The proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas would expand NAFTA from North America to the entire Western Hemisphere. NAFTA shows us what that could look like. Under NAFTA, a Canadian company is challenging California's decision to phase out a gasoline additive that has already contaminated Lake Tahoe and several cities' drinking water supplies. According to The New York Times, Methanex Corp. is seeking $970 million in ''anticipated lost profits'' - money the company says it could make if California didn't ban MTBE, a suspected carcinogen.

Cases like these are heard not by nations' courts but in special NAFTA tribunals that only consider trade law. Citizens have no standing in these tribunals, but corporations can sue governments directly for the first time in history. The judges - trade lawyers - meet in secret to preserve business confidentiality. Their decisions are final.

Corporations have already won several cases. Canada is paying the Ethyl Corp. of Virginia $13 million for banning MMT, a probable neurotoxin. S.D. Myers expects a $30 to $40 million settlement in the case it already won after Canada banned the export of toxic PCBs to the United States. Now, says the Times, United Parcel Service ''has filed a complaint contending that the very existence of the publicly financed Canadian postal system represents unfair competition that conflicts with Canada's obligations under NAFTA.

Critics worry that if the tribunal upholds the UPS claim, government participation in any service that competes with the private sector will be threatened.

Apply this to services like public education, as the treaty would do, and you can see why thousands of people will be heading for Quebec or protesting in Boston. Students, public service workers, voters, and people who drink water are joining the industrial workers who already saw their jobs and communities devastated by NAFTA.

AIDS patients will be part of the mix. Intellectual property rights rules of the treaty could destroy Brazil's successful AIDS program, which manufactures generic drugs and gives them to anyone who needs them. Anti-sweatshop activists are heading for Quebec, too. The ''non-tariff barrier'' rules of the treaty could force cities and states to buy goods made with sweatshop and child labor, if their makers offer the lowest bid. Consumers fear that the treaty will end all regulation of genetically modified organisms like those that recently contaminated taco shells and other foods in North America.

Union members know that the treaty will further weaken wages, working conditions, and collective bargaining power throughout the hemisphere.

Since the November 1999 demonstration in Seattle, critics have been confounded by the variety of faces in the globalization movement. The sweeping grasp of the treaty shows why the movement is so diverse. In every sphere of life from our jeans to our genes, money relations are replacing human relations.

The protesters are not against trade. They are against the relentless expansion of corporate rights at democracy's expense. And they are starting to win. This month they forced the governments of the Americas to release the draft text of the treaty which only corporate representatives could see.

Bostonians have a unique opportunity to join the discussion. City Councilor Chuck Turner will kick off a discussion tomorrow on making the economy work for us. Local issues are part of this global movement that has just begun to grow.

Mike Prokosch works with United for a Fair Economy and the Boston Global Action Network.

© Copyright 2001 Globe Newspaper Company

###