---The New Politics of Political Aid in Venezuela

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/4420

by Tom Barry


Five years after U.S.-funded groups were associated with a failed
coup
against Venezuela's president Hugo Ch!vez, the U.S. government
continues to meddle in Venezuelan domestic politics with its
political
aid programs . A new focus of foreign "democracy builders" in
Venezuela
and around the world is support for nonviolent resistance by civil
society organizations.


In the name of promoting democracy and freedom, Washington is
currently
funding scores of U.S. and Venezuelan organizations as part of its
global democratization strategy"including at least one that publicly
supported the April 2002 coup that briefly removed Ch!vez from power.


When he first heard the news of the coup, the president of the
International Republican Institute (IRI) praised those "who rose up
to
defend democracy," ignoring the fact that Ch!vez was the twice-
elected
president of Venezuela. Despite this declared support for a coup
against an elected president and for the opposition's blatant
disregard
for the rule of law, IRI still runs democratization programs in
Venezuela that are underwritten by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID).


The International Republican Institute, a branch of the Republican
Party established to channel U.S. democratization aid,1 is one of
five
U.S. nongovernmental organizations that channels funding from USAID
to
Venezuela organizations and political party programs. USAID also
funds
the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDIIA),
which is the international branch of the Democratic Party, and two
U.S.
nongovernmental organizations: Freedom House and Pan-American
Development Foundation, and Development Alternatives Inc., a private
U.S. contractor.


The United States has supported democratization and human rights
groups
in Venezuela since the early 1990s. But funding for
"democracy-building" soared after Ch!vez was elected president in
1998.
Both USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which
funds
the IRI and NDIIA, sharply increased their funding to business
associations, the official labor confederation, human rights
organizations, and political party coalitions.


USAID's Transition Initiative


Several months after the unsuccessful April 2002 coup, the State
Department established an Office of Transition Initiatives in Caracas
with funding from USAID. Operating out of the U.S. embassy, the
Office
of Transition Initiatives (OTI) has two stated objectives according
to
the agency: to "strengthen democratic institutions and promote space
for democratic dialogue," and to "encourage citizen participation in
the democratic process."


USAID established its OTI with the all-but-explicit intention of
aiding
efforts to oust President Ch!vez. According to USAID, the new office
would "provide fast, flexible, short-term assistance targeted at key
transition needs."


Although it did not spell out what would be the desired "transition,"
USAID warned that Ch!vez "has been slowly hijacking the machinery of
government and developing parallel non-democratic governance
structures." In its 2001 job description for the new OTI director in
Caracas, USAID stated that the director's responsibilities would
include "formulating strategy and initiating the new OTI program in
close coordination with U.S. political interests" and "developing an
exit strategy and operational closeout plan."


Rather than directly funding Venezuelan organizations and political
parties, OTI channels USAID funding through U.S. NGOs, including the
for-profit Development Alternatives Inc., that in turn fund scores of
Venezuelan NGOs and political party projects. In its January-March
2007
report, USAID reported 139 subgrants to Venezuelan entities working
in
19 of the country's 23 states.


OTI, which has channeled an estimated $30 million in democratization
aid to Venezuela, is not the only source of U.S. political aid. It
describes itself as part of a "comprehensive assistance program to
shore up the democratic voices and institutions in Venezuela" that
includes NED and other State Department initiatives, including
"educational" trips to the United States for selected members of the
Venezuelan media. As U.S. economic aid decreases, OTI is seeking
local
funding to complement its own programs, noting in its January-March
2007 report that it has succeeded in leveraging $3.5 million in local
contributions in the year's first quarter.


In its most recent appraisal of its "transition initiatives," OTI
boasts: "The partnerships that have formed between NGOs and citizens
eager to participate directly in their own governance attest to the
success of the program ... that is filling an important need that is
laying the groundwork for a sustainable democratic future."


Although the U.S.-government funded NGOs insist they are independent,
they closely coordinate their programs among themselves and with U.S.
government representatives. In February 2007, OTI's "team leader"
visited Venezuela to participate in "a strategic planning" session
with
the "five implementing partner organizations."


