[WSF-Discuss] [DEBATE] : Long live WSF long live: Eric Toussaint

[CACIM]

(Sobering on left government powerlessness. Inspiring on soc.mvt.
power and energy.)

Counterpunch

March 3, 2009
An Interview with Eric Toussaint
A New Start for the World Social Forum?

By PAULINE IMBACH

Eric Toussaint is president of the Committee for the Cancellation of
Third World Debt and author of The World Bank: A Critical Primer,
Pluto, London, 2008.
Some talked about a new start for the movement for another kind of
globalization with the World Social Forum in Belém. Do you think this
is
the case?

Since the World Social Forum (WSF) went through difficult moments in
2006, 2007, and 2008, we can really call this 9th edition a new start.
It was a huge success in various respects.

First it drew a considerable participation, with 133,000, possibly
140,000, registered participants. This is remarkable and makes the
Belém WSF one of the most popular. It is comparable to Mumbai’s in
January 2004 or to the one organized in Porto Alegre in 2005. Indeed
we have to keep in mind that Belém is off the beaten track compared
with major Brazilian cities such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo
Horizonte, or Porto Alegre but also for a number of South American
countries. Belém is difficult to get to: air fares are expensive and
it takes three days by bus from Sao Paulo, five from Porto Alegre, and
six from Buenos Aires, Montevideo or Asunción. Mumbai was much more
accessible for Indians and Porto Alegre for Brazilians, Argentinians,
Uruguayans, and Paraguayans.

Moreover a large majority of participants were under 30. All those
young people massively attended the various events.

Another element that contributed to the Forum being a success is the
visible and active presence of indigenous peoples, mainly from the
Amazon and the Andes.

What is also indicative of a new start is that most participants were
keen to find in-depth explanations for the various aspects of the
current crisis and to draw their own conclusions, while eager to act
and implement alternatives.

This is an obvious change compared with the Nairobi WSF in 2007, where
the movement seemed to be running out of steam and unable to raise
fundamental questions.

This turns this Forum into the first major international mobilization
against the crisis of capitalism that started in 2007.

This new start for the WSF and the alter-globalization movement is in
stark contrast with the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos mourning
capitalism. President Lula, who had in former years spent one day at
the WSF before flying to the WEF, decided that this time he would only
be seen at the WSF and would not go to Davos. This is most significant
since it illustrates the depth of the crisis. Lula understood that his
social liberal management, which already leads to a lot of questioning
from the grassroots, would be even more negatively perceived if he
went to Davos. To clip the wings of any criticism on his left he chose
to stay in Brazil. Similarly no other Latin American left-wing or
centre-left president went to the Swiss ski resort, though several of
them were invited. The economic Forum was a sorry spectacle since no
significant representative of the Obama administration had bothered to
go. Only Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Prime minister (which says a
lot!), and Angela Merckel were there to discuss the survival of
capitalism.

Nicolas Sarkozy himself had decided against going to Davos. If Lula
had gone, or if Obama had sent a high-ranking official Sarkozy would
surely
have been there!

We must also emphasize the media bias. One of the world’s leading
financial dailies, the Financial Times, did not print one line about
the WSF in Belém while it devoted two special issues to Davos and had
over ten pages coverage in its regular issue. By contrast a number of
newspapers, TV and radio channels had sent special correspondents
(there were about 3,000 journalists) who reported on the event. Some
rightly stress the 'reawakening' or 'second wind’ of the
alterglobalization movement. All the daily papers in the State of Para
ran five to eight pages about the Forum every day. The international
TV channel AlJazira largely covered the event and gave CADTM delegates
the opportunity to speak (see the English video at
http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4012 ).
What were the major concerns at the WSF?

There were three main issues.

First the crisis of capitalism in its various dimensions, namely
financial, economic, climate, energy, food, migration and
'governance', i.e. the obvious legitimacy crisis of the G8, the IMF,
the World Bank, and the WTO. The lack of legitimacy of alternative
solutions such as the G20 was also central.
Second, the crimes of the Israeli army against the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian issue, though Belém lies over 12,000 km away from
Palestine, was very much with us. From day one, with the opening
march, a 20 meter long Palestinian flag was unfolded and carried by
young people of ENLACE, a far-left current in the Brazilian PSOL
party.

