Legitimizing Polyarchy
Canada's Contribution to "Democracy
Promotion" in Latin America and the Caribbean
by Anthony Fenton, Canadian Dimension
www.zmag.org, October 29, 2006
Since it signed NAFTA (1994) and joined
the Organization of American States, the Canadian government has
more closely aligned its foreign policy with that of the United
States than at any point in recent history. At the same time,
the Canadian government has taken an increasing interest in the
affairs of Latin America and the Caribbean.
Some attention has been paid to things
like joint military exercises in the Caribbean with the U.S. and
other allies, support for the damaging practices of Canadian mining
companies, and the expanding presence of Canadian financial interests
in the global South, but a newer area of Canada's foreign policy
posture warrants scrutiny: Canada's deepening involvement in the
controversial field of international 'democracy promotion' activities.
This article will focus largely on Canadian
Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL), a 'quasi-governmental' organization
that is a key but under-appreciated actor in assisting Canada's
foreign policy interests for the region in the name of democracy,
private enterprise, and free markets. As "the right arm"
of the Canadian government in the region, FOCAL is on the vanguard
of broader trends in Canadian 'democracy promotion' activities
in the hemishpere. The organization is notable for its material
and ideological ties to the NED and other U.S. agencies. FOCAL
makes up one facet of Canadian democracy promotion activities,
but an examination of its activities demonstrates why progressive
social movements should pay close attention to this new genre
of political intervention into the affairs of the nations of the
Global South.
Promoting Democracy through 'Overt Operations'
"We're engaged in almost missionary
workWe've seen what the Socialists do for each other. We've seen
what the Communists do for each other. And now we've come along,
and we have a broadly democratic movement, a force for democracy."
So said Keith Schuette, head of the international arm of the U.S.
Republican Party as he described the self-perception of his fellow
practitioners in the emerging field of 'democracy promotion' to
the New York Times in mid-1986.(1)
The National Endowment for Democracy was
created in 1982 by a "handful of powerful people," including
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who undertook "skillful
manoeuvrings"(2) to gain bipartisan acceptance for its vigourous
pursuit of "an aggressive American policy in fostering a
move toward democracy in the third world."(3) Gone were the
days of politically untenable support for military dictatorships,
a strategy that was rigourously pursued throughout the region
for most of the Cold War period by the U.S. security and intelligence
apparatus. This period saw over two dozen separate U.S. military
and Central Intelligence Agency-led interventions throughout Latin
America.(4)
David K. Shipler of the New York Times
wrote that NED's "program resembles the aid given by the
Central Intelligence Agency in the 1950's, 60's and 70's to bolster
pro-American political groups." Making once-covert activities
overt had the benefit of "lending a novel flexibility to
Government-aided efforts abroad, for doing what official agencies
have never been comfortable doing in public."(5) This important
point was reiterated five years later in a Washington Post article,
which characterized the NED as "The sugar daddy of overt
operations." One of the NED's founders, Allen Weinstein,
famously told the Post "A lot of what we do today was done
covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."(6)
Writing in Covert Action Quarterly, James
Ciment and Immanual Ness describe the nuance of NED's interventions:
"[T]he NED - though its funding remains
a fraction of that still devoted to covert action by the CIA -
offers a more subtle, sophisticated, and politically acceptable
method for furthering U.S. foreign policy interests. Where the
Cold War-era CIA once crushed genuinely democratic movementsthe
NED attempts to coopt them."(7)
A product of the waning Cold War period,
the NED's activities, which require State Department approval
and are privy to Congressional oversight, helped "to reduce
the fear of some leaders in Washington that friendly military
dictatorships may give way to democratically elected governments
prone to communist influence." (8)
Investigative journalist-turned-social
theorist William I. Robinson has written about NED activities
for nearly two decades. In his path-breaking analysis of U.S.
