WSF: Is Another World Possible?

Global Justice Movement

At a time of worldwide economic, climatic and political crisis, advocates of social justice gathered for the annual World Social Forum to contemplate a new vision for a better world.

The recently concluded World Social Forum is a good gauge for assessing the state of the world's alternative social, economic and political movements. Organized in 2001 as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, the annual meeting of global and corporate elites held in Davos, Switzerland, the WSF brings social movement organizations and activists from around the world together around the idea that "another world is possible." If Davos represents a failed globalization from above, the WSF represents an emerging globalization from below. It's a massive affair--this year more than 100,000 people gathered here for the five-day event. Part political convention, part carnival, part countercultural happening, the WSF serves as the center of gravity for the global justice movement that emerged in the late 1990s to contest corporate globalization.

The question on the minds of many was how to respond to what some call the "crisis of crises"--the economic, climate, political and cultural catastrophes that have engulfed the planet--and whether social movements can provide a unifying alternative vision for a better world. Economist Walden Bello of Focus on the Global South summed it up: "There is a sense of urgency and seriousness combining both pragmatism and principle. There is much less rhetoric. Things are taking place very fast outstripping what many predicted. There is a clear collapse of neo-liberalism. We have been triumphant over Davos.... Now we need alternatives and must get down to the hard work of creating them."

Why Belém?

Even before the economic crisis broke, Belém was chosen as this year's site to highlight environmental threats. Located sixty miles from the Atlantic on Guajara Bay in the Amazon estuary, Belém is no stranger to environmental conflicts or to impact of globalization. Originally built as an outpost of the Portuguese empire, it served for centuries as a gateway to Amazonia and shipping point for the region's natural resources. Today it is a port of call for container ships picking up aluminum, iron ore, lumber and other riches of the rainforest.

According to climate change activist Oscar Reyes of Carbon Watch, the selection Belém was appropriate: "The deforestation issue is connected into the global negotiations and essential to dealing with climate change. The threat to the Amazon--an area that contains half the remaining rainforest in the world--is not primarily from small-scale deforestation, it's pulp mills, mining, cattle, soy, and agrifuels. You can make sense of that in Belém where these are real and live issues."

Hard economic times and the remoteness of the location skewed the turnout this year--the vast majority of the participants were from Brazil and Latin America--but there were still healthy contingents from every continent. While most of the 5,808 participating organizations were from Latin America, about 1,600 were drawn from the rest of the world, including 491 from Europe, 489 from Africa, 334 from Asia and 155 from North America. In addition to the rank-and-file participants, the presidents of Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay also made appearances.

The WSF also chose to highlight the Amazon's indigenous people. Their attendance was not a folkloric touch: in marches and other events, indigenous participants demanded that their concerns be addressed and that their struggle for cultural survival be part of the global justice movement. From their perspective, the "other world" the WSF envisions must include space for those who have made a different pact with modernity.

This forum carried on its tradition of logistical chaos. The 2,310 "self-organized seminars" and other events were spread out over two university campuses along the banks of the river about a mile and a half apart and a few miles from the center of the city. Some participants complained of spending more time ferrying back and forth between campuses in taxis, buses and on a flotilla of old riverboats than they did in meetings.

The global economic meltdown made the Belém forum different from previous ones. The WSF and the global justice movement were formed in the expansive phase of globalization; now they must adapt to global economic contraction and impending environmental disaster. This year's participants know that they were right about the failure of corporate-led globalization, but they also know that just saying no is no longer adequate. The prospects of a global wave of beggar-thy-neighbor currency devaluations and destructive trade policies in response to the crisis and the revival of virulent nationalism loomed over the discussions. Many wondered if what was once dubbed the "anti-globalization movement" could produce a global response based on global solidarity.

Impacts of the Global Crisis

There was general agreement that the economic meltdown is spilling over national borders, but it is unfolding at a different pace and in varied ways across the world.

Gautam Mody ,of India's New Trade Union Initiative, told The Nation that "given the sheer number of irregular workers, most on contract, in India the crisis is as yet invisible...but millions of these workers have been pushed off the shop floor." These layoffs go largely unrecorded and workers receive no benefits. And Kjeld Jacobsen, of the Social Observatory in Sao Paulo, said that despite obvious signs that the crisis will rival that of the 1930s, "it's still hard to convince some workers of the severity of the coming crisis because it is just beginning."