OTI has also been organizing a meeting with two dozen NGOs "that
promote citizen participation in local democratic spaces." In its
January-March evaluation of ongoing operations, OTI says that "given
the political parties' growing appreciation of the importance of
democratic spaces, the meeting will provide opportunities to discuss
the synergistic overlap between civil society and political parties."


With OTI support, the IRI and NDIIA institutes offer "technical
assistance for political parties," working directly "with political
parties to improve their capabilities in constituency outreach and
institutional development," according to USAID. The institutes help
parties and candidates with "candidate profiles" and "message
development." Both institutes say they offer their services to both
government and opposition parties"although only the opposition
parties
avail themselves of this "democracy-building" aid.


Freedom House is best known for its widely cited Freedom in the World
and Freedom of the Press reports. But it is not commonly known that
Freedom House is a major recipient of U.S. government funding,
directly
from USAID or through the government-funded NED.


Relying almost exclusively on government funding for its overseas
operations, Freedom House says it works "directly with democratic
reformers on the front lines in their own countries" in Central Asia,
Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, the
former
Soviet Union, and the Balkans. According to Freedom House, its
overseas
activity "acts as a catalyst for freedom by strengthening civil
society, promoting open government, defending human rights, and
facilitating the free flow of information."


With USAID funding, Freedom House sponsors a Human Rights Defenders
program in Venezuela that it promotes as "facilitating the
interaction
of Venezuelan civil society with counterparts in Latin America to
help
them improve domestic human rights reporting and to expand
protections
for human rights." The "longer-term goal," says Freedom House, is "to
assist groups who will strive to safeguard and improve the
functioning
of democratic institutions in Venezuela."


For its part, the Pan-American Development Fund in early 2007
provided
funding to "document the following activities: the constitutional
reform process, discrimination based on political affiliation, and
persecution of human rights practitioners." Meanwhile, Development
Alternatives Inc. has focused on "training in democratic leadership
and
values, increasing citizen participation at the local level, and
supporting NGO participation in international events."
"Destabilization
Plan" or "An Action Agenda" for Democracy


Eva Golinger, Venezuelan-American author of The Ch!vez Code and a
prominent critic of U.S. aid programs in Venezuela, in May 2007
accused
Freedom House and other U.S. organizations receiving U.S. government
funding of orchestrating a "destabilization plan" (see
www.Venezuelanalysis.com, May 26, 2007). She accused Freedom House of
designing a campaign of nonviolent resistance to the Ch!vez
government.


Freedom House collaborates with the Belgrade-based Center for Applied
Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas), which has singled out
Venezuela along with Zimbabwe and the Ukraine as principal targets
for
its training programs. Describing its approach to political
transitions
on its website, Canvas says, "Mass political defiance has occurred in
Burma, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Tibet in recent years. Although those
struggles have not brought victory over dictators, they badly harmed
the authority of those oppressive regimes both in the countries and
in
the international community."


At her May 2007 press conference in Caracas, Golinger noted that the
clenched fist featured on the promotional flyer for a protest against
the closure of RCTV (accused by the government of having supported
the
attempted coup) is the same logo used in opposition campaigns in
Serbia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. It is also the symbol featured on
the
Canvas website.


USAID and NED funding of NGOs in Venezuela reflects the U.S.
government's conviction that the democratic process is badly flawed
and
that political aid to groups not associated with the government will
contribute to a "transition" to more democratic governance"or at
least
to a leader more acceptable to Washington. The NGO focus of recent
democratization aid is also a reflection of a new trend in political
aid that regards nonviolent resistance by nongovernmental
organizations
as the most effective instrument for moving dictatorships to
democracies.


Among the centers for this new thinking about supporting and training
foreign NGOs to foster regime changes are NED, Freedom House, Albert
Einstein Institution, and the Council for the Community of
Democracies.


Over the past few years Freedom House, which receives funding from
both
USAID and the National Endowment of Democracy, has been a prominent
advocate of nonviolent organizing by civil society groups to overturn
dictatorial regimes. Its 2005 study entitled "How Freedom is Won"
concluded that 50 of the 67 "transitions to democracy over the
previous
third of a century" were driven in largely part by "civil resistance,
featuring strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and mass protests."