intervention in Nicaragua, A Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention
in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in the
Post-Cold War Era, Robinson describes the NED as being on the
vanguard of 'the new intervention,': "The creation of the
National Endowment for Democracy was part and parcel of the resurgence
of intervention abroad and the development of low-intensity conflict
doctrines."(9)
In his later text on U.S. intervention,
Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony,
Robinson described the NED as being "organically integrated
into the overall execution of US national security and foreign
policyThe NED has operated in tandem with all major interventionist
undertakings of the 1980s and 1990s." The NED structure,
which consists of an "interlocked core of political warfare
specialists" makes it "an exact mirror of the institutional
structure of power in the United States."(10) Robinson is
referring to the four 'pillar' institutes that receive funding
from the NED. These include the international wings of the Democratic
and Republican parties-the International Republican Institute
(IRI), and National Democratic Institute (NDI), respectively.
The remaining pillars are big business representation through
the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), and big
labour is represented by the by the Solidarity Centre. The four
institutes, along with an alphabet soup mixture of other overt
operators-for example, the International Foundation for Electoral
Systems (IFES), the America's Development Foundation (ADF), Creative
Associates International Inc., (CAII), Development Alternatives
International (DAI), Management Systems International (MSI)-receive
the majority of their funding from USAID. According to IRI spokesperson
Christopher Sands, the most recent combined NDI and IRI budgets
were almost $200 million.(11), which eclipses by more than double
the NED's annual budget of $80 million.
Robinson argues that "democracy promotion...is
more accurately called polyarchy." Polyarchy "refers
to a system in which a small group actually rules, and participation
in decision-making by the majority is confined to choosing among
competing elites in tightly controlled electoral processes."
(12) Elsewhere, Robinson has argued that "polyarchy as a
distinct form of elite rule performs the function of legitimating
existing inequalities, and does so more effectively than authoritarianism."(13)
Putting it bluntly, as former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe
Talbott described the 'realpolitik' reasoning behind the shift
from supporting authoritarianism to promoting polyarchy, "democracies
are more likely to be reliable partners in trade and diplomacy
and more likely to pursue foreign and defense policies that are
compatible with American interests."(14)
Pioneered by the US government, democracy
promotion has gone global. While the US is still the dominant
player when it comes to exporting polyarchy, a multitude of Northern
countries are adopting similar methods. Most recently, the United
Nations established 'UNDEF,' the UN Democracy Fund, which has
already announced that it will be dispersing $36 million in "democracy
funds" to "civil society organizations" around
the world.(15) UNDEF was adopted without a vote by the UN General
Assembly at the 2005 UN World Summit, along with other controversial,
interventionist endeavours, such as the Responsibility to Protect
doctrine, a Canadian initiative which allows, through a de facto
revision of the UN charter, for military intervention and the
suspension of state sovereignty when states have been deemed "failing
or failed." (16) In preparing to enter the 'democracy promotion'
field, UNDEF officials met with U.S. agencies including a number
of NED affiliates, as a first order of business.(17)
These developments indicate that the discourse
of 'democracy promotion' has become normalized in 21st century
interventionist thinking, even though as Ciment and Ness point
out that "it is unclear that there is a single example of
political reform, democratic or otherwise, anywhere in the world
that can be attributed to an NED program."(18) The most extensive
analysis of NED's activities to date, conducted by Eric T. Hale,
reached a similar conclusion :
"This research does not find evidence
that NED was successful at promoting democracy and economic freedom
during the 1990s. The motivation behind promoting democracy and
economic freedom may be admirable, but, without proof of its efficacy,
it seems to have more potential risks than benefits. This research
was unable to find the proof necessary to justify its continued
practice."(19)
There is however, plenty of evidence to
support the fact that the NED has, to varying degrees, successfully
carried out activities, far from admirable, calculated to undermine
popular movements and install polyarchic systems around the world.
I will now briefly examine Canada's role
in promoting polyarchy.
Canada Develops Overt Ops Capacities
Canadian policy makers welcomed the transition
from U.S. support for military dictatorships to 'democracies.'