Several people carried tokens of solidarity with the Palestinian
struggle. Though participants had come with different concerns, they
insisted on showing their solidarity with the Palestinian people. With
this specific situation it was all the wars of aggression that were
targeted, such as the war on Iraq or on Afghanistan. All agreed on the
demand for withdrawal by the army of occupation.

A third priority issue was the struggle of indigenous peoples in
Amazonia and the Andes. The Forum's first day of work was entirely
dedicated to the Amazonian area (an area that extends beyond Brazil
and includes part of Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, and Colombia -
not forgetting Guyana, French Guiana and Surinam). The indigenous
peoples issue covered the relationship with nature and the part they
play in preserving it, as well as the assertion of their cultural
identity and the way they are affected by capitalist globalization.
Indigenous people have a lot to teach other peoples, especially with
respect to their approach to the world (this has already been partly
integrated in the new Constitutions voted in Ecuador in 2008 and in
Bolivia in 2009). We could only be impressed by the contribution of
delegates of indigenous peoples to the Forum's discussions and
proposals. They played a major part. They gave the Forum its
particular touch as they focused discussions on the issue of Amazonia
and the Andes, and so placed the
challenge of climate change at the core of socialist and environmental
considerations.

Next to these three central issues we discussed a number of
significant questions. For instance, thanks to the dynamic of the
World March of
Women the feminist approach was more visible than in former editions.

Another essential theme: understanding the predatory role played by
transnational corporations not only in the North but also in the
South. Since we were in Belém, many actions were directed against the
Brazilian corporations such as Petrobras or Vale (mining industry). It
was essential for Brazilians, who made up some 90 % of the
participants, to become aware of their own responsibility as citizens
in bringing an end to the nefarious action of corporations located in
their country on a continental if not global scale.
What is the significance of the declaration by the Assembly of Social Movements?

This declaration has something radically new about it. We have to
remember that from the first Forum in January 2001 there has always
been an Assembly of Social Movements. Preparations for it go on from
the first day of the Forum and the Assembly meets on the last day. At
the
end of the meeting a declaration is voted on. It has been drafted by
delegates from a whole range of social movements.

Up to now these declarations were merely a list of major issues as
perceived by social movements and a list of upcoming events. Social
movements and various campaigns presented major moments for their
mobilization.

The Belém declaration is different. It includes a fundamental
diagnosis of the crisis of the capitalist system and a clear position
as to how to move out of it. Its title and subtitle sum up this new
approach: We won't pay for the crisis! The rich have to pay for it!
Anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, feminist, environmentalist and
socialist alternatives are necessary!

So this declaration is an agenda for alternatives. To be more
specific, it indicates that if we consider the interest of the
oppressed, the crisis of capitalism cannot be solved by merely
restoring some regulation mechanisms. The solution to the crisis
involves a break away from the capitalist system. In order to overcome
the crisis we have to grapple with the root of the problem and
progress as fast as possible towards the construction of a radical
alternative that would do away with the capitalist system and
patriarchal domination.

Moreover the declaration conveys immediate demands: We must contribute
to the largest possible popular mobilization to enforce a number of
urgent measures such as nationalizing the banking sector without
compensation and with full social monitoring; reducing working time
without any wage cuts; taking measures to ensure food and energy
sovereignty; stopping wars, withdrawing occupation troops and
dismantling military foreign bases; acknowledging the peoples’
sovereignty and autonomy and ensuring their right to
self-determination; guaranteeing rights to land, territory, work,
education and health for all; democratizing access to means of
communication and knowledge.

Finally this text proposes a global calendar, with special focus on
the week of global action from 28 March to 4 April 2009. This includes
our refusal to pay for the current crisis, our opposition to the G20
meeting in London on 2 April 2009, solidarity with the Palestinian
people on 30 March 2009, opposition to the commemoration of NATO's
60th anniversary and our demand for its dissolution. This must indeed
be a week of global action since we agreed both on the dates and on
the major themes.

Moreover the calendar includes the recurring dates for mobilisation:
Women's Day on the 8 March, Peasants' Day on the 17 April, Indigenous
Peoples' Day on 12 October (the day that Columbus landed on what
Europeans were to call the Americas in 1492).