Freedom House president Peter Ackerman, who is also chairman of the
International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, is a leading advocate
for
international funding of NGOs engaged in nonviolent organizing
against
nondemocratic states. Ackerman, co-author of Strategic Nonviolent
Conflict, is a member of the executive council of the International
Institute for Strategic Studies.


In a March 2007 address, "Skills or Conditions: What Key Factors
Shape
the Success or Failure of Civil Resistance?" Ackerman advocates a
sharing of best practices of civil resistance around the
world"notably
from the successful cases in Serbia and from the "colored
revolutions"
in Georgia and the Ukraine"to tackle the "backlash to democracy
promotion" by repressive regimes, among which he includes the Ch!vez
government.


Freedom House, according to Ackerman, is "making every effort to
improve the substance and scalability of training tools" for civil
society groups engaged in nonviolent action.


Another prominent advocate of U.S. government funding for nonviolent
resistance is Mark Palmer, a State Department official who played a
key
role in founding NED and who now serves as the vice chairman of
Freedom
House. In his June 8, 2006 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, entitled "Promotion of Democracy by Nongovernmental
Organizations: An Action Agenda," Palmer called for the "radical
strengthening of our primary frontline fighters for freedom," namely
nongovernmental organizations.


Palmer, who was instrumental in the creation of the Council for the
Community of Democracies, lamented the fact that the U.S. NGOs, and
"their governmental and private funders," have not made the funding
of
foreign NGOs involved in building "national movements" as their
primary
objective. He advocated a major increase in government funding for
"NGO
programs focused on dictatorships."


Current U.S. funding of an array of NGOs and community groups in
Venezuela, including training and consultation offered by
organizations
such as Canvas and the Albert Einstein Institution, raises concerns
that the overriding objective may not be so much the advance of
freedom, democracy, and human rights but rather the furthering of
U.S.
strategic interests.


By including a democratic state such as Venezuela among the targets
of
national movement building, the independence and integrity of
"democracy builders" in the United States can be called into
question.
Ch!vez supporter Golinger, for example, advised Venezuelans: "For the
defense of the nation, it would be wise to end the actions of groups
like Freedom House and the International Republican Institute, which
serve as a front for the State Department and the CIA, and which
operate openly in the country." Democracy and Intervention


There is little doubt that democracy is being put to the test in
Venezuela. With a history of democratic governance since 1958,
Venezuela has had a relatively stable democratic tradition. But a
large
part of that stability resulted from a pattern of elections in which
well-established parties of the elite alternated in power. By
breaking
that pattern, Ch!vez disrupted that vaunted stability but at the same
time made politics more inclusive. For the first time, the country's
rural poor and urban workers had a voice in government.


Winning several highly contested elections since 1998 by impressive
majorities, President Ch!vez has earned legitimacy as a democrat.
However, in his drive to consolidate his bases of support and to
usher
in "21st century socialism," he has sparked widespread concerns from
human rights and press freedom organizations that his government is
riding roughshod over the democratic process of governance.


Questions about the integrity of U.S. democratization aid are now
being
used by the Venezuelan government to press the National Assembly to
pass a new law that would subject all NGOs that receive foreign
funding
to government approval and scrutiny. If such an intrusive measure is
instituted, at least part of the blame will lay with the United
States
and constitute part of the antidemocratic legacy of U.S.
democratization strategy.


It's past time for the U.S. democratizers to shut down their
operations
in Venezuela and make their exit. By intervening in Venezuela through
NGOs, Washington lends credence to claims by Ch!vez and others who
charge that the U.S. government is pursuing a policy of regime change
in Venezuela.


The first step toward a more constructive foreign policy toward
Venezuela should be an expression of support for the country's
self-determination in its political and economic affairs. Concerns
about the state of democracy, media freedom, or human rights in
Venezuela could then be expressed through normal diplomatic channels
without fueling suspicion that the United States and its shadow
institutions are part of a campaign to undermine the elected
Venezuelan
government.


As things stand, however, the U.S. government and its phalanx of
democracy-building NGOs are not just raising concerns but are also
operating to influence internal politics inside Venezuela. The United
States would not permit foreign countries and their agents to inject
themselves into its own political process; it should assume no right
to
do unto others what it would not have done to itself.

.