As in much of Latin America, these economic woes are compounded by militarization and insecurity. Ecuadorians blame this fact on Plan Colombia, which they describe as the military arm of the economic domination strategy encoded in the FTAA. In the wake of tacit U.S. support for the failed coup in Venezuela, the escalation of the Colombian conflict, and crackdowns on social movements across Latin America in the name of the war on terrorism, people throughout Latin America have come to share Ecuadorians` opposition to U.S. military strategy.

This opposition to militarization is combining with anger over the failure of neoliberalism to produce a growing wave of resistance across the region. The most recent expression of this resistance has been the victory of Lucio Gutierrez, the candidate supported by the Ecuadorian indigenous, campesino, and labor movements, in the first round of presidential elections on October 18. (He faces Alvaro Noboa, Ecuador´s richest man, in a runoff on November 24). Organizers in Ecuador excitedly point to other facesof hemispheric upheaval: the Zapatistas in Chiapas; Hugo Chavez´ Bolivarian Circles; the Brazilian electorate, who will almost certainly choose leftist Ignacio "Lula" deSilva in the upcoming elections; Evo Morales, the coca-growing campesino who nearly became President in Bolivia; the angry middle classes taking regularly to the streets in Argentina and Uruguay; and, of course, the workers, students, women's organizations, indigenas, and campesinos who are coming to surround the Quito Marriott on October 31.

In the North, meanwhile, the new militarism of the war on terrorism has shifted the analysis of many in theU.S. "antiglobalization" movement, who used to focus almost exclusively on the WTO, IMF and World Bank, and the evils of big corporations. Protesters have responded to the new geopolitical reality by linking global economic concerns with civil liberties and the war on terrorism (including Plan Colombia and the School of the Americas), issues which have long been central to the analysis of the Latin American left. When as many as 100,000 people marched in Washington DC, in April, they protested the war on terrorism, Plan Colombia, and Palestine, in addition to more traditional economic globalization issues. Similar links were made at a smaller mobilization there in late September. As Northern activists expand their work to include opposition to militarism and imperialism--a move still questioned in some quarters of the movement for strategic reasons-- they are embracing concerns that have long been central to the analyses of many Latin American social movements.

To be sure, there are still important faultlines inthis new north-south alliance. Wildly divergent demographics are one source of tension (i.e. middle class student radicals vs. indigent peasant farmers). And there are significant disagreements over subsidies to Northern farmers, protection of U.S. industries like steel and textiles, and the inclusion of environmental and labor rules in trade deals. Nonetheless, the connections between Northern and Southern activists are real, and growing stronger.

Whatever the outcome of the Quito summit, this confluence of movements presents a formidable obstacle to the Bush Administration's plans for the region, which include consolidating U.S. economic dominance via the FTAA, and increasing the U.S. military presence under the auspices of the war on terrorism. Popular unrest throughout Latin America is making it harder and harder for key governments like Brazil's to support the FTAA (indeed, 10 million Brazilians voted in a recent civil society plebiscite on the FTAA, and a whopping 98 percent rejected the plan). In the U.S., meanwhile, opposition to free trade almost scuttled the Bush administration's drive for Fast Track authority, and forced compromises on agriculture and textiles that will only make it harder to win support from Southern nations.