Finally this calendar of events also includes major mobilizations on
the occasion of the G8 meeting on Madgalena Island in Sardegna in
early July 2009, the UN Copenhagen summit on climate change in
December 2009 and the global week of action against the debt and
International Financial Institutions from 8 to 15 October 2009.

The groups that were most actively involved in the drafting of the
declaration of social movements were CADTM, which put forward a
proposal for collective drafting, the World March of Women (WMW), Via
Campesina (particularly its Brazilian branch the Movimento sin Terra),
the Organización continental latinoamericana y caribeña de estudiantes
(OCLAE), delegates from European, African, and Asian social movements,
and delegates from indigenous associations in Amazonia and the Andes.

Usually, during forums, the conclusions of the Assembly of Social
Movements (ASM) are made public on the last day. This year, since the
last day was dedicated to thematic assemblies and the Assembly of
Assemblies, on which more below, the Assembly of Social Movements took
place on 30 January, two days before the end of the Forum. On hearing
the conclusions of ASM, Joao Pedro Stedile, from MST, said such a
declaration was evidence of the ASM’s maturity in that it defines a
clear agenda. In this Forum the ASM still played a stirring part since
it defined issues in radical terms and reinforced a dynamic that had
been present all through the Forum, namely a search for global and
radical explanations and solutions.

If we read the declarations that most of the 11 thematic assemblies
adopted on 1 February morning, we notice that the crisis is repeatedly
analyzed as a crisis of capitalism. It is particularly striking when
we read the declaration of indigenous peoples, that of the anti-war
movements, or that adopted by the assembly of women. We are not
interested in palliative answers based on market logic in response to
these crises; this can only lead to a perpetuation of the same system.

We need to advance in the construction of alternatives [. . . so as to
confront] the capitalist and patriarchal system that oppresses and
exploits us.

The declaration of indigenous peoples uses similar terms to those
found in the ASM declaration to formulate demands for an antiracist,
antipatriarchal and socialist alternative that would respect the earth
mother. The crisis of the capitalist, eurocentric, patriarchal and
racist development model is complete and opens onto the biggest social
and environmental crisis in the history of humankind. The financial,
economic and energy crisis contributes to structural unemployment,
social exclusion, racist violence, machism, and religious fanaticism.
So many deep and simultaneous crises spell out a genuine crisis in
Western civilisation, the crisis of the ‘capitalist development and
modernity’ that jeopardizes all forms of life. Yet even in such a
quandary some still dream of improving this model and will not
recognize that the present crisis is a product of capitalism itself,
on eurocentrism with
its model of a State for one nationality, of cultural homogeneity, of
Western positive law, and of commodification of life.

While some social movements or campaigns (particularly European ones)
are still hesitant if not reluctant to mention socialist alternatives,
the assembly of indigenous peoples is quite explicit about it. And it
has to be stressed that the two texts were drafted by different people
at different venues of the Forum, even though the ASM declaration was
discussed in a general assembly of delegates of all represented
movements, including of course those of indigenous peoples (who were
massively present at the ASM).

In the drafting committee we had debated how we could indicate the
contribution of indigenous organizations to the struggle against
capitalist globalization. A first draft mentioned the indigenous
movements ‘reappearing’ over the past 15 years, which I hardly found
satisfactory. And as soon as the text was read in the general
assembly, several delegates of indigenous movements demanded that the
text be changed and mention a ‘new encounter’ between indigenous and
social movements over the past years. The indigenous peoples rightly
observed that they had not waited for other social movements to find
out about them before starting their own struggle. They have been
resisting capitalism and various forms of domination imposed on them
for five centuries. The assembly considered they were right and the
text was changed accordingly.
What can be said about the presence of political parties and certain
governments at the WSF?

The participation of political parties is a new development, since
political parties were not much in evidence at the previous Forums in
Brazil and Africa. They were not much in evidence either at the WSF in
Mumbai, India in January 2004 or at certain regional or continental
Forums, in particular those in Karachi, Caracas, or Athens in 2006.

First of all, it should be said that the left-wing Brazilian parties
(the PT, PSOL and PSTU) were particularly present in the Forum program
itself but that their participation varied in nature. For the PT, it
was more a matter of Lula’s government and administration being
present (several ministers attended) than of PT participation as such.
On the other hand, the PSOL and PSTU, both of them opposition parties,
were active in supporting the interests of trade unions they are close
to, especially ConLutas and Inter Syndical.

