The opening ceremony had just been cancelled because delegates were being corralled in their hotel suites. Even the combative US trade representative Charlene Barshefsky was unable to attend.

On the front line of the protest a small debate was taking place. Two African delegates were trying to get through the lines of protesters. An argument was raging. 'Look,' said the Kenyan, 'this round is vital to us. We need world trade. We need development. We respect that you are standing up for your rights and are trying to help, but the talks must go on.'

'The protesters were very well informed,' said one of the delegates later. 'I was quite surprised. I thought trade was something no one understood in America.'

The World Trade Organisation has had a truly ghastly week, the sort that would make governments or cabinet ministers resign. Apart from riots, rallies and marches against it in at least 20 countries, President Clinton and senior international figures such as Sir Sonny Ramphal chastised it for being secretive and closed, and were hinting by Day Two that trade talks were not the place to discuss many of the issues.

But it was to get far worse for Mike Moore, director general of an organisation that has always insisted it was 'as democratic as it comes'.

By Friday night all the powerful First and Third World environment, development and human rights groups were condemning the way the talks were being powered through by the Americans to protect their own trading interests - to reduce agricultural subsidies and open up vast new markets. And more than 40 African, Caribbean and Latin American countries had united in protest against the way poor countries were being bullied by the rich and the way their concerns were being marginalised.

An unprecedented rebellion was in the offing.

With just hours left before the talks were scheduled to conclude - and a deal looking increasingly uncertain - the WTO secretariat went into panic mode. Press conferences, briefings and backroom discussions were cancelled. The Americans reportedly tried some last-ditch offers of bilateral aid in an effort to retrieve any chance of a new round of trade talks, and put immense pressure on national governments, but it was not enough to quell the revolt.

For the first time in history the poor countries of the world had told the rich they weren't playing the First World's game. For the first time, Africa was united. 'No one combs our hair in our absence,' said a furious Ugandan, as the talks lurched towards collapse.

In retrospect the signs of collapse were there from the start. By Thursday the NGOs who had been lobbying both poor and rich countries were reporting to Stephen Byers, Britain's Trade and Industry Secretary, and the British del egation leader, that the developing countries were confused and angry. Byers called them in and was appalled at what he heard. To his credit he had his bureaucrats advise and brief them. It was, they said, the most useful meeting they had had all week.

'The best thing now might be for the talks to collapse to the allow the total reform of the WTO,' confided one of the British delegation. It was a view increasingly shared by the Europeans. A consensus had grown that the WTO was giving international democracy a very nasty smell.

So what happened in the real Battle for Seattle? Firstly, the poor countries were sidelined from the start in the desperation of the Americans to get a deal. The working groups which had convened to reach consensus between interested countries in different areas were regarded as a sham. The chairs were reporting consensus when none existed.

Secondly, the 'green room discussions', the next level of debate, this time mostly between the rich countries, were excluding the poor. At least one African delegate was physically barred from attending.

The third issue concerned the style and manner of the US chief negotiator Charlene Barshefsky who was judged personally offensive, patronising and insulting. She was booed in one plenary meeting.

And in addition to this the poor countries were appalled by the speed at which the negotiations were being rushed through, and by the lack of debate. Not only had many of the world's poorest countries neither the capacity nor the means to implement even the previous round of talks which finished five years ago, let alone take aboard a whole new round of negotiations, but many had barely the means to have a permanent representative in Geneva where the rolling talks are held.

'These issues are of vital con cern to us,' said a Malawi delegate. We want a sustainable society. That takes time. There are working groups and study groups still debating the issues. They must be allowed to continue.'

The Third World was also concerned that genuine concerns about the effects of another round of liberalisation on trade on the environment, jobs, cultural and social issues were being seen to be constantly suborned to pure economic interests. Time after time, agreements that had taken years to make in other international forums were dismissed or discarded. The WTO does not recognise the 'precautionary principle', and overrules all other international agreements. This, together with the perceived agenda-setting of the talks by big business, is what mostly concerned the environmentalists and labour groups protesting at Seattle.

The global perception of the WTO is now indelibly stained, say the hundreds of non-governmental groups who were in Seattle to protest and observe. Unless it is radically reformed, they argue, it is liable to give new life to increasingly coherent global dissent. As it is, the WTO has already unified intellectual opposition and drawn together powerful new forces in society. Judging from Seattle, the coalition of opposition to 'neo-liberalism' is now growing strongly. Students, small farmers, small businessmen, the debt campaigners, church groups, students and indigenous peoples are all finding common cause and linking strongly.

In the Third World, the situation is potentially worse. There, non-governmental groups are proliferating as poverty increases and trade liberalisation undermines local economies. More than 500,000 Indians demonstrated against the WTO's predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the agenda of powerful groups such as the Movimento Sem Terra (the Landless) in Brazil and the Zapatistas in Mexico are beginning to forge a new global ideology of resistance to corporate expansion.

With the WTO to focus on, new networks of opposition to free trade and neo-liberalism are forming to challenge national governments. 'After the Cold War, the fourth world war has started,' says Commandante Marcos of the Zapatistas. The cry is now being heard around the world.

While the media concentrated on Seattle's riots, the tear gas and the looting, the demands on the streets of Seattle were not for an end to world trade but for a fairer and more democratic system. 'They are worried about a few windows being smashed', said one Filipino leader. 'They should come and see the violence being done to our communities in the name of liberalisation of trade.'

'The democratic system is not working,' said Martin Khor of Third World Network. 'It's bust. It needs more than WTO reform.'

It was a refrain taken up on the streets. 'This is what democracy looks like,' chanted the crowds who had encircled the city's prison and were demanding the release of the 500 'political prisoners' arrested last week. Meanwhile, Americans watched the live broadcasts with a mixture of fascination and respect. Certainly in Seattle, most people were broadly supportive of the protesters who did not resort to violence. 'If they are fighting for justice, that's fine by me. Of course trade should be fair. We never told the government that it could bully the poorest people in the world,' said one Seattle shopowner boarding up his store.

And there were incidents that suggest governments should listen carefully to what is happening at the grassroots when they come to reform the WTO. The first was the speed of mobilisation of so many disparate interests. A petition of more than 1,700 groups, mostly from the Third World, was raised within a day to object to the way the talks were being conducted. It is believed to be one of the largest and fastest responses ever on a global protest issue.

The second was a march of more than 5,000 people through the streets on Friday morning. Led by steelworkers and students, it suggested a new awareness in groups who seldom campaign on international issues. 'The students are hopping in the campuses over this,' said a professor of English at Washington University last week. 'This has all the hallmarks of being a new generation's cause, just as Vietnam or Civil Rights were for us.'

For the unions, out in great force, the talk was not of protecting jobs so much as of a growing understanding that the trading system was destroying jobs around the world. 'I never got on with environmentalists until I realised we were all fighting for the same thing,' said Dan Petrowski, a Michigan steelworker who was made redundant four months ago.

What happens now? The most frightening scenario is that the US goes it alone, steam-rollering its own expansionist trade agenda with bilateral agreements with willing partners. The result of this would be chaos, protectionism and the ditching of all environmental and social issues, more dumping on developing countries, more undermining of local economies. But the greatest irony is this: if the WTO itself collapses there will be no world forum for the poorest to at least ventilate their concerns and protect their own interests.