In continental Europe, the crisis is still dubbed the "financial crisis," an indication that it is not yet being felt in the so-called "real economy" of everyday life. Bruno Ciccaglione, an Italian trade unionist, told us that "in the US the crisis helped to delegitimize the political class and particularly the Bush administration. But in Europe many of the governments that were very weak before the crisis--like Sarkozy in France, Brown in the UK and to some extent Berlusconi in Italy--came out stronger as a result of their economic packages and solutions, so the delegitimization of the political class for the moment has not occurred. But it will as the crisis moves into the real economy." The current strikes in France in response to large-scale layoffs are an indication that things are changing fast in Europe, he added.

There is also widespread worry in Europe over a possible right-wing backlash. Norwegian political activist Asbjorn Wahl explained why: "We have strong right-wing parties in many European countries, including my own country where they get almost 35 percent of the vote--and about that much of the working-class vote. If we don't come up with good alternatives that address people's needs, we may see that grow. It's a race between the right and the left, and at the moment, and for the last ten years, the right is gaining more. We have a history of the right taking over during in a crisis in Europe."

A recurrent theme in many of the discussions was that elites could use the crisis to reinvent capitalism in new and insidious ways. And many from developing countries raised concerns that the emerging crises piled onto to the longstanding crises of global poverty, migration and access to basic human needs like healthcare and clean water could have a devastating impact.

Networks of Networks

The World Social Forum has played an essential role in the "post-Seattle" world (a reference to the 1999 confrontation between anti-globalization activists and the World Trade Association) by serving as a center of gravity for a movement comprised of a diverse array of organizations, each with its own issues, agendas, programs and constituencies and with a global geographic spread. The WSF has been an incubator for the creation of many successful advocacy networks focused on specific issues related to labor, trade, finance, migration, the environment, human rights, poverty and alternative economic organizations. But there has been limited interaction among these networks. The networks remained "trapped in their own silos," in the words of one forum speaker.

That changed this year. A major push for "cross-network convergence"--creating networks of networks--dominated much of the discussion, and could mark a new stage in the global justice movement's development. French activist Ameile Cannone, of the Seattle to Brussels Network, described it this way: "The context is different; we face a global crisis, people have decided to put that at the center of their activities. It's a real opportunity to work across networks, a great first step to start working on climate, labor and development issues I don't think it would have been possible before and for us this is really a good step."

There is a great deal of work to be done. For instance, the discussion in Belém among labor organizations demonstrated that they have still not found ways to integrate action on climate change--something that will change the way their members live and work--into their daily strategies and practices. Indeed, the climate issue rarely came up in debates about labor's future, but when pressed most acknowledged it as a critical trade union issue.

It was also clear that environmental activists need to develop a better understanding of the effects of climate change mitigation on employment if they are to build lasting alliances with unions. Only a few trade unionists attended the climate change network meetings and only a few climate change activists attended the labor gatherings. But those exchanges are likely to increase as a result of actions taken in Belém

G-20 and Copenhagen

Amid the usual anti-capitalist boilerplate, the closing statement of the Bel& eacute;m Forum, says: "The challenge for the social movements is to achieve a convergence of global mobilization. It is also to strengthen our ability to act by supporting the convergence of all movements striving to withstand oppression and exploitation."

Two upcoming events will test this new commitment to "convergence:" the G-20 Economic Summit, to be held in London at the end of March, and the climate treaty talks, to be held Copenhagen in December. There is a general sense that these events offer a crucial opportunity for popular movements to mobilize and make their voices heard.

As for the future of the World Social Forum, it remains a flawed but essential institution of global civil society. Critics believe it has become too big and unruly--a carnival rather than a political gathering. It is not a setting for serious policy debates. And there has always been tension between those who would push the forum to be more of a social actor and those that want the forum to remain an "open space" for building relationships and sharing ideas. On her way home, Haeyoung Yoon, of the New York-based CAAAV Organizing Asian Communities as well as the Grassroots Global Justice Network, reflected on this tension: "The Social Forum has to be different. It should be an open space, but a partisan open space." Finding that balance in a time of crisis will be difficult.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090302/costello_smith

Dear capitalists, admit you got it wrong

Buoyed up by a crisis and with five presidents in attendance, the international left has ideas for fixing the world that a neoliberal might recognise

OFTEN mocked for an endless ability to disagree with itself, the World Social Forum—an annual jamboree for NGOs, anti-capitalists, leftish intellectuals, bohemians and bishops—was unusually united this year. More united, in some ways, than the recent World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos, a gathering of political and corporate bigwigs to which the social forum supposedly responds.

