President Clinton formally proposed the idea at the First Summit of the Americas in Miami in 1994, but progress since then has been virtually non-existent. A Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) would be larger than the European Union — but without the political integration or free flow of labor.

The benefits of an FTAA for the United States as the dominant hemispheric economic power are clear. Without tariffs or other barriers to inhibit the entry of U.S. goods, U.S. exports to the region would soar — and far surpass regional trade with other gigantic economies such as China. But progress on the possibility of an FTAA has been negligible.

In fact, since 1999, when anti-globalization protesters mobilized in Seattle, the progress of all free trade negotiations in the hemisphere has been defined by debates about the problems of liberalizing trade barriers between staggeringly unequal economies.

The rich and the poor

In each regional meeting, the notion that freer trade simply perpetuates the relationship between the rich and the poor of the hemisphere is more deeply engraved in the minds of the dissenters, the same is true for the opposing view — that open markets increase opportunity, which is held vehemently by its proponents.

This disappointing summit in Mar de Plata, held in early November 2005, revealed the ongoing regional divides over the issue of free trade. It also showed a strikingly bitter animosity between regional leaders that directly stems from this skewed balance of power. And, arguably, it reflects a desire to blame disappointing and uneven Latin American growth on the open market reformers and richer countries of the North.

A complicated situation

Granted, the substantial anti-American sentiment in the region, stemming from blame for U.S. support of brutal Southern cone dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s, current disapproval of the Iraq conflict and numerous other issues, does not help the already complicated situation.

Nevertheless, for the frustrated residents of the region, 24% of whom live in poverty, it was bitterly disappointing that several of their leaders were unproductively sidetracked by the denouncing of open market reforms, those that advocate them, and impractical but politically motivated blame game.

Presidents such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva have convinced the populations in several countries of one overriding theme. According to them, the proposed FTAA — or ACLA as it is called in its Spanish version — is yet another tool of the North American superpower to preserve its own big business interests and continue to exploit the developing markets of its poorer southern neighbors.

The Common Market of the South (Mercosur), a regional trading bloc — consisting of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil, along with the very public addition of Venezuela — vigorously opposes the FTAA. These five countries´ leaders declared in Mar de Plata that they would refuse to even discuss the topic until the issue of U.S. agricultural subsidies and tariffs were resolved.

Chavez and the United States

Critics are roused and led by Chavez, who opposes free trade in any form, and calls the Free Trade Area of the Americas "an annexationist plan." In his eyes, it would crush local industry, destroy social safety nets and protections, all while permanently extending U.S. political domination of the region to the economic sphere.

During the summit, 25,000 people met in Mar del Plata and rallied against the Bush Administration. Addressing the crowd, Chavez described Bush's trade agenda as the newest manifestation of "an old project of the imperial eagle that from the beginning has wanted to sink its claws" into Latin America.

The Bush Administration

Though Chavez's personal animosity towards Bush and his provocative, populist style are not replicated by all of his Latin American counterparts, his rhetoric has had significant influence in defining the debate and has put pressure on other regional presidents to follow his example.

Just as the U.S. inability to grapple with the complexities of regional discord is crippling any chance for the FTAA to proceed, so it is on the Latin American side. However, the dramatic anti-Bush resentment and over-dramatized suspicion is a similar impediment for pursuing any results-oriented agenda.

In the recent period of rising inequality, uneven growth and high unemployment, the Bush Administration is increasingly viewed as indifferent and ineffective in Latin America.

From Washington's perspective, developments in Latin America are also troubling. In addition to strongly opposing recent U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, recent events in the region have promoted the rise of "second generation" leaders that reject the neoliberal reforms that have been advocated by the United States and international financial institutions.

Turning a blind eye

In the eyes of these new leaders, trade liberalization, the increase in direct international investment and major utility privatization projects which marked the past 15 years in Latin America, have shown disappointing results. In turn, it can be argued that Washington, under the Bush Administration, has turned a blind eye to this new reality of Latin American political economics.

While it is politically salient for the United States to blame populist socialist Chavez for the mounting political and social unrest in the region, the truth is a different one. The U.S. government has failed to accept the basic failure of a prolonged economic experiment — or to brainstorm strong alternatives to fight the region's poverty.

Mixed opinions

Despite these historical developments and realities, Latin America is not united on the issue of free trade. Chavez is the most outspoken critic of both the United States and free trade. In contrast, the leaders of the Mercosur bloc, Brazil and Argentina, only oppose Washington's current vision of the FTAA — not the entire concept.

As large exporters of food crops, Mercosur countries understandably want the Bush Administration to terminate the billions of dollars of subsidies to U.S. agriculture, in exchange for some concessions on intellectual property rights and increased market access.

Other Latin American powers that already have free trade agreements with the United States, such as Mexico and Chile, have emphasized the benefits of liberalized trade for their regional counterparts, including export increases, investment and employment possibilities.

In fact, Mexico's President Vicente Fox openly criticized Argentina’s President Nestor Kirchner for failing as a host to be more productive in the efforts of the trade agenda. Argentina's stand on the FTAA is complicated even further by lingering resentment stemming from the recent economic crisis — and a widely-held feeling that it was abandoned by the United States during the collapse.

No easy solution

This mistrust certainly affects Kirchner´s relationship with the Bush Administration — as well as the attitudes of the Argentine public towards cooperation with the superpower in the North.

When it comes to rebuilding regional cooperation and advancing on trade issues, however, Brazil's commitment is by far the most critical. Brazil's actions, more than any other country in the region, will lead the regional agenda and the potential success of U.S. policy in the hemisphere.

Revising agricultural subsidies

There is no easy solution for Washington to repair its troubled relations with Latin America — or for the region's countries to regain confidence in the motives of the United States. President Bush could begin by addressing the policy matters that have great import in the region, especially U.S. agricultural policies that restrict the region's exports.

This discussion will only promote confidence if the administration is willing to revise agricultural subsidies for the sake of regional cooperation and progress. And while Brazil and its supporters are right in demanding that Washington reduce high subsidies, they are mistaken if they think that preferential access to the world's largest economy won't help them compete in the global market — and reduce poverty in the long run.

Meanwhile, reliance on political demagoguery and personal vilification of the Bush team does nothing to promote Latin America's real agenda.

While distractions such as Chavez's anti-Bush counter summit or Washington's glib avoidance might grab the media's attention away from the real issues, the mutual act of playing to the gallery does nothing to repair serious rifts — or to address the real need for increased opportunity and the reduction of regional poverty.