The presence of political parties within the Forum precincts seems to
me vital, since the Forum should be a platform for debate between
political
parties, social movements, citizen organizations and grass roots
movements. It would be perfectly logical if, at each edition of the
Social Forum, the political parties linked to the Forum process were
present. It is time to end the “ghetto-ization” of the social
movements, NGOs and citizen movements, as if they were incapable of
debating, let alone actively collaborating, with political
organizations that are willing to fight against capitalist
globalization.

Note that for the first time, four presidents were there together: Evo
Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Fernando Lugo (Paraguay)
and Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). They represent the aspirations of the
global justice movement in general and Latin-American social movements
in particular. We should recall that in 2005 there were two meetings
of Latin-American presidents during the WSF - the first attended by
Hugo Chavez, and later, a second by president Lula. In addition, on
the occasion of the 2006 polycentric forum in Caracas, Hugo Chavez
took part in another big public meeting.

What was new at Belém was that for the first time, four presidents
were addressed by social movements. It is very important that social
movements confront presidents with a number of realities and try to
get them to commit to measures for implementing an alternative model
and regional integration in Latin America – an integration that is
genuinely favourable to the people, respectful of nature and not
subordinated to the interests of capitalist transnational
corporations. It should also be emphasized that the four presidents
had been invited by social movements, specifically on the initiative
of the MST (Landless Rural Workers’ Movement), La Via Campesina and
the WMW (World March of Women), all of which had decided to exclude
Lula, given the content of his anti-social policy (the local press
made much of this exclusion).

Lula’s political stance is close to the liberal social model of Gordon
Brown in England, or of Zapatero in Spain. It mainly favours the big
capitalist Brazilian companies established throughout Latin America,
the powerful Brazilian agribusiness sector, the private banking
system, and the big transnational corporations located in Brazil. It
is a policy that promotes exports as fundamental to development, in
particular the sugar cane industry with a view to producing ethanol,
and transgenic soy exports. In ecological terms, however, the
consequences for the last five years have been catastrophic. Since
2003, Lula’s policies have engendered deforestation in Amazonia over
an area equal to that of Venezuela.

During the WSF, the Lula government’s aim was to regain some
legitimacy with a left-wing sector and with politically committed
young people opposed to Lula’s neo-liberal policies. While the message
of the Lula government was geared to be anti-neoliberal, the
participants themselves were a move ahead, placing responsibility for
the global crisis squarely on the capitalist system.

1,000 social movement delegates were present at this meeting attended
by four presidents. Many more WSF participants would have liked to be
there
but it was necessary to proceed by delegation. The session began with
a political address by Camille Chalmers, secretary general of PAPDA
(Platform to Advocate Alternative Development) in Haiti, who is a
member of Jubilee South, CADTM and COMPAS (a Caribbean alliance of
social movements). He stressed the positive nature of the audit
initiative of the Correa government in Ecuador and the partial
suspension of commercial debt repayments. He then addressed Hugo
Chavez and Evo Morales on setting up debt audits in their respective
countries and reminded them that they had undertaken to do this after
the Alba meeting, in the presence of Rafael Correa, at the end of
November 2008 in Caracas. Before the presidents took the floor, two
feminists also spoke: Magdalena Leon of REMTE and Nalu Faria of the
WMW .

The first president to speak was Rafael Correa. His arrival at the
Forum had been a subject of controversy. The day before he came, the
Confederation of Indian Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) sent a
message to the WSF asking that Correa be declared persona non grata in
view of his policy regarding foreign investment in the country’s
extractive industries, which directly affect the indigenous
populations. In response to this radical challenge, in his speech
Rafael Correa adopted a very left-leaning discourse on 21st century
socialism. While his speech might be seen as altogether positive,
placed in its context it appears to be a way of regaining a legitimacy
that has been damaged by the type of capitalist, productivist,
national model he is installing in is country. In addition, he made no
mention of the debt issue, whereas in his introduction Camille
Chalmers had stressed the positive nature of
the debt audit and Ecuador’s partial suspension of repayments since
November 2008.

