Mar Del Plata may be the place where so-called “free trade” was stopped. I never underestimate the ability of the big corporate powers to get up off the mat. But, the big-scale ambition–far bigger than the Central American Free Trade Agreement–to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas is pretty much dead–at least for the remainder of the Bush Administration.

Mar Del Plata is the site of an international summit for the Americas. At a rally in a soccer stadium, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said, according to The New York Times, (registration required) “Every one of us has brought a shovel, because Mar del Plata is going to be the tomb of F.T.A.A. F.T.A.A. is dead, and we, the people of the Americas, are the ones who buried it.”

It seems to me that it will be hard for the Bush Administration to push through any large-scale so-called “free trade” agreement. CAFTA passed by a total of two votes, with just 15 so-called Democrats voting for it. With Bush on the ropes, it seems unlikely Congress will approve the kind of trade deals that are making people quite uneasy.

And, then, maybe we can get away from the dumb dichotomy that has typified the debate over trade. This has never been about the difference between “free trade” and “protectionism.” It’s about the rules under which trade occurs. The people who have pushed for these so-called “free trade” agreements have been large corporations and investors who have made sure that every possible protection is included to safeguard their interest. These so-called “free trade” agreements are stuffed full of protection.

So, let’s get away from that nonsensical debate. Get back to the real question: on what terms should trade take place? Should the rules start with figuring out how to make it easier and convenient for corporations to move around the world. Or, as I have argued, should the first sheet of paper say trade is about improving the lives of people and let’s see what rules we want to set up that make that possible and how corporations fit in with that plan?

A note on the media converage: the big soccer stadium rally had either more than 10,000 (the Financial Times), at least 25,000 (The New York Times), or about 20,000 (Wall Street Journal). The New York Times seemed a tad annoyed that the rally was peaceful–and, indeed, the story’s print front-page headline was “Protestors Riot As Bush Attends 34-Nation Talks”–saying Chavez “nonetheless mocked and taunted Mr. Bush” and “Every mention of Fidel Castro, in contrast, was cheered, as were frequent references by Mr. Chávez to his desire to unite all of Latin America in a new wave of socialism.”