Openly supporting dictatorships didn't accord with Canada's self-image
as a 'middle power' who exercises "selfless activism"(20)
and a unique brand of "exceptionalism," notions that
inhered a Canadian foreign policy cultivated and projected outward
by Canadian officialdom. The rhetoric of 'democracy promotion,'
as we shall see, is a far better fit with the Canadian exceptionalism
narrative, summed up in the following Liberal party statement:
"Canada's history as a non-colonizing power, champion of
constructive multilateralism and effective international mediator,
underpins an important and distinctive role among nations as they
seek to build a new and better order"(21)
In one of the few critical analyses of
Canada and democratization, Mark Neufeld argues that "the
dependence on the US on second-tier core states such as Canada
fulfilling their functions as legitimizers - not to mention taking
a lead role in contexts where US activism would do more harm than
good - must not be overlooked." (22) Neufeld describes how
the 'democratization' 'in/of' Canadian foreign policy was designed
to "re-establish the legitimacy of Canadian foreign policy
in the eyes of its counter-consensus critics."(23) The critics
Neufeld refers to were scrutinizing Canadian Foreign Policy for
its commitment to emerging neoliberal capitalism, tied aid, the
structural adjustment policies of the IMF, and the interests of
Canadian banking and corporate interests. In response to widespread
discontent, Neufeld writes in a Gramscian vein, "Canadian
political leaders were able to establish a 'passive revolution,'"
which consisted of "the co-optation of the potential leaders
of subaltern groups through the strategy of 'assimilating and
domesticating potentially dangerous ideas by adjusting them to
the policies of the dominant coalition.'" (24)
Critics who demanded the 'democratization'
of Canadian foreign policy got more than they bargained for as
Canada appropriated their discourse and set about creating its
democracy promotion apparatus. Neufeld notes that "the discourse
of the counter-consensus provided the very resources of legitimization
for Canada's support of polyarchy abroad." Critics of Canadian
foreign policy were transformed into "stakeholders,"
a term that is well characterized by Canadian professor Kin Nossal:
"stakeholder politics is an excellent tool of political management
for state officialsitbinds the stakeholders more tightly to the
policies eventually adopted."(25)
Beginning in the late 1980's, the Canadian
government created several arms-length agencies for dedicated
to "democracy promotion". At the same time, new funding
initiatives guided the transformation of existing NGOs into vehicles
for polyarchy promotion. Thomas Axworthy and Les Campbell, who
have recently proposed and conceptualized a "blueprint"
for a NED-like structure under the banner of the "Democracy
Canada Institute," point out that "early internal government
discussions" in the mid-1980s, "suggested that policy
makers were seeking to create an Organization similar to the National
Endowment for Democracy," which was among "the international
models Canada should explore."(26)
Things did not proceed quite as planned,
and Parliament instead created the International Centre for Human
Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD, later renamed Rights
& Democracy (R&D)), In 1988 Ed Broadbent was named R&D's
first president, following his retirement as leader of the NDP.
It is no secret, however, that R&D maintains a close affiliation
with the NED, sharing a database on the NED's website, along with
funding or partnering with some of the same organizations as NED.
On its website, the NED describes R&D as a 'counterpart institution,"
and reveals that "During the planning phase for the new Centre,
members of a Parliamentary task force consulted with the leadership
of NED."(27)
Campbell and Axworthy's contributions
demonstrate the non-partisan nature of overt operations in Canada.
Campbell is a former chief of staff for NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin.
He later joined the one of the NED's core institutes, NDI, where
he is regional director for the Middle East operations. He has
recruited so many Canadians to work there that nearly a quarter
of NDI's staff are Canadian.(28) Axworthy, meanwhile, is a former
Liberal insider (and brother of former Liberal Foreign Affairs
Minister Lloyd Axworthy,), and a one time secretary to Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau. The study itself is posted and housed at the conservative-minded
Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), "the country's
most influential think tank." (29) At the time of the reports'
publication, the IRPP was headed by Hugh Segal, a Conservative
Senator and former advisor to Conservative PM Brian Mulroney.
