|
|
SEATINI BULLETINSouthern and Eastern African Trade, Information and Negotiations Institute Strengthening Africa in World Trade |
|||
Volume 6, No. 03 |
Issue theme:World Social Forum |
15 February 2003 |
||
IN THIS ISSUE! |
||||
2003 World Social Forum: The Thirst For Change Comes Up Against A Rubber WallRoberto SartiFuture of the WSF: Smaller Is Better
|
Pages 1-4Pages 4-5
Pages 5-6
Pages 6-9
Pages 9-12 |
|||
The recent third World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre (Brazil) was held in a period in which great changes are taking place in the world situation. This was reflected in the huge number of visitors to the WSF. For the first time there were more than 100 000, which is a clear sign of the changing mood across the whole of Latin America.The coming war on Iraq, the world economic crisis and the development of the class struggles in Europe and particularly in Latin America, were all items that should have been put on the agenda and discussed thoroughly at the Forum.
The warm welcome given to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Brazilian President Lula da Silva was not a sign of a "degeneration of the movement, as some intellectuals argued. On the contrary, it was a clear indication of the thirst for radical change among the masses.
Unfortunately it became evident that the WSF organisers were more interested in making the event into a rival with the Davos Economic Forum in terms of size and media coverage of the meeting than in discussing the real issues at stake. If one takes a look at the coverage in the bourgeois press what emerges is a picture of an event that has become harmless for the world bourgeoisie.
To organise an event such as the WSF, a huge amount of money is needed. Among the financial backers were Petrobras, the Brazilian state-owned oil company, and the Ford Foundation, that belongs to the well-known US car company. Can we seriously imagine the latter giving money to someone or something that is seen as posing a threat to the capitalist system?
In weeks prior to the event there was a lot of talk about the need to have a clear strategy for the antiglobalisation movement. So far, no final declaration or documents have appeared on the Internet or in the press, but it seems from the media reports that very little was actually achieved.
Should the movement demand the cancellation of the debt or should it call for it to be renegotiated with the IMF? It seems that we now have the brilliant idea that anyone can choose either of these two roads, according to the Italian il Manifesto (January 28, 2003).
Is the so-called "social" economy complementary or alternative to capitalism? Well, according to a young delegate, since the movement is not based on the concept of majority and minority, both roads can be taken. It all depends on the short and medium term objectives. (il Manifesto, January 28, 2003)
That there is confusion on the road to be taken is clear. The behaviour of Lula is a very good example. He decided to attend both the WSF and, the following day, the Davos Forum, provoking some debate within the Porto Alegre delegates.
The problem is that the issues at stake are not abstract. They concern the lives of millions of workers and youth all over the world.A clear example is what is happening in Venezuela. Precisely because the interests of capitalists were at stake in that country, they organised the coup of last April. They were reacting against very partial reforms proposed by the Chavez government. This shows that a so-called "social" economy is incompatible with capitalism. Another example is that of Argentina when it fell into its deepest crisis ever because the IMF refused to renegotiate its foreign debt.
We have analysed the ideas of the leaders of the anti-globalisation movement on more than one occasion (see our Globalisation section), and we have repeated many times that no middle, "third or "new" way between reform and revolution is possible. All the events that have unfolded over the last year have proved this beyond any doubt. These so-called "new" ideas may be more attractive or fashionable, but the question we have to ask is: "Are they working or not?"
The general confusion during the days of this latest Forum became even greater - if that is imaginable. The incredible idea that "we don't fight for power, but what we want is happiness", was repeated during another big debate in the Gigantinho, the main hall of the WSF.
Naturally we don't raise the question of the need for the working class to take the power just for the sake of it. The workers need to take power because only in this way can they really have control over the instruments with which they can change their living conditions.
The experience of the Rio Grande do Sul State government in Brazil (of which Porto Alegre is the capital) is very useful in this regard. This is where one of the key dogmas of the No-global' theoreticians was implemented, that of the so-called "participatory budget". The masses were given a consultative vote on how 10% of the state budget should be spent. However, at the same time this did not stop the federal and state governments from carrying out cuts in jobs, health care and education. As a result of all this in the last elections the PT lost control of Rio Grande do Sul! Real economic power remained in the hands of the bourgeoisie while the local PT leaders were forced to bow down to the diktats of the bosses
This is the challenge now also facing Lula in the running of the whole country. Bertinotti, the leader of the Italian Rifondazione Comunista, put forward the idea that "we must build a worldwide Lula". Naturally we welcome the PT victory. It is an important step for the Brazilian revolution. But the challenges Lula is facing are very hard ones.
As we pointed out just after the elections that took place at the end of last year:
"Despite all his promises, they fear that the new President may be incapable of taking the tough decisions needed to "stabilise the debt" that is, of attacking the wages and living standards of the people who voted for him. Thus, they will react to his election by sending their money out of the country at an even faster rate than before. The result will be a strike of capital, which will further damage the economy, causing an increase in unemployment and poverty. This is the little present the capitalists and bankers have prepared for the new President of Brazil, as a gentle warning to him not to forget who is the real master of the house.
