Multilateralism is something well known in Canada, as it has been intrinsically part of our foreign policy designs for decades. By assuming multilateralism, we are not overlooking the limitations and challenges that multilateral organizations present, but rather understanding that working within them potentially amplifies the reach of our policies. Within multilateral arrangements, individual gains are diffused and outweighed by collective gains from shared principles and frameworks. Multilateralism is an option that complements and enhances a sovereign independent foreign policy.

Why then would a government choose to withdraw from these arenas? The answer to this question exposes how similar the Venezuelan strategies are to those of the "empire" it proclaims to oppose. Chavez's actions in multilateral fora are explained by a hegemonic ambition of setting the rules, and subjecting partners to compliance with his desires, if in hope of benefiting from his oil-financed largesse.

In the context of the Bolivarian Alternative (ALBA) Summit, Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the World Bank's International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes of consistently ruling in favour of multinational corporations, while Chavez' reaction was to propose that all ALBA countries withdraw from that institution. And so they did. This means no real change for Venezuela, already in the process of withdrawing from membership to the World Bank; no change for Cuba, which is not a member to begin with; but for Bolivia and Nicaragua, two countries that rely heavily on being able to attract foreign investment, the decision sends a very counterproductive message of disdain for international rules.

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/may/9/chavez/