Fernando Lugo then made a speech in which he stressed that it is
absolutely vital for Brazil to acknowledge that the application of the
Itaipu treaty is causing a terrible and unfair debt burden for
Paraguay. The binational company Itaipu has a total debt of US$ 20
billion, half of this sum to be repaid by Paraguay and the other half
by Brazil. Almost 95% of these debts are owed to Brazilian companies.
Lugo explained that he expected Brazil to adopt a friendly and
honourable stance by acknowledging the one-sided nature of this
treaty. The Paraguayan authorities and people want the debt held
against them to be radically reduced. They want to be able to increase
the price of the electricity they supply to Brazil and sell
electricity to other
countries in the region, so as to increase the State’s revenues and
thus be in a position to start the social reforms for which Lugo was
elected
in April 2008.

Lugo also intends to set up a commission for an international audit of
the Itaipu treaty. He has decided that negotiations with Lula on the
Itaipu treaty will be public, though the Lula government wants them to
be confidential and on a diplomatic basis.

Evo Morales was the next to speak. His speech was interesting in that
he positioned himself as being part of the social movements. He
affirmed that none of the presidents here today would be president if
there had not been profound social struggles and if social movements
had not frequently overthrown presidents favouring neo-liberal
policies. He told the social movements they should not hesitate to
summon the presidents regularly so that they would be obliged to make
reports. Evo Morales alluded to the situation of his country after the
adoption by referendum of the new constitution on 27 January 2009
(that is, on the first day of the WSF), which is a major step forward
for Bolivia.

Finally, he explained the entirely counter-revolutionary role of the
Bolivian catholic hierarchy: playing on the WSF slogan, he exclaimed
“another Church is possible”. In this way he was addressing his
colleague Fernando Lugo, a former Catholic bishop and liberation
theologist, and, in the audience, François Houtart who is also a
liberation theologist, working for the Church of the poor.

Chavez, in his turn, insisted on the anti-capitalist and socialist
option and added a feminist dimension by declaring that he had become
a firm feminist.

After these speeches, João Pedro Stedile, president of MST, gave a
closing address that was very exemplary in manner. Instead of
congratulating the presidents, he said that the time they had lost and
the fact that they had proven unable, in the face of the crisis, to
adopt measures for the benefit of the people, were regrettable. In
this way he was criticizing all the Latin-American presidents who met
in Salvador de Bahia in December. Addressing the four presidents
before him, he declared that in the absence of a joint response from
all the presidents, the social movements expect the four left-wing
presidents to take fundamental, stuctural measures without delay to
respond to the capitalist crisis. In addition, he suggested they did
not wait to be
summoned by the social movements, but to regularly invite those
movements to come to them and then listen to what they have to say.

This meeting was an important event within the WSF, and a step forward
in the dialogue between social movements and governments. This type of
exchange could only happen in Latin America, in the sense that several
left-wing governments have emerged from radical social struggles
linked
to the WSF dynamic: before being elected president in April 2008,
Fernando Lugo had attended the WSF of Porto Alegre in 2005 as a
Paraguayan delegate, travelling there by bus from Asunción.

At the end of this day, president Lula called another meeting at
another venue in Belém – more a presentation of his politics than
anything else.
He invited H. Chavez, R. Correa, E. Morales and F. Lugo, all of whom
also spoke. This meeting took place in a very different context. There
was no question of dialogue with social movements or of listening to
eventual criticism of his policies or those of the other presidents.
Can we note a switch to the left among some Latin American governments?

Is there any progress in terms of regional integration?

We cannot really say the four governments invited to the WSF are
moving to the left. In Venezuela, a series of positive measures have
been taken
in 2008 in term of nationalizations, such as the nationalization of
the big steel company Sidor after an extended social conflict, or the
nationalization of the Bank of Venezuela which belonged to one of the
two largest Spanish private banking groups. It is quite hard to assess
Lugo’s work since he has only been in office since August 2008, i.e.
for less than six months. To be able to form an opinion, it is
necessary to leave him more time. Nevertheless, what can be said is
that, in view of the crisis that begins to directly affect the Latin
American economies and populations, the four governments have not
managed to implement a concerted alternative policy.

