Last week's fiasco in Seattle was a disaster for all concerned, tarnishing the image of the city and leaving only broken windows and smashed hopes for a new round of trade accords. The World Trade Organization (WTO) conference there was plagued by overly simplistic approaches on both sides. A wiser process would be able to address labor and environmental concerns while maintaining open global commerce.

Clearly, those who promote free trade can no longer ignore its non-economic implications. The standard arguments in favor of free trade still hold: It promotes growth and interdependence and helps developing countries improve their standards of living. However, globalization has a powerful impact on questions of labor and environmental protection, and those concerned about these effects will not be persuaded by only economic arguments. The protesters in Seattle saw the WTO and free trade as representative of interests fundamentally alien to their own; the coalition for free trade can only be rebuilt taking these concerns into account, with adequate attention to the interests of workers and the environment.

However, the WTO was not the proper target for much of the protesters' ire. The WTO is no sovereignty-gobbling monster but a small organization that arbitrates trade disputes based on rules already agreed to by its member nations; it does not write its own rules and impose them on the world. Its membership is undemocratic and its processes secretive for the same reason that foreign policy and judicial deliberations are held in secret: to insulate the proceedings from political pressures. It does not deserve its newfound position as a poster child for globalization and the focus for all anti-corporate discontent, including such extraneous causes as the "Free Mumia" signs filmed by CNN.

More important, however, the protesters' demands represented an assumption that President Clinton seemed to share, an assumption responsible in large part for the failure of the conference: that U.S. labor and environmental standards are equally desired across the globe. The U.S. no longer possesses, if it ever did, the ability to impose unilaterally its standards on the rest of the world. For developing nations to choose to implement such standards, the measures must be seen more as a means to improve their own welfare than as an outgrowth of American self-interest.

Despite the protests in Seattle, the U.S. is widely perceived as the WTO's greatest beneficiary. It has filed more complaints with the WTO to open foreign markets than any other nation, making other countries distrust the ultimate motive behind policies we put forward. When the U.S. pushes for an end to agricultural tariffs, other nations wonder whether the objection is based on principle or on our substantial agricultural exports. Similarly, where we see expensive but justified and necessary labor standards, other nations frequently see thinly veiled protectionism.

The two causes were confused in the protests at Seattle: those who wanted environmental protections integrated into trade agreements were accompanied by those who dumped foreign steel into the ocean for the crime of being too cheap. The perception of a U.S. in favor of free trade only where it serves our interests could doom any attempt to improve environmental and labor standards abroad and must be addressed in our negotiating tactics.

Those concerned for labor standards and environmental protections in developing nations should quickly see through unthinking calls for abolishing the WTO. The best means of improving conditions will be through more integration of developing nations into a world trading system, not less. A blanket ultimatum conditioning trade on such standards would drive other nations away from the bargaining table.

A more effective means to improve the global environment and the lot of workers abroad might include, for example, international accords outside of the framework of the WTO and of trade. If linked to increases in development aid, offering carrots instead of only sticks, such accords might be accepted by developing nations and would not be susceptible to the charges of hidden protectionism that derailed the efforts at the Seattle conference.

Whatever approach is taken by U.S. negotiators, it should strive for the end goal of improving labor and environmental protections abroad without giving cover to would-be protectionists. Whatever its successes economically, free trade will fail politically if these side effects are not addressed.