The debate, cosponsored by the Nation, the Economist and WAMU American University Radio, pitted Crook and his Economist colleague Zanny Minton-Beddoes against William Greider of the Nation and Lori Wallach of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. Presided over by radio host Kojo Nnamdi, the dustup left both sides exasperated: Few points were conceded and no minds were changed, either up on the stage or among the largely progressive audience.

But if you looked beyond the confrontational mood, a different story emerged. Circling each other warily, the two sides hovered over the same basic objectives. Indeed, through all the heated rhetoric of the participants, the debate emerged as a useful — if ultimately frustrating — prism through which to view the ongoing dialogue over global trade.

In September, representatives from 146 countries gathered in Cancun to continue the current round of global trade talks that commenced in Doha, Qatar in 2001. Billed as the "development round" because of its purported focus on poorer World Trade Organization (WTO) members, the Doha round has been hampered by the failure to reach compromises on such areas as farm subsidies and industrial tariffs. Modestly tagged as a stock-taking summit, the meeting was over before it started. A bloc of developing countries, egged on by a network of nongovernmental organizations, stood firm against the United States and the European Union, who themselves did little to promote compromise. While new talks are scheduled for December, prospects for an accord now appear slim.

Many on the left hailed the collapse as a historic moment of solidarity among the world's poorer nations, a position Greider and Wallach gladly took up during the debate. To hear them tell it, the paralysis of the Doha round put a halt to the march of "corporate-led globalization." Wallach even broke out the hefty rule books for the WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Far from setting rules on tariffs and subsidies, she said, the books dictated terms that fell beyond the ken of global trade, stipulating conditions on social spending, intellectual property and investments. In other words, she said, the WTO has become "a system of global governance," infringing on the sovereignty of poorer members to benefit multinational corporations.

It's a view that proponents of global trade roundly reject. In their postmortem on Cancun (memorably summed up with a cover illustration of a cactus giving the finger), the editors at the Economist called the breakdown a "tragedy," particularly for the world's poor. Far from jubilation, Minton-Beddoes said, the Cancun collapse "merits sadness, merits disappointment." And Crook implored the audience to keep its eyes on the big picture: "Global capitalism is winning the war on poverty, and the WTO, if it is allowed, can help."

It didn't take long for the gloves to come off. Greider fired the first salvo, calling the Economist a bastion of "high-church free-traders." Crook and Minton-Beddoes, speaking with a unanimity eerily mimicking the Economist's monolithic editorial stance, raised objections to the left's "grandstanding" claims against globalization. Meanwhile, Wallach dismissed the Economist's upbeat pronouncements as a "numbers game" — a game that she herself played when it suited her purposes.

Nevertheless, for all of its intensity, the debate revealed that the discord may not be insoluble. The Economist delegates were hardly ideological adherents of market fundamentalism — Crook pointed to China and South Korea as prime beneficiaries of global trade, even as he acknowledged that both countries achieved tremendous growth by selective application of free-trade principles. And they accompanied their support for the WTO with sober criticisms of the current global trading system, a message that may have been lost on an audience unreceptive to their even tones and cool logic.

But while Greider proved doctrinaire, Wallach presented a more amenable vision. After initially painting the WTO as an irredeemable body, she softened, offering a glimpse of compromise by advocating her own recipe for reform: greater transparency, elimination of farm subsidies, removal of rules on patents — all in all a system less dictated by corporate interests. Far from revolutionary, the objectives were eminently reasonable and not too far out of step with those of her opponents.

That Wallach's agenda actually overlapped with the Economist's highlights what makes the globalization debate so vexing — it's obvious that many on the left realize that WTO reform, not rejection, would be acceptable, but their political calculus prevents them from giving even an inch. Wallach's hard-line approach suggested an acute awareness of the strategic value of stridency. The Economist team may have shared many of her same positions, but Wallach never would have admitted it — she clearly understands that dispassionate discourse might not necessarily bring about those changes. It may smack of "grandstanding," but the unbending language of activism serves an undeniable purpose.

But will "progressives" seize the chance for compromise and true reform when it finally comes? Or will the power of radical rhetoric prove too difficult to harness for a more productive outcome? One hopes that the instances of quiet accord at the debate hint at future progress on the seemingly intractable issues on the table. It remains to be seen whether the left has the capacity, much less the will, to make its potent message of dissent a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

E-mail Elbert Ventura at elbert_ventura@yahoo.com.