A source of inspiration should be the proposals drawn from the
conference that was convened by the Venezuelan authorities in October
2008, “Responses from the South to the global economic crisis”. This
conference resulted in a declaration which included a series of very
concrete proposals that, unfortunately, have not been followed by
decisions up to now. As far as integration is concerned, it must be
noted that the Bank of the South, which has officially existed since
December 2007, has not yet started business. It is clearly in a
stalemate.

After these very important critical observations, some positive
elements deserve to be highlighted. First, in December 2008 Salvador
do Bahia hosted a meeting of all Latin American presidents which
marked Cuba’s return to the common Latin American scene. On this
occasion, the Mexican president Felipe Calderon (right wing
government) and Raul Castro (from Cuba) met without the US government
being invited to this summit. And yet, since the 1959 Cuban
revolution, the US had managed to diplomatically isolate Cuba to such
an extent that the main meetings on the continental scale were those
of the Organization of American States (OAS), which consists of the
states of North and Latin America, excepting Cuba. Now Latin American
states, including right wing governments, are forming a coalition
without Washington, so as to resolve by themselves some regional
problems, such as the conflict that broke out on 1 March 2008 after
the Colombian army intervened on Ecuadorian territory. It is positive.

The other positive element regarding the integration process is the
continuing enlargement of the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the
Americas). At the beginning, it included Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.
In 2008, it extended to include Honduras and the island of Dominica.
For some months we have noted Ecuador’s cautious rapprochement.

What went on about the debt issue?

Several talks dealt with the debt topic. The most attended one
gathered some 500 people and was about debt auditing in Latin America
and the
Brazilian Congress setting up a Parliamentary Investigation
Commission. The CADTM and Jubilee South were the most represented
networks in the WSF. Latindadd, Eurodad and Afrodad were also present.
As mentioned in the final declaration of the debt campaigns, a new
international crisis of the public debt is in the making.

Was there anything new about the organization of the Forum?

Yes. The Assembly of Assemblies, which followed the self-managed
thematic assemblies, is an important innovation. From the first, WSF
social movements have established the tradition of a final unifying
assembly, convened alongside the official programme of the Forum. For
several years, a series of constituent parts of the Forum have been
asking for the Forum itself to actively and consciously promote
convergences among participating organizations, so as to bring forth
common alternatives, common actions and proposals. There was some
resistance within the International Council (IC), but this year is a
turning point and marks an advance for the WSF with the convening of
the Assembly of Assemblies.

On the first day (27 January) the Forum started with a big opening
march in the streets. On the second day all activities focused on the
Amazon region, which highlighted the contribution of indigenous
peoples. This pan-Amazon day was followed by two days in which all
topics could be dealt with in self-managed activities. And finally, on
the morning of the last day (1 February), self-managed thematic
assemblies were held, followed in the afternoon by an Assembly of
Assemblies where the conclusions of each thematic assembly were
presented as well as the final declaration of the Assembly of Social
Movements – ASM – (which took place on 30 January). It was obviously
an extremely positive choice.

This being said, it has to be qualified: the IC and the local
organizing committee did not put enough energy in coordinating the
self-managed activities of the third and fourth days. This resulted in
too much dispersion since almost 2,000 activities were organized. In
the 4 to 6 months before the Forum a group of volonteers and permanent
staff should have been in touch with all the organizations registering
activities so as to group and merge them. It would have avoided many
duplications. In this respect the CADTM made a special effort since
all its activities were co-organized with others. The CADTM did not
organize any activity on its own. As far as responses to the crisis
are concerned, the CADTM was involved in two initiatives that gathered
tens of different organizations . Similarly activities on the debt
issue were held with Jubilee South, Latindadd, and national campaigns
active on the issue, especially in Brazil.

Another weak point: the Assembly of Assemblies was held in
unfavourable material conditions. It was held outdoors, without any
translation system. Participants could not ask questions to people
reading the conclusions reached by the various thematic assemblies.
For the next editions an indoor venue and a translation system will be
needed to make a real exchange on the conclusions possible.
Compared with the edition held in Nairobi in January 2007, was the
Forum more accessible to the more oppressed people? Did the local
population actively take part in the Forum?

