Prosperity or Enslavement? No Shades of Gray

The Washington Post, in the sensational-sounding, "Free Trade Battle Looms at Americas Summit," offers a summary of the positions in an impending argument about the FTAA in Argentina this week. Unfortunately, the piece relies too heavily on the standing terms of the debate, reduced as these have been to two simplistic premises: on one side, you have people like National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley saying, "as you know, through free trade and private investment the leverage you get in terms of economic growth and enhancing prosperity really dwarfs the impact of specific aid programs." On the other side, the Post tells us, using unfortunately simplistic language in its paraphrase, that "Hugo Chavez and top Cuban government officials say Bush is bent on opening up Latin America even more to corporations that will end up enslaving already poor workers."

So. There you have it. That's the whole debate: pick a side. It's super-easy: prosperity for all or enslavement.

The article ends, however, with a nice recognition of the embarrassing diplomatic realities of such a meeting as this one:

Other differences over the summit's declaration have also emerged. Venezuela wanted the declaration to state that 37 million people lived in poverty in the United States _ a clause Washington rejected.