While Davos Man was busy looking for someone to blame for his predicament, no such doubts troubled his opposite number in Belém, a city on the edge of the Brazilian rainforest where mango trees grow so tall that their fruits can shatter car windscreens when they fall. The culprit was the whole current design of the world economy, promoting competition. Free trade and free movement of capital needed to be re-thought, participants insisted. Some even had ideas on what should replace it.

The forum’s main purpose is to bring together social movements (which generally dislike being called NGOs) from around the world to network. In that respect, it is rather like any other business conference, though some participants carry spears and wear the feathers of various unfortunate parrots on their heads. The forum is skewed towards Latin America, especially Brazil. One of the founders of the forum is a Brazilian businessman called Oded Grajew, and its first meeting was held in Porto Alegre, in southern Brazil.

Of more than 5,000 accredited organisations, 4,193 were from South America, roughly ten times the number of African outfits present. This partly reflects the number and prominence of NGOs in South America and the semi-official role which some governments give them. This year Brazil’s left-leaning government gave the forum a subsidy of R$120m ($52m)—a piece of generosity that was not universally popular at a time when economic growth may be on the verge of halting.

As a result, many causes dear to the Brazilian left were well represented. T-shirts demanded asylum for Cesare Battisti, a left-wing Italian émigré convicted of murder in Rome, who is currently in Brazil. Banners called for Brazilian troops to be withdrawn from Haiti, where they are doing a good job of containing violence.

A proposed hydroelectric dam on the Madeira river (a tributary of the Amazon) was denounced, and the country’s new oil find claimed for its people. Plenty of people came from further afield, like the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, with a Delphic slogan: “We would rather sweat in peace than bleed in war.” And there were swarms of young, largely white folk who treated the forum like a music festival.

This cacophony sometimes sat awkwardly with the presence of five leftish presidents—Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil—who dropped in to be fêted. The flurry of helicopters and security men seemed out of place. Four leaders (President Lula was elsewhere) appeared together at a meeting that was billed as a dialogue with the social movements. But the talking was mostly one way. Mr Chávez gave a long, rambling speech in which he struggled to animate the crowd. “Another world is possible! No! Another world is necessary,” was as inspiring as it got.

Since its inception, the forum has struggled to get the right balance between a range of attractions: intellectual stars such as Noam Chomsky and Joseph Stiglitz, both of whom have addressed previous meetings; sympathetic politicians; large NGOs and the smaller single-issue organisations which often feel squeezed out.

This tension produced the best exchange in the presidential meeting. “You all talk about doing these things,” said João Pedro Stedile, a founder of the Landless Movement in Brazil, “but when you met in Bahia [in December] you just went to the beach.” “I didn’t go to the beach,” muttered the Venezuelan leader. “Well, perhaps those of you who are a bit overweight didn’t go,” Mr Stedile fired back.

Away from this set-piece spat, people were sitting in meeting rooms and coming up with proposals. The ones that dealt with reforming finance read a bit like a co-production between militant anti-capitalists and more cautious types, which was no accident. At the far edge was the idea that money and finance are public goods and should be shared out accordingly, through democracy. The familiar call for a special tax on international transactions was repeated. But there was plenty of talk that was more moderate and rather more interesting.

The forum suggested that the United Nations should be charged with preventing large trade surpluses and deficits from building up. Controls on exchange rates and the international movement of capital should be re-established. Credit-rating agencies should be reformed, incentives for excessive risk-taking reduced and bankers’ bonuses paid on the basis of long-term performance. Hedge funds, private-equity firms and other parts of the shadow banking system should go, along with over-the-counter derivatives (OTCs), collateralised-debt obligations (CDOs) and other nefarious structured products.

In general, a “speculator pays” principle should be introduced and applied when things go wrong. Finally, the world’s economy should get a stimulus in the form of a green New Deal.

Bits of this belong to the realm of reality; indeed, they might have come from America’s Democratic Party, or even from the op-ed pages of a respectable business daily. Interestingly, the forum proposed an outright ban on subprime mortgages, even though it might have been expected to look favourably on lending to people who would otherwise struggle to get credit.

If some delegates seemed to have thought hard about the economic crisis, the same could not be said of the visiting presidents. After leading the crowd in a chant of “Fidel, Fidel, Fidel!” Mr Chávez joined Messrs Lugo, Morales and Correa in a karaoke rendition of “Hasta siempre commandante”—a dirge about the exploits of Che Guevara—before disappearing. That was far too cruel a fate for the assembled company of Asian bishops, indigenous types in all their finery, would-be financial reformers and anti-capitalist warriors.

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13061828