Free trade, closed talks

What's negotiable will indeed be the big question in Quebec. The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas would include every North and South American state except Cuba -- forming a zone that, encompassing 800 million people and generating a cumulative $11.5 trillion in trade, would immediately become the world's largest free-trade zone.

Though the zone would probably only lead to marginal economic growth in the United States, it could reap enormous benefits for the developing economies of Central and South America -- reducing poverty and economic inequality between Latin America and the U.S. and Canada. FTAA proponents point to the ascendant economy of Mexico, which has soared since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, as an indicator of what's in store.

"It would improve the economies, make them more democratic," says IIE's Hufbauer. "Maybe over a generation they could reduce the income gap with the United States. Remember, the numbers we projected for NAFTA-related growth were far too modest. The numbers have grown more than anyone expected; it's a huge success."

In pure economic terms, NAFTA has been good for all three of its members. According to data compiled by the Institute for International Economics, Canadian exports grew from $126 billion to $237 billion between 1990-99; Mexican exports more than doubled between 1993 and 1999, from $48 billion to $120 billion; and American exports nearly tripled, rising from $251 billion to $700 billion between 1990-99. Much of that gain was attributed to NAFTA and global market liberalization created by the World Trade Organization.

Carol Graham, who heads the Center on Social and Economic Dynamics at the Brookings Institution in Washington, says "the basic evidence is that countries that open up to the international economy grow faster. Without growth, you can't reduce poverty.

"I'm not sanctioning the conditions of the maquiladoras, but these people would not be doing those jobs if they had alternatives," Graham says, her voice swift. "It's like when people go on and on about banning child labor. Child labor is horrible, but if child labor is preventing a family from dying of starvation, what's the alternative? That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to issues like labor and the environment, but we shouldn't assume that we can fast-forward things and impose on developing economies things that took years for our economies to develop."

But negotiations toward free trade in the Americas is happening too quickly, too secretively and without input from environmentalists and labor, the groups organizing against the FTAA charge.

"There's been a shocking and disturbing lack of transparency to the whole FTAA debate and a deliberate exclusion of the voices of people with an alternative view," United Steelworkers' Gerard asserts. "There is no government that I can find in the FTAA negotiations or NAFTA that is getting participation from anyone other than corporations or elected trade bureaucrats." He describes the current negotiations as the drafting of a "new economic constitution for multinational corporations." (In one small victory for interest groups, the FTAA's organizing body has agreed to publicly release a blueprint for the FTAA at the Quebec City summit later this week.)

Next Page: Protests aren't the only obstacles to the FTAA

• View blog reactions