[WSF-Discuss] Looking Back: The 2009 World Social Forum

[CACIM]

Looking Back: The 2009 World Social
Forum<http://www.coha.org/2009/03/looking-back-the-2009-world-social-forum/>

*- A failing neo-liberal agenda has strengthened left-leaning governance
throughout the region
- WSF breeds a creed, evolves into a growing movement, while encouraging
activism
- Lingering questions are now more ominous than ever*

@ http://www.coha.org/2009/03/looking-back-the-2009-world-social-forum/

As hundreds of prominent figures in the global financial and political
sectors convened in Davos, Switzerland to attend the World Economic Forum’s
annual gala, beginning on January 27, over 100,000 individuals traveled to
Belém, Brazil for the rival eighth annual World Social Forum (WSF). The
overlap is not coincidental; the WSF was founded on policies that could not
contrast more with the traditional neo-liberal agenda fueling the World
Economic Forum.

The WSF provided its participants with the opportunity to engage in
reflective thinking, and a democratic exchange of ideas. These activities
were all aimed at formulating proposals to address what the attendees
believed to be the inherent flaws afflicting the current capitalist system,
that many present believed birthed the current world economic crisis.
Numerous Latin American leaders accepted the invitation to participate in
the summit. The resulting discussions provided an ample forum to scrutinize
such issues as the “Criminalization of Social Movements and Human Rights
Defenders” and “Joint Strategies around Impacts of Extractive Industries on
Development in Latin America.” Their purpose was to promote the safeguarding
of human rights, and the fulfillment of a commitment to build a sustainable
society that is attuned to a more thoughtful relationship between humankind
and the Earth.

*The World Social Forum: The Gathering of the Distressed*
In 2001, the inaugural WSF commenced in Porto Alegre, Brazil. According to
an Inter Press Service interview with Portuguese Nobel literature laureate
José Saramago, skeptics had speculated that a successful forum, one which
was able to transform ideas and dialogue into tangible results, would
ultimately fail to take place due to the lack of clear overall objectives.

Fortunately, the preliminary WSF in 2001 proved to be a significant first
step in fulfilling the forum’s purpose to “make another world possible,” as
it fused the voices of various civil society organizations and developed a
stronger outreach. The result was one that was larger in scope and which was
forged in international advocacy. Nonetheless, in order to maintain a
creative, yet broadly inspired and successful opportunity for engagement,
the forum’s founders developed a Charter of Principles. This document
declared the purpose and orientation of the WSF, as well as welcomed the
participation of individual movements and organizations devoted to social
improvements.

Also, the WSF Charter is explicit in classifying the body as an open
assembly, which rebuts the misperception that it is an intellectually
homogenous regional organization pursuing its own interests. The WSF’s set
of fourteen fundamental principles is a means to sustain its peaceful
initiative while facilitating the forum in a respectful, objective, and
effective manner, so as not to tarnish its original intention.

Participatory democracy researcher and past forum attendee Josh Lerner
observed that the “speeches, personal testimonies, and mass rallies”
delivered “feelings of solidarity and excitement.” The WSF has contributed
to the rise of prominent leaders such as Evo Morales, who began his own
presidential campaign in Bolivia after gaining support for the concept of
sovereignty and autonomy of his own, as well as the region’s other
indigenous peoples during an earlier WSF conference. As the case of Morales
demonstrates, WSF has achieved what it was meant to accomplish. It has
succeeded in becoming a motivational conclave which inspires onlookers to
continue their efforts to achieve universal parity in social justice, a
doctrine they believe that Western capitalism now largely ignores.

*A Return to Brazil*
Considering Belém’s stature as a major commercial center located in the vast
Amazon River basin, the city strives to be seen as the cultural and economic
heart of northern Brazil. Its 1.4 million inhabitants lent their support to
the Brazilian Institute of Social and Economic Analysis (IBASE), a primary
organizer of the WSF, to draft the facilities of Belém’s two large
universities as the centerpiece for the 2009 conference, said IBASE
Director-General Candido Grzybowski. However, it could be argued that
holding the WSF in Belém actually may have turned out to be a poor decision.

If so, this was primarily due to the inadequate infrastructure existing in
the city, which proved just barely sufficient to accommodate such a large
influx of visitors. This flaw in the composition of the forum became
apparent right from the start when many participants were unable to attend a
number of the events due to the inadequacy of the transportation grid. More
often than not, the roads leading to the forum could be found swamped with
massive amounts of traffic that prevented buses and taxis from moving at
bearable speeds. Moreover, once participants arrived, they found it quite
challenging to make it to the lecture hall for which they were searching,
because there were so many being used and the campuses are situated a good
distance from one another. The result of this was that accompanying the
excitement of the WSF were equal degrees of frustration, tardiness, and
absence, not only on the part of the crowds, but also, on occasion, key
lecturers and organizers.