Segal is also the chair of the private Walter and Duncan Gordon
Foundation's board of trustees, who shelled out $50,000 for the
'Canadian Democratic Institute Feasibility Study' in 2004.(30)
Over the years, many benign-sounding organizations
have acted in Canada's foreign policy interests, carrying out
democracy promotion projects with millions of dollars in CIDA
or Foreign Affairs funding. Prominent in the field of electoral
intervention and the practice of 'demonstration elections,' has
been Elections Canada. Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, Jean
Pierre Kingsley, is on the Board of Directors of IFES, an NED
affiliate that works closely with the IRI and NDI. The chairman
of IFES, in turn, sits on the Board of the IRI. There is also
the Institute for Media, Policy and Civil Society (IMPACS), on
whose board Les Campbell of NDI sits; there's also Reseau Liberté,
a Quebec-based international media NGO which, like IMPACS, has
been known to collaborate with USAID and NED; Alternatives is
yet another media and civil society NGO that also works with U.S.
overt operators. Other prominent Canadian overt operators include
the Parliamentary Centre, the Forum of Federations, the Canadian
Association of Former Parliamentarians, the Institute of Public
Administration of Canada (IPAC), among a host of others. Each
of these merits detailed scrutiny. For the purposes of understanding
the extent of Canadian overt operators linkages to the U.S. and
of the extremes to which Canada's operators are willing to go
in Latin America, however, I will now turn to the case study of
the Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL).
FOCAL point: Regime Change
The Canadian Foundation of the Americas
(FOCAL) is a useful case study for understanding the extent of
Canada's overt operations in Latin America as well as its inter-connectedness
with the U.S. model of 'democracy promotion' generally and with
the NED specifically. FOCAL's leadership structure has deep historical
ties to overt operations in the hemisphere, and material ties
to high level interventionist policy makers in the U.S. The case
of FOCAL is indicative of the extremes to which Canada's overt
operators will go 'in the name of democracy' and in the interests
of regime change. I will also briefly examine FOCAL's role in
assisting and helping carry out Canadian foreign policy in Haiti,
where regime change took place in February 2004, with Canada playing
an unprecedented leadership role as a result. It is due in part
to Canada's developed 'democracy promotion' apparatus that they
are able to take on such a role in the early 21st century, and
evidence much suggests they intend to play a similar roles in
future interventions.
FOCAL was created in 1990 in response
to a Cabinet-level decision to deepen ties with Latin America
"through policy discussion and analysis." Its primary
role, according to a government-commissioned evaluation of its
activities in 2004, is to function "as a bridge between civil
society, government and the private sector."(31) Although
it claims to be a "non-partisan, independent NGO," the
authors of the evaluation make it clear that FOCAL is widely perceived
to be no more than an extension of the government itself. The
report states, "Stakeholders from every sector and _from
the academic community in particular, indicated that FOCAL is
already perceived as 'the right arm of the government,' echoing
the perspective and beliefs of its funding bodies, rather than
a truly independent, non-governmental organization."(32)
Elsewhere, FOCAL's level of policy is described as "superficial,"(33)
and they are perceived by stakeholders as "overly aligned
with Canadian government positions" (34) and are "unwilling
to engage in an open debate and to discuss their forums or papers."(35)
Overall, "stakeholders questioned the legitimacy of the dialogue
that transpires" where FOCAL is concerned.(36)
The Canadian government, through Foreign
Affairs Canada, CIDA, and the International Development Research
Centre (IDRC), is the primary benefactor of FOCAL.(37) This fact,
and the presence of current and former diplomats, government officials,
business executives, and academics on its board of directors has
done little to change this image. The evaluation acknowledges
that this complicates matters, wherein "the predominance
of former government officials on the Board contributes to its
apparent pro-government stance on many issues and the subsequent
perception of FOCAL as a quasi-governmental agency."(38)
As part of FOCAL's mandate to nurture
ties and network with the private sector, Chairman of the Board
John W. Graham brought two well-connected individuals onto FOCAL's
Board in 2002, Beatrice Rangel and Alan J. Stoga. Graham got to
know Rangel when he was Canada's ambassador to Venezuela in the
early 1990's. At that time, Rangel was an advisor and chief of
staff to Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez, an unpopular
ally of the U.S. in their 'low intensity' war against the Sandinistas
in Nicaragua, and the object of a failed coup attempt by Lt. Col.
