at the same time, an alternative project and seal an alliance between Indigenous Peoples and peasants movements. This alternative project is based on the protection of food sovereignty, bio-diversity and natural resources (seeds, water and land) as peoples' heritage at the service of humanity and on the linking of current peasants struggles with the 500 years of indigenous resistance against land usurpation. This alliance is open for other social movements to join. It was through the peasants forum that the Zapatista front, the EZLN, added its voice to the mobilizations of Cancun through comandante Esther, comandante David and subcomandante Marcos. This was the main participation of Zapatism in Cancun, which was important from a symbolic and moral point of view, but less important than expected. The irruption of these 10,000 peasants from indigenous communities (humble people who travelled more than 40 hours to camp unsheltered) is an important step in the development of the movement, and is one of the distinctive features of the Cancun mobilizations. The mobilizations: a direct, radical and diverse struggle The demonstration on the 10th was the first great action in Cancun. It was aimed to show the unyielding determination of the movements to derail a WTO that was already "hurt" when arriving to Cancun. About 10,000 people - the great majority of whom were peasants - marched from the Casa de la Cultura up to 'km zero' -- the starting point of the single avenue that leads into the exclusive tourist hotels area, with a restricted entrance and a metal fence to prevent demonstrators from entering. Once at the fence, the tenacious effort of dozens of hands, initiated and lead by the Korean peasants, successfully broke a hole in the fence thus showing the determination of the people during the first great action of the summit. Events were not pushed further because that would have turned into a battle between people and police, and that was not the objective of the action. That was V?a Campesina's understanding and they organized an orderly retreat of the demonstration. The dramatic and determining factor of the action that day was the suicide of Lee Kyung Hae. As a peasant leader from the Korean Advanced Farmers Federation, (a moderate organization) who was honoured in 1985 as a 'universal farmer' by the Korean government and the FAO, Mr Lee's death acquired a symbolic meaning. It was a death provoked by the desperation caused by the policies of the WTO, a WTO that, as some of the posters and banners showed from that moment on, "kills peasants". His death catalyzed the mobilization and, from that moment, the different activist headquarters became bubbling springs of discussions and proposals. What to do next? How to do it? What are the goals? During the two following days several events took place in memory of brother Lee, both at km zero (re-named the Lee Camp, as it became the camping site for the Korean civil society delegation) and at the Casa de la Cultura -where the Indigenous and Peasants Movement was sheltered as well as protest actions within the summit's Convention Center. The death of Lee influenced heavily the organization of the march of the 13th, despite the fact that the great majority of peasants could not stay in Cancun up to that date. The way in which the movement dealt with the action on the 13th - both V?a Campesina and the students and the direct action groups-was clear. It was considered that the events at the metal fence and the death of Lee allowed the accumulation of a political capital that should not be wasted by an ambiguous or mistaken resolution about the character of the protests of the 13th. At the same time, it was clear that the demonstration on the 13th could not simply be a march with speeches at the end. As Paul Nicholson from V?a Campesina said, the effort was to make a mobilization "that would mean a qualitative leap forward in relation to the 10th, that could transmit a strong political message and that could show the restrained anger of the people at Lee's death, but which would not turn violent in order not to loose the political capital already accumulated." Effective direct action The following agreement was reached: the demonstration would arrive at the km zero where there would be the final meeting with speeches. After that, those who wanted to would march to the fence (which had been reinforced and moved 100 meters further into the hotel zone by the police after the 10th) together with the Korean delegation and attempt to pull down the fence with the help of ropes. Those not marching with the Korean delegation to the fence were asked to stay at km zero to show solidarity. It was also agreed that women would stand in the first line, carrying eggs to throw at the police and with a mission to stop anybody wanting to throw stones. They would only ask men for help if they could not handle the situation. The Black Block was on charge of security. They had agreed to the mobilization project in the preparatory meeting and expressed their determination to prevent infiltration of their ranks during the demonstration. The demonstration gathered about 10,000 people, but with a different composition to the one on the 10th. There were fewer peasants but lots of youth and students. There was also a strong delegation of Mexican independent and democratic trade unions, especially the Electricity Workers Trade Union, as well as some representatives from the Authentic Work Front and other labor organizations. Once the demonstration arrived at its endpoint, the action at the fence worked out perfectly. Giving in to persistent efforts, the welding of the double-metal fence was broken with three thick ropes handled by hundreds of people. After that, the homage to Lee Kyung was done on the other side of the fence, in front of a strong police chain, without any kind of provocation or problems. The symbols of the WTO and the American flag were burnt down at the site. This action was a good expression of what a direct action is - one that integrates mass mobilization and highlights not the physical damage the action can cause, but the political effect of the action. One can say that understanding this fact, defining which was the element that made a political difference, and ensuring an organized closing of the march were the main achievements that day. The action took place within a very particular political context, marked by the leadership and moral authority the Korean delegation and the peasants movement obtained after the death of Lee, which allowed for the creation of a community of interest among the different sectors that participated in the mobilizations on the 13th. The above facts together with the way of working of V?a Campesina and of the non-violent direct action groups, allowed the establishment of an open dialogue between all the sectors involved in the action, avoiding friction and problems amongst them. The only weak link was the lack of integration and participation of the independent Mexican trade unions in the