Not necessarily. But Jean Chrétien didn't get where he is by being forthright about wiggle room. So, as tear gas spread through this history-laden city on Saturday, Mr. Chrétien stated unequivocally: "From this day forward, the benefits of any agreements we reach will flow only to those nations that abide by our democratic clause."

If only we could be sure. The Declaration of Quebec City approved yesterday by 34 elected leaders is a great achievement in a region dominated until recently by the risk, and often the harsh reality, of military dictatorship. But as it stands, the protection of democracy enshrined in the declaration is only as good as the will of the leaders administering it.

The essential part of the clause is this:

"Any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state's government in the Summit of the Americas process."

This is not insignificant. You'd never get it in a summit of African leaders. You'd never get it out of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation summits, which are profoundly anti-democratic affairs where the leaders aren't even said to represent countries, but rather "economies."

But note: In that passage from the declaration, nowhere is the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas mentioned. There are reasons for that.

One is simply that the FTAA negotiation won't be finished for more than three years, and it's conceivable that membership in it could be made conditional on the preservation of democratic rule.

More important, however, applying the democracy clause in practice won't be as simple as it seems. Assume, for example, that we're a few years down the road and the FTAA is in place. Suppose there's some kind of rupture of the democratic order in Venezuela -- a military coup such as President Hugo Chavez, himself, attempted nine years ago. Also suppose that negotiations and diplomatic pressure on the new autocrat proves fruitless. Would Venezuela find itself banished from the group?

Trade is a two-way street. Kicking Venezuela out of the FTAA would presumably expose its products to higher tariffs and other disadvantages. But it would also strip foreign firms of the "investor-state" rights that are such a controversial aspect of recent trade pacts. Moreover, Venezuela is a major supplier of high-quality petroleum to both Canada and the United States. Would the democracy clause be enforced at the risk of disrupting supply?

The choice of Venezuela is not accidental. Alone among summit participants, Mr. Chavez refused to agree to parts of the final declaration, including passages that referred to "representative democracy." He has sought to implement what he calls "participatory democracy" in Venezuela, downgrading the status of the legislature and making extensive use of popular consultations and referendums.

Venezuela could well be a bigger fly in the ointment when foreign minsters from the Americas gather in Costa Rica six weeks from now at the annual meeting of the Organization of American States. They have instructions to flesh out the declaration signed yesterday by defining what the countries mean by democracy or, at least, setting out what its essential principles are. On the table will be topics such as free and fair elections, the rule of law, separation of political powers, an independent judiciary, respect for universally agreed human rights and freedom of expression. One idea, backed by former Canadian foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, is to set up a panel of "eminent defenders of democracy" -- respected figures who would monitor threats to democratic rule.

Here again, there are huge questions about how the clause would work. Would shutting down a newspaper be enough to suspend a country's FTAA membership? How long will it be before we hear cries of a double standard, where poor, weak nations are held to a higher standard than major trading partners?

Robin Rosenberg of the North-South Center at the University of Miami notes that whatever mechanism is adopted, the United States -- as an OAS member -- will have formal permission to pass judgment on Latin American countries' internal politics. "The asymmetry of power is such that the United States can go in and say 'we want this,' and have leverage to do so -- especially when they are taking 50 or 60 or 80 per cent of a country's exports," he says.

Could it? At a dreary encounter on Saturday between "civil society" and government representatives, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Canadian Trade Minister Pierre Pettigrew rejected the suggestion that special measures are needed to reduce the growing, potentially destabilizing gap between rich and poor. Mr. Zoellick said trade alone can reduce poverty; Mr. Pettigrew said it would be wrong to tell countries how to distribute wealth.

But the summit declaration and action plan would do precisely that. They propose to cut extreme poverty by 15 per cent and ensure every child gets at least a primary-school education by 2010. "You have to conclude that either these guys don't believe what is in here ... or they are simply unaware of the contents," says Max Cameron, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia who attended the summit.

Surely the biggest failure of the summit was its inability to seriously tackle the crisis gripping Colombia -- the biggest political issue in the hemisphere. The meeting did produce a statement of support for peace efforts, but it was so anodyne that Mr. Chrétien didn't even bother to mention it in his closing remarks yesterday. So much for meeting responsibilities.

Speaking at a conference in Quebec City last week, Robert Pastor, a key aide on Latin America under former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, questioned whether the leaders are really serious about establishing a democratic community in the Americas. Leaders are much bolder talking about general principles than when they are faced with actual threats, he noted -- listing Peru, Haiti, Colombia and Mr. Chavez's Venezuela as examples. "There are reasons to be dubious" about the commitment to democracy, he says.

At the closing ceremony yesterday, Argentine President Fernando de la Rua said he was confident the next summit -- which he will host -- won't have to take place "behind walls." That may be. But the leaders will still be under pressure over the next few years -- not just to endorse democracy, but to lock it in.

Paul Knox, a former Latin America correspondent, reports on international affairs for The Globe and Mail.

Copyright © 2001 Globe Interactive

###