Hugo Chavez in 1992. Rangel spent many years in the business world
working for Gustavo Cisneros, a billionare media mogul, personal
friend of George Bush, Sr. and Brian Mulroney, and alleged backer
of the April 2002 coup attampt against Hugo Chavez. In 2004, former
President Perez said that President Chavez "must die like
a dog, because he deserves it."(39)
There are strong indications that Rangel
has a rich background in overt, and possibly covert operations.
A section of William I. Robinson's A Faustian Bargain is devoted
to "the Venezuelan connection," which provided key
support to the U.S in their efforts to subvert the Nicaraguan
Revolution. Like President Ronald Reagan at the time, President
Carlos Andres Perez believed the "Nicaraguan Revolution should
be contained...through the bolstering of the anti-Sandinista civic
opposition." (40) Citing "Venezuelan diplomats...and...sources
close to U.S. intelligence" Robinson describes the role of
Rangel, who Perez had appointed as his personal representative
"in some contacts with the Bush administration." "Rangel...met
with administration officials in Washington several times during
the first half of 1989. On at least one occasion, she personally
carried a suitcase stuffed with secret funds from Washington and
Miami to Caracas for use in Venezuelan-based Nicaraguan operations."(41)
Elsewhere, Robinson describes how Perez worked closely with NED
and CIA. "The secret flow of funds clearly involved the CIA
and NED as well as the State Department..."(42)
In an e-mail response, Rangel denied carrying
bags of money. "I never received and have not received any
funds from the US government except for taxation returns; I never
brought any funds to Managua."(43)
William Robinson, in an e-mail response,
stood by his original sources and information.
Subsequent to joining FOCAL's Board, Rangel
would facilitate the first National Endowment for Democracy grant
for FOCAL. She did so in 2004 through her connections to the NED's
then-Latin American and Caribbean Director, Christopher Sabatini.
"Chris Sabatini and I, one day I was telling him that I thought
FOCAL was doing a sensational job with the civil society and that
the NED should support it, I was just trying to get funding for
FOCAL.."(44) The reasons that Rangel gives for a Canadian
organization stepping in to do the NED's work implicitly speak
to the earlier-described theme of exceptionalism, "I believe
the United States has, right now, such a bad image, the work would
proceed much better, and it would be a better investment, for
NED if FOCAL does the job because Canada, Canadians don't elicit
these kinds of feelings of rejection that Americans do now."(45)
FOCAL's role as NED 'proxy' may also be
due to the greater scrutiny of the NED's activities within Venezuela.
In her expose of the U.S. role in the 2002 coup attempt, detailed
through Freedom of Information Act documents, The Chavez Code,
Eva Golinger mentions Beatrice Rangel in the context of the NED's
history in Venezuela. Golinger also contextualizes the allegations
against Rangel's employer, Gustavo Cisneros. The result of Golinger's
book has been far greater scrutiny of the NED's activities and
charges of treason against some Venezuelan recipients of NED funding,
such as Sumate.(46) At the time of the coup, Rangel's friend Sabatini
was overseeing the NED's operations. Rangel takes issue with Golinger,
referring to her as a " typical American from the left that
believes in conspiracy theories."(47) And, defending the
NED, she said, "I think that the NED has helped institutional
development throughout Latin America. I do not think for one minute
that the NED has worked to subvert democratic governance."