"What the bourgeoisie wants is for Lula to carry out policies in the interests of the rich, to continue Cardoso's unfinished package of "market reforms", to cut pensions, to privatise state companies and to facilitate sackings. In other words, what they want is no change. But millions of Brazilians have just voted decisively for a fundamental change. The President will find himself ground mercilessly between two millstones.
"The Bible says: "You cannot serve two masters: you cannot serve God and Mammon." That goes for the PT also. Lula has been elected with the votes of the overwhelming majority of the electorate. What matters more, the aspirations of more than 50 million Brazilians, or the interests of a tiny handful of wealthy parasites?" (from The Brazilian elections - a new stage in the Latin American revolution, by Alan Woods).
Instead of these clear ideas, Bertinotti' simply adds even more confusion with his latest slogan. We need workers' parties in power not only in Latin America, but also in the rest of the world. However, the formation of left governments represents only the beginning, not the end of the process.
The programme which these parties adopt and the role that the working class is to play in the process are fundamental. The programme must be a revolutionary programme of expropriation of the capitalists and landlords, of nationalisation under workers' control of the major corporations. And the movement must see that the working class has to play an essential part in the revolutionary process, otherwise no genuine socialist transformation of society is possible.
The workers cannot wait for a saviour, even if his name be Lula or Chavez. They have to participate not with a "consultative but with a decisive role in running the new society. This is the only way to assure the victory of the mass movements that are developing all over Latin America.
Another key question facing workers and youth all over the world at the present time is the impending war on Iraq. An appeal was issued by the Social Forum to stop the impending conflict. Naturally we all agree that it is necessary to stop this war, but how is this to be achieved do it? Is it really serious to say that we can do it by appealing to "everyone who trusts a political and democratic solution to international conflicts" (European Social Forum Appeal)?
All this is wishful thinking and ignores the fact that Washington has no interest at all in a "democratic" solution. That is why they are rushing into war. With these kind of ideas the forces of the anti-war movement risk being channelled into a frustrating campaign of simply "putting pressure on the western governments. What is really needed is to channel these forces into an all-out class war. Mass action, general strikes and an appeal to the Arab masses to rise up against their own tyrants are the only real means to stop the war.
Those activists who look to events such as the 2003 Porto Alegre WSF, must draw all the necessary conclusions. Halfway measures are useless in this kind of situation. What is necessary is to gather together all the best forces of the working class and youth worldwide around a genuine socialist programme. This is now becoming an urgent task, now more than ever.
This article first appeared
on the website: In Defence of Marxism and is
published with their kind permission.
_______________________________
Future of the WSF: Smaller
Is Better
Roberto Savio
The third edition of the World Social Forum represented an important moment in the movement's history, whether for the multitude of participants, the decision to hold the next meeting on another continent, or for the institutionalisation of the parallel forums accompanying it.
It is also important because it has achieved the unification of the two generations of civil society: the NGOs that emerged in the 1970s to fight for human rights, sustainable development, full participation for women, etc, and in defence of human rights, of a sustainable environment, of the full participation of women, of the indigenous movement, and the movement that arose in the 1990s as an opposition force to the neoliberal globalisation process.
The "older" and "younger" generations would not have met and combined to form a global civil society if it weren't for Porto Alegre. The problem now, from my standpoint as member of the WSF International Council, is that we must begin debate on the architecture of the Forum. We must recognise that the WSF entails three equally necessary elements: mobilisation, participation, and strategies for a better possible world.
We won't be able to achieve these goals in a gigantic event like the WSF. The International Council decided that the Forum will not take place on the same dates as Davos anymore. During the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum there will be marches staged wherever possible around the world. We will mobilise millions more than was possible prior to the creation of the WSF.
In terms of participation, the decision to broaden the WSF internationally has proved positive. The various regional Forums (Europe, Asia, Africa), as well as thematic (such as Quito and the Amazon about the FTAA), or local (such as in Argentina and Palestine), have achieved much more in terms than the colossal WSF. And, in the many more forums being planned, there will always be the problem of disproportionate representation from the surrounding region.
The third element, defining proposals and strategies hasn't been resolved yet and doesn't seem to worry most people. There were 1 714 panels and seminars in this year's WSF. Is this proof of strength? If nobody can keep track of what went on in so many debates, I have my doubts. This atomisation of dialogue means that many valuable proposals were lost.
We will only be able to devise the way forward if we recognise that at least one of the Forums must be much smaller, more in-depth, with a strong methodology and systematisation. There must also be horizontal communication among all Forums, whether regional or thematic, so we know what has happened in each of them.
But that is not where India 2004 and Porto Alegre 2005 are leading. Their success will be measured by the number of participants. Is this the path we need to achieve a better world? And when it is said that we have no proposals, that all we do is talk, will we answer that we don't want to be elitist like other Forums? The time has come for us to reflect so our route is broader, but stronger in order to challenge neoliberal globalisation and its mercenaries.
