CIVIL SOCIETY DIALOGUE FALLS FLAT AT WINDSOR

 
The civil society conferences planned around the OAS General Assembly in Windsor, Ontario last month continue to be an enigma. The events were supposed to include both mass protests à la Seattle and Washington, D.C., as well as a civil society summit to promote dialogue in the hemisphere. By all accounts, the event was largely unsuccessful on both fronts. The experience is significant for the precedent it sets for the Summit of the Americas, which will be held in Quebec City next year.

The lack of some positive momentum in the civil society dialogue on trade leaves up in the air basic questions, such as how to and who should represent the interests of civil society. It also shows just how little the governments of the OAS value the cultivation of independent civil society organizations or understand the growing importance of so-called "popular movements."

In all, only about 3000 protesters picketed the Windsor meeting, and 42 were arrested. But the overwhelming police presence in Windsor went far beyond Seattle or Washington in tactics and intimidation. Many observers were surprised and even shocked at what they described as the Mounties' intimidating "storm trooper" presence (aggressive marches, beating on shields with batons, etc.). The OAS meetings themselves took place behind a twenty-foot-high barbed wire fence. There have been many reports of harassment of one type or another. On the streets and at the Canadian border, civil society representatives were made to feel unwelcome, and the media focused on the relatively few individuals who engaged in violent protests. Perhaps the most dramatic episode was related by Joe Gunn, chairman of the Interfaith Committee for Human Rights in Latin America and the Social Justice Office of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The latter organization had rented space for 50 NGOs that had come to strategize and lobby the OAS Ministers' Meeting. However, the Bank of Nova Scotia, which owned the building, decided to keep the NGOs out, even though they had a signed contract. This left the representatives on the street until some limited space could be found at a local church. Most people representing civil society felt provoked, and the rhetoric produced at their meetings reflected this mood.

June 5 was to have been the culmination of the Civil Society Summit organized by the International Center for Human Rights and Development (see earlier commentaries about the Windsor meetings). Attendance was down, a fact which some participants attributed to the level of rejectionist (and intolerant) rhetoric at the OAS session the day before, or simply to fatigue after innumerable meetings and rallies. In any event, the Canadian government representatives came out in force to meet with civil society, but sadly, they were alone in their efforts. The OAS debate about the elections in Peru may have contributed to the lack of attention paid to the civil society organizations, but the fact of the matter is that the Canadian hosts couldn't get one Latin American or Caribbean government to send a high-level representative, much less a minister.

This experience put an end to the Canadian foreign minister's boasts about bringing 22 countries together with the Civil Society Forum in Toronto in 1999. The Windsor Civil Society Conference was sponsored by a more "official" Canadian NGO and billed as less confrontational than the Toronto meeting, which was organized by the Continental Social Alliance. The failure of the Windsor civil society summit is unfortunate, for it could have been an opportunity to bridge the gap between official organizations-Civil Society Task Force in the United States, Participa in Latin America and Focal in Canada-with the popular movements, NGOs and union organizations of the Continental Social Alliance. This was not achieved or even attempted. The disappointing result deepens the void, strengthening the views of those who favor rejection over engagement.

The citadel of Quebec certainly will be easier to defend than Seattle or Washington, but the level of rejection and strife will most likely continue to grow in the months before the Summit of the Americas. The ferocity of the repression of the Windsor demonstrations seems to indicate that the will of some Canadian officials to engage in dialogue can only be matched by the desire of others to snuff out any protest. Serious and thoughtful preparations continue for the Continental Social Alliance's Second Peoples' Summit, along with civil disobedience protests. The Canadian government will have to redouble its efforts to seek a better climate for dialogue before the Summit of the Americas. Windsor would have been a good place to start.