Nevertheless, following the decision by the forum’s founding organizations
at the 2007 WSF in Nairobi, to transition from an annual conference to a
biennial event, the 2009 forum was momentous in that it coincided with the
worst global economic crisis in history, a circumstance previous WSF
conferences claimed to foresee.

Belém was also chosen, in part, for its unique geography. Serving as the
eastern gateway to the Amazon, the city symbolizes the forum’s tenacious
efforts at greater conservation initiatives aimed at preserving the world’s
natural resources. Indeed, this WSF enormously stressed the importance of
the Amazonian biosphere. Perhaps imprudently, however, there were very few
efforts made to demonstrate that aside from the physical location of the
gathering, this was supposedly a “green” event. Trash was everywhere, and
recycling efforts were barely discernable after the forum’s inaugural
festivities were held.

*The Lula Factor*
Brazilian President Lula da Silva was one of the original craftsmen of the
WSF. His government contributed approximately U.S.$50 million to this year’s
event. In a move that signified the relative importance of the forum, Lula
opted to attend the WSF rather than participate at Davos as had been
universally assumed. Instead, Brazil’s Minister of External Relations, Celso
Amorim, and the President of the Banco Central do Brasil, Henrique
Meirelles, represented the regional superpower at the World Economic Forum.

Lula’s decision to attend the WSF should not have come as a complete
surprise. His roots lie deep within social movements dating as far back as
the late 1970s. Although a founder of the WSF, Lula’s presence at Belém
rather than at Davos cannot be entirely attributed to the conference’s
return to Brazil. Instead, Lula saw the forum as a podium to condemn
traditional capitalist countries such as the U.S. He claimed, “now the
crisis is theirs, not ours,” attesting to the current economic crisis that
resulted from grossly lax banking regulations in the market economies.

Lula’s decision to speak at the WSF contributed to the forum’s legitimacy
and surely sent a message to the world that alternatives to the current
economic model being promoted by the international lending agencies – the
IMF and World Bank – are seriously being sought. That message also carried
with it a relatively new significance, since Brazil has emerged as a
regional superpower at a time when Latin America is expanding its ties with
the outer world like never before in its history.

*Problem Solving*
The WSF has created an opportunity for various private and public
organizations to meet and discuss their concerns, and seek tentative
solutions. Attendees at Belém typically were individuals seeking social and
economic improvement for themselves and their communities. Many, if not most
of the discussions heard there focused primarily on educating participants
about the world’s multiplicity of problems, particularly about how the
application of the neoliberal development model has often mechanically led
to inconceivably gross corporate profits at the expense of average citizens
and their fundamental human rights. Advancements in poverty eradication and
gender equality were among the other imperative subjects discussed. By way
of example, the importance of such debates can be seen in the case of
Colombia’s alarmingly high number of internally displaced peoples.

*Colombia’s Shortcomings*
Alvaro Uribe’s administration in Colombia has been repeatedly criticized by
human rights organizations, which have challenged it for its negligent
response to ensuring the safety and security of struggling tiny and isolated
communities in that country, such as the Curvaradó and Jiguamiandó in the
northwest region. The exploitation of natural resources and agricultural
developments, along with the internal conflict that had engulfed the country
for over forty years, has left entire communities displaced. In an analysis
released by COHA this past year, the organization found that there are “20
million Colombians who are suffering from hunger, increased human rights
abuses, lack of access to healthcare, accelerated environmental degradation,
increased inequality, and a deeply flawed educational system.” These are the
common injustices minorities become subjected to under state repression, as
well as the absence of fundamental access to economic, social, and cultural
rights.

It is important to understand the past and the development of contemporary
circumstances in order to establish a clear direction for the future. The
dialogues at Belém, however, failed, according to some, to place enough
emphasis on the future. For well-informed attendees therefore, the forums
may have lacked attention to proportionality, in this respect attributing to
some confusion in understanding the vast global issues at stake. Many of the
forum’s almost overwhelming number of discussions, lectures, and debates
were, however, carried out in small groups and provided the opportunity for
those who had questions or may have felt something was missing to find
answers to their inquiries.

*21st Century Socialism: Socialism of the Future*
Under the terms of Article IX of the WSF Charter of Principles, Presidents
Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay,
and Rafael Correa of Ecuador jointly addressed the attendees in a vigorous
dialogue titled The “Proper Integration of Our America,” a discussion
prepared by La Via Campesina. This session synthesized the progress that
Chávez’s 21st Century Socialism - often referred to as the Bolivarian
Revolution - has made over classical socialism. While maintaining the
philosophical supremacy of human labor over capital, the modern model
accepts that traditional class struggles do not always provide a satisfying
explanation for all social phenomena.

