This week, hundreds of trade ministers will gather in Miami to consider the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) treaty. Expected to take effect before 2005, the FTAA treaty aims to expand the policies of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to all of Latin America (excluding Cuba). Tens of thousands of protestors from across the hemisphere will descend upon Miami to voice their objections to the talks. The media will probably view the Miami protestors with skepticism, as will many of the viewers. News coverage of the events will likely focus almost exclusively on images of street violence, depicting protestors as noisy and uncontrolled knee-jerkers. In turn, we viewers will see only tear gas clouded images of masked protestors and boarded storefronts, and we will wonder, "Why are all those hippies so upset?" Then, we will probably change the channel.

Why would anyone want to protest free trade? We all know the simple reasoning-free trade promotes competition, increasing efficiency by eliminating less-profitable businesses; therefore, free trade agreements must be good. But, in reality, there's a catch-what's good for corporate profits is not always good for workers, communities and the consumers they serve. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and FTAA are negotiated in collaboration with large corporations by trade officials who are not elected. Governments must often revise laws in order to comply with these treaties. Therefore, domestic policy for workers rights, economic development laws, and environmental protection laws are often dictated by organizations that are not accountable to the communities they serve. In Mexico, for example, adoption of NAFTA meant reforming article 27 of the Mexican constitution. This article guaranteed land, in the form of collectively owned "ejidos," to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Mexico. As a result of the reforms, 1,000,000 Mexican farming families have been forced off their land to join the pool of cheap labor in Mexico and the United States.

Countries who don't comply can be sued for "restraint of trade." The definition of such restraints are broader than one might imagine, encompassing labor and environmental laws as well as government control of public services. Under NAFTA, California is being sued for implementing an environmental policy regarding MTBE-a deadly toxin-and Canada is being sued for having a socialized postal service. The proposed FTAA agreement would open up all markets and public services (like water and power) to transnational corporations, giving them carte blanche to run business without any government or civil society oversight. While privatizing these services will certainly help them remain profitable, it also opens the door to cut-throat business practices like price-gouging that can prevent the poorest from meeting their basic needs.

Why aren't Amherst students more involved in issues of free trade? The answer is complicated. But surely we're not shying away from action because these issues don't affect us. No matter how foreign they seem, these new laws will hit close to home. For instance, the information protection section of the FTAA treaty will mandate prison time for noncommercial infringers, such as peer-to-peer file sharers. This law subjects student file swappers to imprisonment by lowering the standard that triggers criminal penalties from "commercial infringements" to "significant willful infringements."

The treaty will also create monopolies for entrenched corporations by preventing customers from purchasing competing after-market replacement parts. That means, for instance, that those cheap, generic printer cartridges we all like to buy will be illegal if the current FTAA proposal takes effect. Perhaps it's time for students to wake up and realize that "free trade" is not about freedom of competition or freedom of choice. It's about an international system that puts the rights of major corporations over the rights of communities and individuals. We have to recognize that the FTAA meetings in Miami this week will have direct effects on our own community regardless of whether we decide to join the protestors in the streets, follow the talks from our home campuses or simply change the channel.