After the FTAA

Tens of thousands of people protested in Quebec City last month, voicing their opposition to a proposed hemispheric-wide trade agreement. The Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, would create a single economic entity, should it go into effect in 2005, stretching from the Arctic Circle to the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego.

The protesters came from all over Canada and the U.S. Busloads of students drove in from Toronto, Montreal and points in between. Joining them were thousands of union workers, representing hundreds of different Canadian unions.

In contrast to protests in Seattle, Washington DC and Prague, which were primarily populated by out-of-town protesters, the anti-FTAA events in Quebec City had a distinctly homegrown feeling -- and with good reason. The infamous 2.5-mile chain-link fence that Canadian security forces erected around the perimeter of Old Quebec -- intended to separate protesters from President George W. Bush and his fellow delegates at the Summit of the Americas -- galvanized the local population. Even Quebecois who were divided on the relative merits of the trade agreement itself agreed on a few simple points: the "wall of shame," as it came to be known, was at best an eyesore; at worst, it was an affront to the very idea of a democratic Canada.

In the end, the protesters were not able to shut down the Summit, although they did delay its start. Delegates even made progress on the some terms of the FTAA agreement, stipulating a "democracy clause" that would suspend any country from the free trade zone area that ceases to be a democracy.

Bush and the other delegates did their best to put a positive spin on the Summit, even as clouds of tear gas swirled around their meeting place and local firefighters rushed to hose down the building. But cracks in the free trade edifice were obvious. Inside the Summit, hemispheric leaders like Kenny Anthony, Premier of St. Lucia, warned that while "globalization has brought prosperity to some, we cannot deny [that] it has destroyed the lives of others." Concluded Anthony: "Until the hemisphere as a whole enjoys the fruits of trade liberalization, we cannot proclaim its glory."

Unlike in the U.S., protesters seemed to win the propaganda war in Canada, with newspapers and television stations running a variety of opinions on the Summit and protesters. But regardless of the American media's take, those on the street remained certain of their convictions. "Average workers understand these deals aren't really about them," said Don Rama, a ship builder at the Bath Iron Works in Bath, Me. "They're about expanding benefits for corporations."

AlterNet spoke with six activists and trade specialists to assess the impact of the anti-FTAA protests.

Why do journalists in the U.S. often accept arguments for free trade without question?

Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research: It's definitely the case that the marketing of "free trade" has won over the press and the pundits in the U.S. But the reality is that there is now a big gap between what the press says about globalization and what the general population thinks about it. This shows up in the polls: when asked to describe their views on trade, only 10 percent chose "free trader." Fifty percent chose "fair trader," a label rarely used by anyone outside the labor or protest movement. And 37 percent chose "protectionist"-- a word that is never granted a positive connotation in the press, and has probably become as discredited in official opinion as "communist." Although there were mixed feelings about globalization in general, people most often chose "protecting the environment" and "preventing the loss of U.S. jobs" as a major priority for trade agreements -- putting them very much at odds with our policy makers and trade officials.