Georgie Anne Geyer 'BEST SPAT' AWARD AT SUMMIT GOES TO THE TWO HOSTS

QUEBEC CITY, Canada -- Demonstrations by thousands of anti-capitalist protesters, prepped in the latest tactics of civil disobedience and loaded for corporate bear, have caught the attention of the international press here. But in many ways, the snotty sniping between Quebec and Ottawa has turned out to be the most intellectually engaging spat.

In the beginning, several years ago, it was the Quebec City mayor, Jean-Paul L'Allier, who pushed ardently for bringing the third Summit of the Americas to his beautiful, historical city. The presence of the 34 hemispheric presidents would, he believed, bring prestige and attention to Quebec's ongoing pursuit of independence.

But after Ottawa had effectively taken over the summit in the name of national prerogative, Mayor L'Allier was quoted as muttering, "The next time world leaders want to have a closed meeting, they should have it in a desert."

Then came the riveting question of whether the Quebec premier, Bernard Landry, should speak at the summit. It was, after all, in his city and province. It was the Quebecois who had gotten Canada into this ... well, situation. And Quebec, this prominent separatist asserted, was "a nation."

But Ottawa, led by Gilbert Normand, the federal secretary of state for science, research and development, disagreed. Normand responded that Quebec, at best, could be considered a "provincial nation," no different from, for instance, the "nation of Prince Edward Island." When, as the final insult, Ottawa refused to allow Premier Landry to speak at the historic summit, his Quebec government was even more miffed than the tens of thousands of demonstrators.

The Quebec premier's response was to mount a huge electronic billboard in front of the summit conference center. The 20-foot-by-20-foot replica of the Canadian-made NASDAQ sign in New York City flickers unrelentingly at arriving and departing delegates: "Quebec, a Nation of North America and of the Future." In French.

When I asked Louise Beaudoin, Quebec's well-spoken minister of international affairs, whether all of these acts represented the usual "spirit" of relations between English-speaking Ottawa and French-speaking Quebec, she answered dryly: "Yes, that's the spirit -- every day."

This squabble between the two major host parties to the summit represents, however, more than an internecine conflict. In many ways, huge and expansive Canada and fiery Quebec might be said to represent two views of globalization.

The larger and more powerful countries, such as Canada and the United States, tend to think of free-form globalization of the world's economies as a "win-win" situation. These large and, at least until now, seemingly untouchable economic entities have bought in 100 percent to the idea that fre e trade across the globe will automatically lead to political democratization -- and without much effort on other fronts.

Smaller countries, on the other hand, tend to see it differently. At least in those regions that are doing well, their positions are often more nuanced. They believe that nation-states must constantly build themselves up socially, culturally and even psychologically from within, that globalization can supplement such efforts but not replace them.

Quebec's philosophy, thus, can be found in its commonly used phrase here, "Yes, to a market economy -- no, to a market society." Louise Beaudoin explained: "Economically speaking, we know there is nothing like a market economy, but that cannot solve problems of living, of culture, of the environment, of health, of education, of the redistribution of wealth. Globalization cannot do all those things."

Thus, a "Quebec model" has been developed here, which, though it welcomes both foreign investment here and Quebec investment abroad, also stresses many of the factors that the counter-summit of anti-capitalist demonstrators are stressing. These include somehow incorporating into the whole process of globalization the social, cultural and human rights of individual citizens of nation-states.

These issues came to the fore several weeks ago. The Quebec government learned, through a little-known summit document, that corporations were being offered, for substantial down payments to the meeting, all sorts of privileged perks, including choices where to speak at receptions for leaders and whom to sit next to. And all this for the corporations -- not countries -- while the premier of host Quebec was not permitted to speak!

The real question behind this summit, then, is not mere economic globalization. Everyone agrees that it, in some form, is here to stay. The real question, in this newly open economic world, is who represents people? Governments? Nation-states? Unions? Nationless corporations or even demonstrators? The answers are in the process of emerging.

-- Anonymous, April 23, 2001