[WSF-Discuss] heads of state in the wsf?

Mon Aug 4 18:15:28 UCT 2008

Thanks a lot Ruth for your useful comments.

However,
- I do not think the proposal implies a change of the Charter: making a
difference between the 'individual' and the 'function' is of course totally
irrelevant when we speak of heads of state. So one could easily say Morales
eg is invited as 'individual'.
- The question on armed groups is very relevant: the case for the Zapatistas
could be made since there can be discussion on whether it is really an armed
group. In general, whatever we think of the means for the struggle, even if
we approve of armed struggle in certain cases, the Forum as such cannot
accept them for obvious reasons of legitimacy.
- I think that at any rate, a decision for inviting a head of state can only
be taken by consensus in the IC. I do not think there will ever be a
consensus, not on Ortega and not on Hezbollah. 
- I do not remember the ESF having decided to accept parties; inviting heads
of state does not imply to accept parties.
- Leaving the decision up to the regional level does not seem to me a good
solution. It will give rise to exactly the same discussions in a context
that is sometimes more difficult, eg Europe.
- If, eg for India, inviting heads of state is not possible, than the
question is solved for lack of consensus.

Enjoy yourself in Tirol!
Francine

-----Original Message-----
From: Reitan, Ruth [mailto:rreitan at mail.as.miami.edu] 
Sent: lundi 4 août 2008 17:51
To: Francine Mestrum; CACIM; Post WSFDiscuss
Cc: Teivo Teivainen; nigd-list at nigd.org; Reitan, Ruth Carol
Subject: Re: heads of state in the wsf?

Greetings from South Tyrol (and soon enough to be Miami, again). And thanks
to Jai, Teivo, Peter and Francine for cross-'contaminating' our lists.

I propose the following:

Keeping in mind that (macro)regionalism is the likely global trend in the
near and medium term, and giving due respect to the 'magical' formula that
is the WSF Charter of Principles, I think we should be 
cautious about altering the Charter to include elected officials in their
'official' capacity (not, as the Charter currently allows, as individuals),
because it might have unforeseen--or wholly foreseeable, depending on one's
current opinion--consequences, such as: the polarization of the Forum space,
outright campaigning and counter-campaigning, bringing back the competitive
and majoritarian logic of electoral politics, the possiblity of charismatic
leaders instrumentalizing the Forum for their own advantage, triggering a
boycott, or at least considerable protests, on the part of women (and some
men) who find Daniel Ortega more politically--because sexual abuses of power
are fundamentally political--vile than Sarkozy, and, finally, begging the
obvious next question of: why invite our ostensible 'allies' in political
parties or office and not in armed groups? Inviting Ortega at the extreme
but even Morales at the other begs the question of why not the Zapatistas?
Or Hamas? Or Hezbollah? Or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia? The answer to me is not
obvious; if it is to you, then you need to have a long, introspective look
at why that is so. 

While the Charter mentions its support for non-violent struggle two or three
times, are we really all in agreement that this is the only supportable
method? Do we really want to have that discussion in the IC? Maybe we do. If
so, then invite the political parties, by all means. Things will start to
get interesting  again (and the SWP should be the first to thank you for
it).

But if the IC does not want to open the discussion re: armed groups, then
they (we) should not take up the debate on political parties or elected
officials. Because doing so makes some untested assumptions about a shared
'common sense' and 'common methods of struggle' that I do not think we
really have; or if we do have it, then 'we' are not as diverse as I assume
we are, nor as 'we' ostensibly aspire to be.

How to avoid this unhappy but largely foreseeable confrontation with our
diversity, while safeguarding the WSF Charter of Principles in the
off-chance that its current formula is what makes the whole thing work?  I
would say kick it down to the level of the regions:  Because what makes
'common sense' in the current context of Latin America may also make sense
in Europe today, but it may make less sense elsewhere, or next year. 

Is there not also being planned, simultaneously to the WSF 2009, an Amazon
Social Forum, or it's equivalent? Perhaps that regional committee, if it
deems it politically useful and with proper protections of the Forum space
and schedule, could take it upon itself to organize such parallel or
auxiliary events. This would forego a big roiling discussion within the WSF
IC in September that may snowball at future meetings, and would avoid the
WSF making such a political decision for the 'world' of social forums, so to
speak. 

I think an equivalent decision has already been taken by the ESF Preparatory
Assembly around the time of the last ESF in Athens, to allow parties to be
openly represented and thus to drop the charade of front organizations which
had developed within the ESF, or am I mistaken? In any case, this is a
decision that, while it will still be controversial, is most appropriately
discussed at the regional level, not something over which we should try to
amend the WSF Charter. In the context of South America, inviting Morales
(for sure) and Ortega (eh, maybe) could have positive, synergistic effects;
but I foresee big problems if we attempt to take this up at the IC for the
whole WSF. Leave it to the level of the regional social forum to decide, if
at all. 

Ruth

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-nigd-list at kaapeli.fi on behalf of Francine Mestrum
Sent: Mon 8/4/2008 11:50 AM
To: 'CACIM'; 'Post WSFDiscuss'
Cc: 'Teivo Teivainen'; nigd-list at nigd.org
Subject: RE: [WSF-Discuss] Fwd: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in
the	wsf?

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