The Forum was very well attended by people of the region. About
100,000 people from the state of Para, the capital of which is Belem,
were present. The entry fee for Brazilians amounted to 30 reals, that
is 10 euros, the price of 8 to 10 meals in a popular canteen. It was
thus a high price to pay for the sector of the population that devotes
80 per cent of its income to mere survival. The entrance fee should
have been even lower so as to prompt larger participation.

Another questionable aspect, for which the organizing committee is not
responsible, but which is the result of the federal government’s and
the state of Para’s policies, is the discrimination against the
poorest neighbourhoods of the city. 200 antiriot police were stationed
in the two poorest neighbourhoods and the authorities imposed the Ley
Seca, a law that prohibits selling alcohol in the evening. It is thus
an obvious discriminatory policy against the “dangerous classes”, to
use a 19th century expression. In the rest of the city, the police
presence was very discreet and alcohol could be sold at any time of
the day and night.

It must also be said that people living in flimsy houses around the
university where the Forum took place were evicted right before the
Forum so as to “clean up” the place.

During the International Council, the CADTM raised the question of the
entrance fee with the organizing committee and criticized the State
authorities’ attitude regarding poor populations. The members of the
organizing committee said they were deeply concerned by this kind of
policies too.

To conclude, the WSF should be fully open to the local populations
without any financial barrier. The organization of a Forum should not
be accompanied by security measures in which the police target the
lower classes, while these ought to be the central actors of change in
a process like the WSF and alterglobalism.
What are the developments within the International Council (IC)?

A positive evolution has been noted within the IC around this WSF. On
the one hand, before the Forum, given the strategic choice of
convening an Assembly of Assemblies, and on the other hand, after the
WSF, during the two-day IC meeting. The Forum’s success resulted in
the dispassionate climate of IC debates and proposals. The meeting
included a strategic discussion introduced by a document presented by
Gus Massiah. Without any vote being held on the subject, the IC was
visibly willing to make the action plans succeed, and especially the
global week of action that was agreed on during the ASM. Whereas in
past editions some constituent parts, including some founding members
of the Forum, were opposed to organizing large demonstrations as part
of the Forum, especially the ones organized against the war in 2003
and 2004, on this occasion, they approved the agenda of actions. It is
clear that the global crisis of capitalism has changed things.
Everyone is now faced with the need to act.

This raises several questions: does it reflect the IC’s response
capacity, which was slumbering and reluctant to push for action? Will
the change observed after the Belém Forum be lasting or temporary?

It is important for the organizations that can actively spur the IC in
the good direction to assume their responsibilities. In this regard,
the CADTM firmly intends to assume its responsibilities together with
other organizations willing to improve the IC’s functioning, so that
the IC contributes to facing the challenges of the global capitalist
crisis.

Moreover, a proposal that must be supported was launched during the
IC, i.e. holding a meeting in Gaza in 2010, with attendant public
activities
designed for hundreds of participants. This project has to be made
reality in the first half of 2010 to support the Palestinian people’s
struggle.
Does the social movements’ action plan stand a chance to succeed?

For the ASM’s call to be successful all the organizations that
participated in the Forum or support this call must organize it all,
so that in their respective country or region, this call results in
mobilization. There are other events we have to participate in. Surely
some current or recent struggles (in Greece, in France, in Guadaloupe
and Martinique …) can help this agenda to succeed. Workers and unions
affected by the large layoff plans in entire economic sectors must get
involved.
Translated by Judith Harris, Stéphanie Jacquemont and Christine Pagnoulle.


See http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4087
See http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4087

See http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4104

Original text in Spanish: http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4133

Read: Ignacio Ramonet, La vraie gauche et les mouvements sociaux.
http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4102

See the full declaration http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article3802

See the final declaration of the debt campaigns which was read by
Camille Chalmers (member of CADTM and Jubilee South) during the Assembly
of Assemblies http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4128

The CADTM delegation to the WSF was composed of nearly thirty
delegates from 14 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Benin, Brazil,
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Haiti, India, Ivory
Coast, Japan, Marocco, Pakistan, Togo. The delegates from Colombia,
Venezuela and Tunisia were not able to arrive in Belem).

One of these initiatives led to the declaration “Let’s put finance in
its place!” http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4120

See the complete document, entitled “The dangers and opportunities of
the global crisis” http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4099
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20090324/6cc44c49/attachment-0001.html>