[WSF-Discuss] Fwd: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?

Mon Aug 4 09:50:53 UCT 2008

Away from capital, church, state, corporations, even empire 

Wow Peter, how very well said!

This formulation certainly will have success! Such a clear, easy to
understand and pure message!

But then, I come to think: who will pay?

Who pays for your travel costs? Who pays the organizations that pay for your
travel costs? Who pays the ngos? How many leftwing philanthropists do we
have in our movement?

Ever thought that we can only exist and meet thanks to capitalism? Thanks to
the air companies that bring us all over the world? Thanks to the states and
corporations that give us their space and infrastructure? Who will pay the
secretariat, the organization, the travel costs??? Or shall we only
virtually exist? Through the internet? Do you believe that?

Please let us stop to speak and think in slogans. They do not help us.

Now seriously.

I have no real problems with the invitation of ‘our’ heads of state or
governments. Sure, it will lead to very difficult discussions on who can be
invited and who not, but that is a minor problem. A speech by Correa or
Morales can boost our movement(s), can be very mobilizing and give us some
media attention. They can make us stronger. So no, I am not against is.

But there is another part of Peter’s message that is very correct: it is now
the organizing committee/methodology commission that is ‘politicizing’ the
WSF, whereas for other matters they absolutely refuse it.

So I think that if we invite heads of state of government, it should also be
possible to give other political gguidelines to the Forum: apart from the
self-organised events, there could be some co-organised events on specific
issues that concern us all: the food or energy crisis, trade issues,
development, financial matters. I still would like to defend the idea of
organizing some major debates with the best people we have who can present
to us the terms of the debate, the context in which we are working, the most
recent developments. This could help the different movements to take
political positions, as networks or movements, not as WSF. It could help to
prepare the alliances we need to have a real political impact. If the WSF
wants to survive, it should be more than an ‘open space’ for meeting, it
should help us prepare our positions and our alternatives. We are losing
momentum, heads of state are not enough to save us. This is very urgent.

Francine

From: worldsocialforum-discuss-bounces at openspaceforum.net
[mailto:worldsocialforum-discuss-bounces at openspaceforum.net] On Behalf Of
CACIM
Sent: lundi 4 août 2008 6:56
To: Post WSFDiscuss
Cc: CACIM; Teivo Teivainen
Subject: [WSF-Discuss] Fwd: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in the
wsf?

Monday, August 4, 2008

Here is something from another list (
another two lists) that those on this
list will surely want to know about, and maybe also to discuss.

            I am also copying this to the authors, Teivo Teivainen and Peter
Waterman, with the request that if you are already on this list, please
consider posting such information and/or comments here; and if you are not,
then to consider being so
 and doing so.

            JS

fwd

Begin forwarded message:

From: "peter waterman" <p.waterman at inter.nl.net>

Date:  August 4 2008 1:26:11 AM GMT+05:30

To: <nigd-list at nigd.org>, "debate: SA discussion list "
<debate at debate.kabissa.org>, "CACIM" <cacim at cacim.net>

Cc: Teivo Teivainen <teivo at nigd.org>, ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe

Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?

Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>

I have a simpler answer to the question posed above and argued below:

THE WSF MUST BECOME MORE  AUTONOMOUS OF CAPITAL AND STATE, CHURCH AND
PATRIARCHY, EMPIRE AND MILITARY.

I am well aware of the compromises the Social Forums have made with both
statespeople and corporations. And of the fact that such compromises have
NOT been extended to the Zapatistas, whose military moment was short and
long past. And whose example has inspired the global justice and solidarity
movement.

The complex and slippery formulations in the proposal below speak of bad
faith, a messy compromise and are an invitation to endless argument about
which head, or which state is 'progressive'. (South Africa under the ANC
Government of Mbeki? In the future under Zuma?)

The originality and prestige of the WSF rests on its 'representation' of
global civil society. 'Representation' is, of course, a disputed concept, as
is 'civil society'. I take these terms to be aspirational and processal:
that means that the WSF should be seeking ever more energetically to engage
and speak for civil society - the latter understood as that social force
that emancipates society from the hegemony of capital, state, organised
religion, militarism, patriarchy, etc.

With the proposal below, it will be leading figures and/or organs of the WSF
that will split the WSF rather than those 'extremists' they have castigated.
In so far as 'politics' is taken to be that which pertains to state power,
it will be the WSF that 'politicises' the forum, rather than those who have
been accused of wishing to do so.

Oh, and I am not relieved that Sarkozy will remain univited. Firstly, who
the hell would invite him? Secondly, however, this leaves open the
possibility that a 'progressive' European leader, of some 'progressive'
state will be found suitable for a future invitation.

I am appalled that whilst the embattled Zapatistas continue to be excluded,
the argument below would allow for the possible presence of the head of a
one-party dictatorship (addressed here by his first name!), and one
condemned by feminists and (global) civil society - if not his courts - of
raping his step-daughter.

What this whole exercise smacks of is the social-partnership politics of
Social Democratic, Communist and Populist parties and movements of the 20th
Century - compromises that led to the irresistible rise of the
Neo-Liberalism the WSF is supposed to be against!

It makes possible invitations to 'socially-responsible' corporations or
CEOs. Also to heads of 'progressive' inter-state organisations, such as the
International Labour Organisation (itself profoundly compromised with
capital, state and globalisation).

Finally, it cannot but confuse an international public increasingly
confronted by state-sponsored, corporation-supported efforts that have long
been trying to profit from the successes of the WSF and the global justice
and solidarity movement, such as 'Make Poverty History!'.

Should we not now change the slogan of the WSF from 'Another World is
Possible!' to 'An Old World is Possible Again!'?

