The world's drug companies finally got it right, but not until the damage was done. They dropped their lawsuit over the availability of cheap AIDS drugs in South Africa. But, not until they had earned the disgust of people around the globe.

One has to wonder how companies with top notch public relations consultants could possibly have made such a colossal mistake. Sure, it's important to protect your intellectual property. But, to go after it in a desperately poor country with millions of destitute AIDS victims? Pregnant women and moms with sick babies and fathers unable to care for their families? And you're the industry that was the most profitable in the United States last year?

The drug companies couldn't have played it better for the opponents of globalization. Protestors in Buenos Aires or Quebec couldn't have asked for a more tantalizing example of how global corporations exploit people in poor countries. Or try to.

There are, indeed, two sides to this story. Both sides play into the whole debate about economic globalization. Both sides need to recognize the validity of the other's arguments and listen to what is really being said.

For example, while it was callous to try to restrict cheap drugs in an impoverished country, drug companies conduct expensive research to develop new drugs to conquer disease. If their drug patents are meaningless and their profits are undercut by cheap knock-offs, they won't have the resources to continue their research. We will all be losers then.

On the other hand, these companies make drugs that very sick and very poor people need but cannot afford. There is a big outcry over their large profits and small hearts. The drug companies must work with poor countries to protect patents while still making available cheaper life-saving drugs where the expensive versions are unaffordable.

The uproar in South Africa is feeding a larger wave of protest. As discussions continue about a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas, Latin Americans are asking how this will benefit them. Will their more powerful neighbors to the North undercut their agriculture and manufacturing? Will they lose their jobs and farms?

North of the equator, protestors are asking similar questions. The violent demonstrations in Quebec during the Summit of the Americas are part of a continuum of protest. The Internet has become a powerful communications and organizing tool, turning this sea change into a tidal wave. Just like the Vietnam protestors of the '60's and '70's, these dissidents neither like nor believe the answers they get from industry and government. Unlike the Vietnam era, they are able to communicate and organize in lightning time, making their activities particularly potent.

Global corporations cannot afford to be wracked by protests everywhere they operate. They cannot afford the bad publicity of sweat shops or environmental disasters. They need to have all their constituencies-stockholders, customers, employees-believe they are making a positive difference where they work. They can no longer extract wealth from a country, claiming they are providing jobs, and then leave an environmental wasteland, unemployment or desperate poverty behind.

There are many things global corporations can do. Among these are training workers with technological skills; raising their employees' standard of living through better wages, health care and education; helping to build the infrastructure that will enable the country to develop economically and to create indigenous businesses that will thrive long after the corporation is gone. They can also partner with non-profit organizations working to improve peoples' lives in developing countries.

Yes, it is expensive to be socially responsible in poor countries. But, it is far less expensive than losing valuable assets to violence or expropriation or having your employees riot or your customers desert to a competitor because they think you exploit helpless people. Even more important, it is simply the right thing to do. This wave of change will not be stopped. Those who believe globalization is beneficial will have to show the multitude of dissenters that they will bring positive change, not greater hardship, to the legions of the world's poor.