_In 2005, NED would give FOCAL $94,516,
"To generate a dialogue on the role that civil society and
the international community can play in the promotion and defense
of democracy in the hemisphere." FOCAL commissioned two papers
on the subject and hosted a conference which they chose not to
publicize, along with "follow-up meetings in Venezuela and
Ecuador on civil society and hemispheric and international norms
for democracy promotion and defense."(48)
Today, Rangel is also the President and
CEO of AMLA Consulting, which is owned by fellow FOCAL Board member
Alan Stoga, who also heads Zemi Communications, a public relations
firm that "develops and manages communications programs for
major corporations as well as governments."(49) Demonstrating
perhaps the true nature of the private sector ties that FOCAL
is cultivating, Stoga has long-standing ties to former U.S. Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger. For many years, Stoga worked as the
chief economist at Kissinger & Associates. The Zemi communications
website lists three "strategic partners," one of which
is AMLA consulting. The other two are Kissinger & Associates
and McLarty-Kissinger.(50) Stoga is also on the board of the elitist
business roundtable Council of the Americas. Christopher Sabatini,
who left the NED in 2005, and has denied requests for an interview,
works for the Council, while Gustavo Cisneros is on the Chairman's
international advisory council, along with the prominent head
of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, Tom D'Aquino.
FOCAL Chair John Graham's history further
speaks to FOCAL's ties to Washington and Canada's role as a U.S.
foreign policy proxy via the OAS. Graham is a long time overt
operator in a number of capacities. He was the first head of the
Unit for Promotion of Democracy within the OAS, which Canada helped
create soon after joining the OAS. Since then, a Canadian has
always headed this foundation, which is "responsible for
activities in support of democratic consolidation in the member
states."(51) Graham was later a consultant for IFES, the
NED-affiliate who specializes in electoral intervention and human
rights co-optation. Other FOCAL Board members with ties to the
OAS include Paul Durand, Canada's Ambassador to the OAS, and
Elizabeth Spehar, who was the head of the UPD until she took on
the role of overseeing "demonstration elections" in
Haiti on behalf of the OAS. In this capacity, she helped carry
out the 'trusteeship' role that was strongly advocated by FOCAL
during Parliamentary hearings into Canada's role in Haiti.
FOCAL would play a central role in providing
legitimacy and justification for Canada's role in the 2004 coup
d'etat that overthrew Haiti's President Jean Bertrand Aristide.
Their official mandate is to "support Canadian engagement
in the reconstruction of the Haitian state and economy."(52))
They have appeared as witnesses for Parliamentary Committees,
organized high-level meetings with Haitian, Canadian, and other
regional officials, and have cultivated close ties with Haiti's
elites, many of which were involved in the campaign to overthrow
Aristide. FOCAL has also been among the most vocal in calling
for a 'trusteeship' over Haiti. In April, 2004, John Graham flirted
with this idea during a Parliamentary hearing:
"In the case of Haiti, there is a
need for international organizations to occupy some of the space
that has been abandoned by the Haitian government....We have to
be extremely careful - and when I say "we," I mean Canada
or the international community as a whole - in addressing this
kind of problem lest we have the stones of anti-colonialism hurled
at us. We don't want to call it a trusteeship...But some control
has to be vested in the international community to give Haiti
a beginning."
Carlo Dade is FOCAL's Senior Advisor and
has been the main point person for FOCAL's "Canada and the
Rebuilding of Haiti" program. He has been a strong advocate
of a "leadership role" for Canada in post-Aristide Haiti.