Peter Waterman

----- Original Message ----- From: "Teivo Teivainen"
<teivo.teivainen at helsinki.fi>

To: <nigd-list at nigd.org>

Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:11 PM

Subject: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?

Dear NIGD,

One of the controversial issues in the WSF events since the beginning has

been the relationship with states and, more particulary, with heads of

states. One of the issues to be debated in the Copenghaguen International

Council meeting is the following draft document on this question.

Love & peace,

Teivo

Outline for the debate about the participation of Head of States at the

WSF 2009

This document is a draft for discussion prepared by a working group

composed by WSF International Council Content and Methdology commission

members: Ana Maria, OCLAE Brasil; André, MST Brasil; Chico W., CBJP Brasi;

Gina, AFM Peru; Gustavo, CUT Brasil; Isolda, MMM Brasil; José Miguel, CTC

Cuba; Rodrigo, CLACSO Brasil; Salete, IPF Brasil). This draft is still

being discussed by its members and it will be submitted for the assessment

of the International Council members gathered in its next meeting

(September, in Copenhague, Denmark).

The debate had as starting point the fact that Heads of State or

governments have been present to the WSF, invited by the organizations

participating at the event and in accordance with its Charter of

Principles. It was like so in 2005 and 2006. It is highly probably that

the issues will be posed for 2009, considering that WSF will be carried

out in a region where there are many national governments which are

considered progressists or also left governments. If only the Amazon

region is considered (the 8 sovereign countries of the Amazon region and 1

French colony struggling for its independence), the list, can include,

according who prepares it, the following governments (in alphabetical

order): Chávez / Venezuela; Correa/Ecuador; Evo / Bolivia, y Lula/Brasil.

If we consider all Latin America, the list is even longer and polemic

(again,  the order is alphabetical): Bachelet/Chile; Cristina/Argentina;

Lugo/Paraguay; Ortega/Nicaragua, Raúl/Cuba y Tabaré/Uruguay. [It was a

consensus, however, that following head should not be invited as they are

considered undesirable right wings: [Uribe / Colombia , García / Peru and

Sarkozy / president of the colonial metropolis which subdue Guyana]. (this

would have to be discussed concretely with those who think in inviting

them. if there are crazy enough to do so.)

There were different and coincident evaluations about the previous

experiences of Head of States participation in the WSF events. However,

the following consensus was reached and the issue remained open for new

consultations and debates.

Consensus

In case of having the presence of Head of States, we need to consider that

they attract an exceptional attention from the press and even from WSF

participants. In this way, it is necessary to avoid that any event with

them be held at the same time of self-organized events held by the

movements and organizations taking part at the WSF.

For evident reasons, an activity with Head of States must not be placed in

the Opening session, and even less, in the Closing session, in order to

avoid that the media consider it as WSF "conclusion". Answering to these

concerns, in case one or many Heads of States be present at the WSF, the

methodological proposal is:

1) That the event be held after the program of self organized activities

(comprised between the 8 am and 6:30 pm), that is: they can only be

registered after the 6:30 pm

2) That the event do not be placed in the opening session (27), nor in the

Pan Amazonian day (28), which will be a moment for presenting contents and

issues to the participant organizations, particularly the Amazonian

issues.

3) That the activity be not held in the Closing day (February 1st) when

there are scheduled events for presenting results and conclusions by the

participant organizations and movements.

4) It is proposed, as consequence, that those events with Head of States

be held the 29 and/or 30 January 2009, after 6 pm and outside of the WSF

territory (composed by UFPA and UFRA).

Open issue

There were three (3) proposals on the table about who organize the

activity:

a) Being a co-organized activity, according to the experience made in

other WSFs: the WSF "Organizing Committee" (which could mean the

Brazilian "Facilitating Group", the Pan Amazonian Council - under

constitution - or the WSF International Council) organizes the event. This

would mean to do the invitations (setting up the list of those who would

be invited or not,  etc.) and arrives to a consensus on the methodology

and issues to be dealt with (someone has proposed a "round table of

dialogue and controversies" model, as it happened with some governments

and political parties in other WSF events in Porto Alegre, only that now

it would be held with head of States and who would talk from the side of

the civil society etc.)

b) That the International Council decides in its meeting in Copenhague

only the general "framework" in which those activities could be held

(points 1 to 4, listed before), but that all the rest be solved in a self

organized way, by those who invite the head of States.

c) A co-organized activity on the 29, only with the head of States from

the Amazonian region, and other with head of States outside from the

Amazoni on the 30th, debating with those who invite them the possibility

of having the activity in only one place and time (always after 6 pm) or

in many different venues. To be seen.

[Reporter, even being late: Gustavo, CUT Brasil / July 26 2008, with

amendments made by by Chico Whitaker - CBJB Brazil]

THIS IS A FIRST VERSION, SUBJECT TO AMMENDMENTS BY THOSE PARTICIPATING AT

THE WORKING GROUP AND, AFTER A CONSENSUS IN THE GROUP, WILL BE SENT TO THE

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL.

-- 

--

Dr. Teivo Teivainen

Head of Department, Professor of World Politics

Department of Political Science

Unioninkatu 37

POB 54, 00014 University of Helsinki

Finland

*phone:     +358-9-19124858

*cell:      +358-50-3505120

* e-mail: teivo.teivainen at helsinki.fi

_______________

This message was sent to NIGD-list at nigd.org

To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe NIGD-list"

to majordomo at nigd.org

_______________________________________________

DEBATE mailing list

DEBATE at debate.kabissa.org

http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20080804/f21a5c78/attachment-0001.html 