Roberto Savio is a member of the WSFs International Committee and President-Emeritus of IPS.
__________________________________
Interview
with Martin Khor on Civil Society, Government and Global Justice
Kalinga Seneviratne
Martin Khor, the Director of the Malaysia-based Third World Network has been actively engaged in the international civil society movement for more than a decade. He has attended both the World Social Forum (WSF) and the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos in 1999 and 2000. In the latter instance even taking part in one of the panel discussions there. He argues that civil society needs to work closely with governments in the South to make the necessary changes to the world economic system which would favour the weak over the strong. He spoke to TerraViva in Porto Alegre this year.
You have attended both the WSF and the WEF in Davos in previous years. How do you compare the two?
Davos provides a forum for the elites to discuss a whole range of things. It is an interesting gathering to attend, to observe and to take part in. The participation there is by invitation only and there are about 2000 people attending. Of course the paradigm there is within the existing national and international order. The presumptions are that the present system is predominantly okay although there are things here and there that needs to be modified.
In Porto Alegre, in terms of substance, the same burning social, political and economic issues of the day are discussed. But the paradigm is different. It does not assume that the existing order is inevitable and is positively good. It questions everything and it does try to provide alternatives.
When you were at Davos as a 'Third World' NGO representative, did you get an opportunity to talk to influential people and to be heard?
In 2000 I was invited to speak on a panel on the WTO which included high profile speakers from government and business in Europe and Africa. In that sense I was able to get my voice heard. But, here in Porto Alegre the intellectual level (of discussions) and planning is much more diverse than in Davos.
Some say the WSF is a regrouping of the left without the old communist party baggage and symbols such as the hammer and sickle, Lenin and Karl Marx. Do you see it that way?
I don't think so. It depends on how you define the left. If you define the left as the old traditional communist party and the communist ideology, I don't see much present here. Of course there will be people who belong to leftist parties. The Workers Party in Brazil is labelled a leftist party.
What we see here is a diversity of views of all kinds. Like people who are interested in the environment and feel that the present economic system damages the environment and therefore you must change the way the economy is behaving and the way people are behaving. I don't think that kind of view is of the traditional left.
We do see here a lot of people who are disillusioned with the way the free-market system operates, and they are asking, not for the old socialist kind of system where the state commands the whole economy, but the government to play their proper political role of regulating the market, so that the market can be used for social good.
That this regulation be done both at the national and international level. Issues that include accountability at the corporate level so that we don't have a repeat of Enron and Bhopal. Regulation of financial markets so that you don't have a repeat of Argentina or the East Asian financial crisis. Also reforms of the IMF and WTO so that these organisations serve not just the interests of the rich countries, but are fair to the developing countries and poor communities.
Here at the WSF we have a critique of all these issues, but we are also into alternatives. This is the essence of the WSF movement. I would say that this whole range of very creative and innovative thinking combined with action cannot be labelled as something to do with the left.
NGOs are very often presented by the media as in opposition to government, especially in countries of the South. But, Third World Network has worked very closely with some governments of the South. So how do you see your role as an NGO with respect to governments in the South?
If a government has been democratically elected, I would consider they have their own role to play as elected representatives to formulate policy. On the other hand, NGOs being the voices and representatives of civil society have every legitimate right to input into government. To tell the government that we have a position and you need to take into account our position, we are formulating here our views and our proposals and we would like you to consider them seriously, just as governments listen to companies and take their views into account.
Do you think the civil society is making much progress in influencing the way the world is run? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
I think compared to 10 or 15 years ago, there is tremendous progress in the impact civil society is making. Fifteen years ago most NGOs were working at the local level and some at the national level, very few, particularly from developing countries, were active at the international level. This has changed because we in the NGO community have realised that many decisions are now taken at the international level rather than by our national governments at the national level.
Decisions are made by the IMF, or by the commodity markets or by the financial markets or the WTO. Some of these organisations, our own governments are members of, but, they have been unable to play any effective role either by the way the constitution is structured, for example in the IMF, or the way decisions are made at the WTO, a process which is still skewed or manipulated by the big powers.
So NGOs in the South have decided to allocate some of their resources and manpower to following these international activities and making our views known, both to our governments and civil society worldwide. Civil society is well organised and we are able to cooperate with each other, both in the South and in the North, and secondly, our views are making an impact simply because the old orthodox policies are not working.
Movements like the WSF are sometimes described as anti-globalisation movements, but what you have been talking about is globalisation of the NGO movement. So what would you call this movement?
The label anti-globalisation was created by the media. I think most groups don't see themselves as anti-globalisation. We are not against international cooperation. In fact, we are championing international cooperation. We are not against countries trading with each other or helping each other in terms of financial flows. What we are against is a particular kind of international economic relations where the strong countries and big companies dominate, and create rules to perpetuate their domination. So many of us are calling ourselves t