Highlighting some of the major characteristics of 21st Century Socialism,
the aforementioned presidents were quick to denounce classical socialism for
its inability to produce the efficient development, ethnic equality, and
intergenerational equity which the system promised. The Russian model of
socialism, for the most part, lacked a process that would accurately record
the demands of the people and in many ways was merely a construct trying to
challenge U.S. policies across-the-board, rather than create and implement
them for the common good. Most significant, however, is “classical
socialism’s” failure to raise all of the serious questions to confront the
reigning capitalist development model at its roots.

Unlike the Soviet version, Chávez and his colleagues’ leftist vision for the
world, which is rapidly emerging from Latin America, is that of an entirely
parliamentary democratic brand; it is a manifestation of people’s desire for
liberation from the neo-liberal capitalist model of development, and, rather
than copying an existing worn-out model for the future, a new community is
authoring it. Instead of attempting to “develop” an alternative way through
what is commonly seen as endless economic growth rooted in unwarranted U.S.
optimism, this new Latin American socialism is forming a strong ecological
awareness as well as a desire to counter the dependency policies born from
traditional U.S. hegemony in the region. The people, from this
*chavista *perspective,
are creating something new and trying to free themselves from an antiquated
system that has so far failed the majority of them.

Lula and his colleagues utilized the WSF to take issue with the Western
version of the capitalist system. The lack of regulations that precipitated
the current global economic crisis has been a crucial component of
left-oriented arguments against the neo-liberal system. Irish artist and
social activist Tony Kenny maintained that, “The systems formulated in Davos
are collapsing, disintegrating and beginning to rot. So there has been this
clearing away, this brush fire within the financial system that has been
built over the last 100 years.” Magdalena Leon, a member of the Latin
American Network of Women Transforming the Economy, also argued against the
inefficiency and marginality of the capitalist system, emphasizing the
immediate obligation to implement an alternative structure. Leon argued that
now more than ever, under the current economic circumstances, measures
should be taken to create the change and institutions the world so
desperately needs; failure to act promptly would allow the current financial
system, which is viewed as being of a “neocolonial nature,” to revitalize
itself and shed its irrelevance and chronic obsolescence.

*Prelude to Mobilization Efforts*
“A new world is being born. Utopia is here in South America,” Chávez
affirmed in what Lula jokingly insisted was the Venezuelan President’s
shortest speech in ten years (approximately 15 minutes). During his brief
address, Chávez promoted the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of our
America (ALBA). He also awarded recognition and praise to Cuba’s Fidel
Castro for his dedication to the Socialist cause, which he sustained for
half a century in spite of his country’s trade isolation from the U.S. From
Chávez’s perspective, Cuba’s ability to endure despite rigid and unremitting
punative sanctions being applied from the U.S. has helped build up the
confidence necessary among Latin America’s multiplying number of
left-leaning administrations to come together and articulate the need for a
new world with new values.

Orion Cruz, COHA Research Fellow and WSF attendee, observed that Morales’
and Correa’s speeches were particularly emphatic regarding the environmental
crises that the world is currently facing, as well as the necessity of
meeting the ecological challenges that lie before us. Both leaders were
similarly passionate in their description of the severity of such
environmental issues and the way in which they connected to neoliberal
economic policies. Morales’ speech, however, distinguished itself from
Correa’s, because it came from the perspective that there is much to be
learned from the world’s indigenous populations about how to live in harmony
with *Pachamama*.

President Correa, who has recently emphasized the importance of committing
to regional efforts to maintain “Mother Earth,” argued that the preservation
of the world’s resources is “a necessity recognized even by technological
experts.” He supported his position by pointing to Ecuador’s decision not to
exploit some of its untapped oil reserves. This was somewhat ironic,
however, because despite the fact that Correa is known to be more
environmentally conscious than many other regional leaders, and that
Ecuador’s new constitution allows for the extension of new rights for the
country’s natural ecosystems, Correa’s administration continues to subscribe
to policies which inflict great harm to the country’s environment. Oil and
mining interests, for example, the former of which has admitted to dumping
more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste water into Ecuador’s Amazon
waterways, are still being forcefully protected from public protests. The
violent police and army suppression of a number of demonstrations, mostly
initiated by the country’s indigenous and *mestizo *populations seeking to
move beyond the extractive economic model, has done irreparable damage to
relationships with some of the country’s strongest and most environmentally
conscious social movements, including the National Indigenous Confederation
of Ecuador (CONAIE).