Playing off of the theme of Canadian exceptionalism, Dade told
the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs:
"Canada and the Caribbean really
stand out in terms of the historical relation vis-à-vis
Haiti, and this creates a huge opportunity, a huge amount of political
capital that we have to spend in Haiti...Canada also enjoys a
perception in the region as a counterweight to what is viewed
as heavy U.S. involvement in the region, a voice of moderation,
a positive influence...and that creates an opportunity to engage
too."(53)
Dade also went to considerable lengths
to relate Canada's potential role in Haiti with the issue of bolstering
Canada-U.S. relations: "The U.S. would welcome Canadian involvement
and Canada's taking the lead in Haiti. The administration in Washington
has its hands more than full with Afghanistan, Iraq...This is
a chance for Canada to step up and provide that sort of focused
attention and leadership, and the administration would welcome
this."(54)
Interestingly, Dade mentions a recent
visit to Ottawa by Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America,
Roger Noriega, and the head of USAID for Latin America, Adolfo
Franco, both of which said that a leadership role for Canada "is
something of interest."(55) This connection is important
given that Dade, a U.S. citizen, worked for a Congressionally-funded
quasi-government agency called the Inter-American Foundation (IAF).
The IAF has provided FOCAL with at least $50,000 in funding. Noriega,
considered a key architect in U.S. efforts to undermine Aristide,
and Franco, who would have overseen U.S. 'democracy promotion'
efforts in Haiti prior to the coup, are Board members of IAF.(56)
Part of FOCAL's efforts at 'reconstructing
the Haitian economy' have included pushing the Canadian government
to endorse the privatization of key Haitian industries, a process
that has been resisted by Haitians at the grassroots level, as
well as by President Aristide prior to his overthrow in 2004.
A "policy brief" that FOCAL submitted to CIDA not intended
for public disseminationproposes that "There is a clear need
for a rational, transparent and intelligent privatization programme."(57)This
report was the result of a high level meeting co-hosted by FOCAL
in September 2005, which brought several members of Haiti's elite
to discuss the theme of 'the role of the private sector' in Haiti
with Canadian political and diplomatic officials. Former Prime
Minister and FOCAL Board Member Joe Clark chaired the meeting.
_
_By no means does a brief look at some
of FOCAL's actors exhaust either the extent of FOCAL's role as
the "right arm" of the Canadian government nor their
obvious ties to important U.S. political agencies and actors.
Neither does this render a proper appreciation of the moral implications
of FOCAL's supporting a coup in violation of the OAS Charter that
Canada purports to uphold. The coup directly resulted in the murder
of thousands of Haitians by paramilitary groups, police, and occupying
military forces. FOCAL's funding relationship with the NED symbolizes
their "solidarity" with the NED's overall aims as much
as it implicates them in the NED's "overt operations"
in places like Venezuela and Ecuador. The example of FOCAL does
provide us with a example of the extent to which Canada's emergent
"democracy promotion" apparatus is "interlocked"
with that of the U.S., which remains the dominant player in the
field. FOCAL's evident distaste for populism and revolutionary
movements also suggests that they will be called upon, as in Haiti,
to offer legitimisation, justification, and intellectual and material
support for future 'transitions' that Canada intends to be a part
of. This was inferred by a high ranking Canadian diplomat in Haiti,
interviewed in September 2005:
"Canada is one of the most important
aid donors in the country and I think now there is a new spirit
and if we can use this new multilateralism to solve the crisis
in Haiti, this could be, I would say, an example for the crisis
to come in this hemisphere. We could think, for example, what
will happen when Cuba will be in transition, will it be just an
American issue? Or will it be an inter-hemispheric issue?...Haiti
is important for Canada, who are pursuing, I would say, not only
one agenda, more than one agenda, and I suppose also to see Canada
playing a leadership role in Haiti, I'm sure that is also welcome
in Washington, to say that Canada is ready to play a role in a
region, I mean where Washington has interests and maybe don't
have one day, because of the history, they don't have the same
capability, the same flexibility as we do to be involved in this
country."(58)
Canada's Latin American and Caribbean
policy has become more prominent and more closely integrated with
that of the United States. The development of an extensive Canadian
'democracy (or, more aptly, polyarchy) promotion' apparatus that
has material and ideological ties to the dominant and ultra-interventionist
U.S. apparatus, Canada may pose a serious danger to any popular
movement that should arise in the hemisphere with the intention
of empowering poor people and bucking the Washington/Ottawa consensus.
Canada page
Home Page