With hardly any public awareness, a transnational alliance with more clout than the United Nations is taking shape around us. And it has already won its first battle.

The foot soldiers of this new movement are Internet users. Last month, by sheer weight of numbers, they humiliated a superpower.

The American Senate was poised to outlaw file-sharing services that flout copyright laws. Party managers were confident they had the votes to proceed.

But hundreds of websites, including heavyweights like Wikipedia and the search engine Google, organized a protest. It's believed millions of Internet users phoned or emailed the U.S. Congress to demand a back-down. They got their way. The project was shelved indefinitely.

Now the online army has a new target in sight. Last October, 31 countries - Canada among them - signed an anti-counterfeiting trade agreement.

The purpose of this ACTA treaty is to shore up patent and trademark rights. But the agreement is something of a grab-all.

It would commit participating countries to prosecute manufacturers of knock-off products. These run the gamut from fake Rolex watches and Gucci handbags to pirated versions of brand-name prescription drugs.

However, ACTA also envisages an all-out attack on websites that infringe on intellectual property rights. There is a huge online traffic in print material, movies and songs that have been copied illegally.

Both supporters and critics of ACTA have a case. Brazen infringement of copyright cannot be tolerated. It's manifestly wrong that musicians, artists or composers should have their work stolen by file-sharing companies.

On the other hand, the treaty was cobbled together in a secretive, almost conspiratorial manner that invites suspicion. And if a broad interpretation of property rights is adopted, everything from saving an online recipe to quoting a few words from an e-magazine could be considered illegal. That would affect most Internet users.

But the issue at this point is not who has the better case. It's who has more firepower.

And there is evidence that the online army may be gaining an upper hand.

Several countries that signed on to ACTA appear ready to back out. Two weeks ago, the Polish government suspended the ratification process after massive protests roiled the country and government websites were hacked. The Czech Republic and Slovakia followed suit.

Slovenia's representative at the negotiations has issued a written apology for supporting ACTA after a major bank in her country was attacked by hackers. And members of the Bulgarian parliament are also indicating their opposition to the treaty.

But most telling of all, ACTA only comes into force if five of the signatories ratify it. To date, none has.

For a movement that has no formal structure, no real leadership and no standing of any kind, this is a striking, if troubling, accomplishment.

Of course there always have been protest movements, and some of them achieved noteworthy goals. The U.S. anti-war movement forced an exit from Vietnam. During the 1960s, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament prevented installation of missiles in several European countries.

But the online army is different. For one thing, it possesses a completely new weapon - the ability to disable government or business functions by hacking their systems.

And it has both numbers and time on its side. There are more than 360 million Internet users worldwide, and that total is growing rapidly.

Wrecking an international treaty, or forcing significant modifications, would be a stunning display of raw power.

And it may necessitate a new kind of diplomacy.

In dismissing religion as a practical force, former Soviet leader Josef Stalin is said to have asked, "How many army divisions has the Pope?" When it comes to taming the Internet, the answer may be, "More than you think."