Br'er rabbit's FTAA opposition: phony anti-FTAA groups oppose the FTAA only because it doesn't go far enough. They want regional government that leads to world government, but only if it is sufficiently socialist.

A brief Internet search will turn up hundreds of activist groups opposing the envisioned Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Most of those opposition groups seem to offer a credible case against the trade pact's most objectionable features. But closer scrutiny reveals that almost all of those groups actually support the FTAA in principle. They don't oppose globalization and regional government. They oppose capitalism and the free market, which is how the free trade agreements are falsely packaged. Their complaint with the FTAA is not that it would impose too many regulations but that it wouldn't go far enough. These so-called anti-globalization activists are eager to see some form of regional government on the road to world government, as long as it is socialist.

Puzzling as this may seem to many people, this is actually a perfect example of a time-honored concept: the "controlled opposition." By using this technique, power brokers behind the scenes manipulate public debate on major issues, confusing the public and neutralizing genuine opposition.

Tantrums 'R' Us

On many occasions during the past few decades, violence-prone radicals have staged protests--actually better described as destructive tantrums--timed to coincide with high-profile global economic summits. A few notable examples are:

* The 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) summit, now remembered as the infamous "Battle in Seattle." Tens of thousands of environmental extremists, animal rights militants and union members who supposedly opposed globalization and the WTO marched and demonstrated in Seattle. Civil disobedience turned into violent pandemonium as hundreds of rioters overwhelmed police and went on a violent rampage, causing millions of dollars in property damage.

* The 2000 IMF-World Bank conference in Washington, D.C. Not long after the charade in Seattle, many of the same protesters showed up in Washington, D.C., for the spring meetings of the World Bank and IMF. Arrests and violence were down considerably, but the relentless demonstrators disrupted traffic and conference schedules and provided some excitement for the newscasters.

* The 2001 Quebec "Summit of the Americas," where President Bush met with the heads of 33 other nations of the Western Hemisphere to launch the FTAA. Three days of violent protests disrupted normal life in the city.

* The 2003 Miami FTAA ministerial summit, which again saw widespread demonstrations and unrest.

Media coverage of these riots and disturbances has created a public impression that opposition to the WTO and FTAA is confined almost entirely to the anti-capitalist, left-wing fringe. Many casual observers, watching in disgust as street radicals vandalized Seattle businesses, doubtless muttered to themselves: "Whatever those people oppose must be something worth supporting." But the demonstrating organizers don't actually oppose what they are supposedly protesting. This was made crystal clear during the "Battle in Seattle," when a coalition of the groups that had organized the demonstrations sent an open letter to the WTO ministerial declaring: "We want to fix the WTO, not abolish it." The left-wing demonstrations in Seattle not only made the WTO appear "conservative" by comparison, but the demonstrators' demands made it easier for WTO power brokers to consider strengthening the WTO, supposedly to fix it.

For instance, according to the supposedly anti-globalization demonstrators, workers' rights and the environment must be protected from the supposedly capitalistic WTO. And how should this problem be "fixed"? The false solution that is being offered is to empower the WTO (and the FTAA) to impose labor and environmental regulations.

As commentator Francis Fukuyama, a member of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), later explained in the Wall Street Journal: "By creating the WTO, global capitalism has solved the left's collective action problem. The WTO is the only international organization that stands any chance of evolving into an institution of global governance, setting rules not only for how countries will trade and invest with one another, but also for how they will deal with issues like labor standards and the environment."

"Opposition" Groups

Not all of the FTAA's controlled opposition groups are street radicals. The AFLCIO, for instance, is prominent within the "respectable" opposition to the FTAA. The labor union appeals to many mainstream Americans turned off by the street radicals, yet falls short of providing genuine leadership to stop the FTAA. Unlike the overt radical left-wing groups--which populate the so-called anti-globalization demonstrations with hordes of radicals, vandals and thugs--union-chartered buses transport to those demonstrations regular-looking "working guys," many of whom are genuinely opposed to the WTO and FTAA. But the union effort is not truly an anti-FTAA campaign. During the FTAA's ministerial meeting in November 2003, AFLCIO president John Sweeney (CFR) told activists that they must "radically rewrite" the FTAA pact to "protect workers from profit-hungry multinationals and repressive governments." That is, he wants to empower the FTAA to impose labor regulations, supposedly to protect workers. Obviously, genuine opponents of the agreement want to defeat it, not strengthen it.

The Washington-based Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) is also prominent among left-wing critics of the FFAA. A fact sheet entitled "What do we stand for?" makes it clear that the CTC has little to do with trade, but much to do with promoting global socialism. According to the CTC:

* "Global ... environmental, labor, health, food security and other public interest standards must be strengthened to prevent a global 'race to the bottom.'"

* "The provision and regulation of public services such as education, healthcare, transportation, energy, water, and other utilities is a basic function of democratic government and must not be undermined."

* "Raising standards in developing countries requires additional assistance and respect for diversity of policies and priorities. Trade is no substitute for aid."

* "Rules for the global economy must be developed and implemented democratically and with transparency and accountability."

Obviously, global rules require some sort of global government.

Into the Briar Patch

The phony anti-FTAA groups oppose the FTAA not because it threatens national sovereignty, but because it allows too much sovereignty. They oiler sham opposition to the FTAA, while simultaneously calling for strengthening global labor, environmental, labor, health, food security, and other so-called public interest standards.

Simply put, the familiar menagerie of radical groups that regularly materializes to protest the WTO and FTAA are playing Br'er Rabbit's game as so memorably portrayed in Disney's The Song of the South. They want to be thrown into the very briar patch they claim to fear, so long as the briar patch is sufficiently socialist to suit their taste.

In playing that cynical game, those radical groups have teamed up with wealthy establishment patrons, such as the Ford, Rockefeller and Turner Foundations. Consider, for example, Lori Wallach, who directs Ralph Nader's Global Trade Watch (GTW), one of the main critics of the FTAA and WTO. In an interview published by Foreign Policy in 2000, Wallach admitted that GTW--supposedly the blood enemy of the corporate elite is actually funded by the Ford Foundation, the flagship of radical corporate philanthropy.

In that same essay, Wallach also explained that she supports "a global regime of rules," including expanding WTO authority to cover more than trade issues, and "empowering institutions such as the International Labor Organization ... which right now is toothless and useless." It is not surprising, therefore, that Wallach is regularly invited to address the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Economic Forum and other gatherings of the global elite.

Lori Wallach's connections vividly illustrate the extent to which the global elitists and street radicals are allied in a squeeze play against the middle class, the free market and national independence. But this squeeze play can be avoided, simply by recognizing the false opposition for what it is and working to "Stop the FTAA" the only way it can be stopped--by creating sufficient understanding to prevent Congress from approving a supposedly "fixed" FTAA.