With regard to the many positive and hopeful environmentally-oriented
statements made by these South American leaders, there is still much to
clarify. For example, investing in alternative energy and fuel sources such
as hydroelectricity, as in the case of the Itaipu Dam in the Paraná River,
would allow the region to achieve the energy demands essential for economic
growth, yet be looked upon with favor by many of those involved as
environmentally responsible. However, if that energy independence were
achieved, would there be a price at which it would be harnessed? In fact,
hydroelectric dams are renowned for their disastrous environmental
repercussions, which often include sizeable amounts of greenhouse gas
emissions (occasionally producing more carbon dioxide and methane than power
stations reliant on fossil fuels), the damaging of riverine and land
ecosystems, as well as massive flooding of the surrounding areas during
construction. The Itaipu dam is a compelling illustration of this
environmental catastrophe, with the construction of its reservoir requiring
that 1,350 square kilometers of the surrounding ecosystem be flooded. As
Latin America’s new generation of leaders, and events like the WSF gain
traction and legitimacy, there are huge promises for the environment, but it
will take serious and sustained pressure from activists to achieve real
action.

*Putting words into Action*
Despite the WSF often being dismissed as a fading leftist’s fantasy, the
2009 convention marks the year that the gathering evolved into a high-minded
and highly relevant vehicle. For many of those who attended Belém, the
economic crisis was viewed as an enormous opportunity to bring down the
current system and replace it with something new, forceful and
transformative. There was a general acceptance throughout the forum that
change was on the way, but no ascertainable certainty about the kind of
change it would be. Instead, there was a focus on discussion about the sort
of change that the people wanted to see, which overall was oriented away
from the occasional amoralities of a free market system. At the minimum, it
was identified that there is a dire need for economic and environmental
practices to be restructured, which cannot be predictably achieved by means
of the current *laissez faire* system.

Although the interests represented at the WSF came together with the
intention to initiate a movement for social and environmental transformation
worldwide, their ability to turn ideas into hard planning will, in part, be
measured by the demonstrations at the opening of the upcoming G-20 summit in
London. Regardless of the outcome, they will help delineate the world’s
future economic woes. President Lula will be introducing a newly formulated
manifesto for the development of more responsible financial institutions
that more accurately reflect the development and growth of international
institutions, aimed at gradually replacing or supplanting the World Bank,
the IMF and the World Trade Organization. The degree to which the G-20
countries acknowledge the Belém activists’ appeals will help predict the
extent of the role their left-leaning ideas might play in cooperating with
most developed economies in order to construct a new type of
socially-oriented and just global economy.

If Belém and the protests during the G-20 Summit in London have successfully
made a point, civil society groups believe their efforts will result in
significant improvements. Although their pursuits may have to be
far-reaching to make an imprint, Latin America’s voices have intensified as
the hemisphere has emerged as the largest international supplier of raw
materials. Feelings of solidarity and a sense of confidence have come out
from the WSF, and while they have previously been stymied, this time they
were being created within a somewhat more conducive global context. Even if
the demonstrations do not amount to everything desired, under the current
economic circumstances, the forum’s left-leaning advocates are standing on a
much better practical footing than they have been in the past.

*The Summit of the Americas*
The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago will host the Fifth Summit of the
Americas in Port of Spain. Convening in April, this assembly will be
focusing on human prosperity, energy security, climate change and
sustainable development throughout the Americas. Among the voices being
heard there, the various governments of the Western Hemisphere are prepared
to address much of this agenda, as was outlined during the dialogues at the
WSF.

The United States must be expected to support many of the objectives that
emerged from Belém and follow through on some of them with a sense of
urgency. It is, however, by no means certain that this will not require
heavy negotiation. The Summit of the Americas may, in effect, turn out to be
the initial dialogue that the Obama administration will want and need in
order to engage in meaningful dialogue with left-leaning governments on such
an agenda.

Given the Summit’s fractious history and the discontent expressed at the
WSF, it would be foolish for Obama not to take seriously the opportunity of
building a regional consensus which would be primarily beneficial to the
countries to the south of the U.S. This would be especially prudent of
Washington, since it has lost considerable influence in the region and now
must commit itself to renovate its regional standing. At this point, it
seems that many people, nongovernmental organizations, social movements and
leaders within Latin America are dedicating themselves to economic,
political and social change, but what is still to be decided is what will be
Obama’s reaction. In any case, Latin America must decide whether to attempt
to change the economic, political and social calibrations regardless of
Washington’s support, or risk its new-found autonomy.
*This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Michael Ramirez and
COHA Research Fellow Orion Cruz
March 19th, 2009
Word Count: 3500*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20090320/89fe6805/attachment-0001.html>