action after the demonstration, which they felt did not concern them, maybe because of the lack of a previous discussion. The participation of Mexican independent trade unions in Cancun, apart from its presence during the demonstration on the 13th, was visible in the organization of the International Trade Unions Forum with about 300 participants. There were also other trade union forums such as the "southern voices towards a real north-south solidarity" organized by the Brazil's CUT, South Africa's COSATU and the South Korean KCTU, plus the Global Trade Unions of the ICFTU (International Confederation of Free Trade Unions). The latter had a moderate orientation and an internal logic that was different to the rest of the activities of the counter-summit. Challenges for the coordination of movements Despite all the difficulties, the mobilization both in the streets and inside the Convention Center together with the resolve and determination of the Group 21 finally derailed the 5th Ministerial Summit. It does not mean the death of the WTO, but it does mean an important victory for the movement, and though difficult to predict, its effects will certainly be felt in the movement. Farmers, Indigenous Peoples and trade union organizations were expressing already on the 14th that nothing would be the same after Cancun, in a reference to the degree of dialogue and understanding they had reached, or, if you wish, to the degree to which they were split amongst each other. The FTAA summit in Miami next November will be the next test for the movement in the American continent. But to be able to build a future of hope we need to link and coordinate our struggles, and during the last World Social Forum in Porto Alegre a Global Network of Social Movements was established. It was baptised in Cancun. What is our assessment? What lessons can be drawn from the Cancun experience? During the first assembly of the network in Cancun on the 8th, the difficulty of translating the activity of the network into practical commitments and dynamics became evident, as well as the small numbers of international representatives that came to Cancun from the movements that are committed to the network. Both of these factors tended to weaken the practical work of coordination and articulation to be done during the summit. The need for better local-global level articulations, and the need to link and better coordinate the different local and national struggles at an international level were also pointed out as necessary goals. The activity of the network at this type of event shouldn't be limited to meetings amongst those that happen to come, but should focus instead on building a process and a movement that is committed to the achievement of its goals in a more stable manner, both at the local and the international level. The specific situation in Cancun, where the different Mexican movements had little contact with each other, contributed substantially to weaken the articulation and coordination of the social movements, despite the efforts of the international movements and of the Brazilian team of the secretariat of the social movements network, which tried to act as a unifying element at the different Mexican spaces and stimulated the creation of daily coordination meetings to plan the work. It is important to take note of these problems for future events, and try to find ways to strengthen and reinforce the work of the social movements network between the summits, in order to get a greater commitment and real articulation amongst the movements. At any rate, the meetings of the social movements produced a joint statement, which is in itself a positive fact. Questions for the future Finally, there are three more questions in relation to the WTO that need to be reflected upon looking into the future. The first one has to do with the dialectics between the social movements and the governments of the countries that stood against the dictates of the powerful majors in the WTO. Social movements are not indifferent to the actions and positions of those countries' governments, and the reference to their attitude and the support to the block they formed during the summit have been a structural element of the struggle, as was clearly witnessed in Cancun. Up to now the problem has been solved satisfactorily: support to those countries, but retain a clear political independence. This means we are not supporting their agenda, which in this case was calling for more free trade but under different conditions. Nevertheless, some sectors of the movement do not have such a clear position, as became obvious at the time of the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development with the proposals tabled by Oxfam, which were rightly criticized by Vandana Shiva and Walden Bello. Second, after having defeated the 5th Ministerial Summit, the question that arises: what now? For the major powers, the alternative to the stagnant multilateralism of the WTO are the bilateral agreements, which leave the developing and least developed countries in a very weak position. (A telling precedent is the Brady Plan which caused the collapse of the united front against foreign debt when the negotiations turned into bilateral deals.) It is thus important to strengthen the mobilizations against the bilateral free trade agreements, both inside the major powers and in the poor countries, aiming at a better coordination of struggles and resistance. The third point is that the failure of Cancun does not mean the death of the WTO, nor that we have created the conditions to begin talking about another model of multilateral organization. This failure did not touch the Doha program (on GATS, etc.) whose deadline is in 2005, and we will have to make great efforts to derail it. Declarations such as those made by the European Commissioner Pascal Lamy calling for another model of negotiations that is not so "democratic" can be taken as a warning of much more aggressive positions from the major powers in the immediate future. The failure of the WTO is an important achievement for the movement against neo-liberal globalization. There were two sentences repeated by everyone on the 14th in Cancun: "We succeeded" and "It is a victory for humanity". Nevertheless, it is only a step in a road in which there is still much to do, and in which we are running against the clock of neo-liberal policies. That is why we now face a double challenge: to strengthen and make the movement grow (by amplifying the crisis of neo-liberal policies and building alliances amongst social movements) in the minimum of time, and advancing swiftly in our coordination and articulation. Not on paper, but in reality. This is the only way in which the future can be turned into hope. * Josep Maria Antentas (Catalonia) and Josu Egireun (Basque Country) are members of the editorial staff of 'Viento Sur'. This article was first published in Viento Sur n? 70 www.vientosur.info. Translated by Alberto Villareal. FOCUS ON TRADE NUMBER 94, NOVEMBER 2003 http://focusweb.org