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

[Giuseppe Caruso]

HI all,

I find incredibly instructive but also a bit disappointing to learn of the
(presumably lengthy) process to establish where to draw the line between
good and bad heads of state. What i find relevant, even more than the
outcome of this process is that one such process is taking place. Of course
the inevitable outcome of such a (simplistic) (political) process is
dividing the heads of states in those who are with us and those who are not
(and therefore are against us?). I'm sure there are many who indeed consider
ALL heads of state as unwelcome guests but i don't seem to find any
reflection of that debate in the draft document and perhaps even those who
consider ALL heads of state parties to engage (more or less conflictually),
and i'm sure there are also... point made i guess. Whatever process is
reduced to simplistic binaries is a process of control that aims at pulling
together multiple streams in one unitary subject that can be steered towards
achieving goals blah-di-blah. It is clearly the process towards turning the
forum into a "traditional" "counter-hegemonic" "political" "movement"
"whatever".

Having said (the obvious) that i find amusing the caution in the document:
the sensitive care not to overwhelm other events with the big ones, HA! you
can't quite have the cake and eat it can you? Yes you can have coverage,
precisely of what the media like, the big events and the heads of state: the
WSF supports the cahvez and the morales of the world, the WSF is a
convention of social democrats and populists and as usual, precisely as in
the old world, the minuscule rivulets of experimentation and uniqueness are
quickly subsumed by the usual big McDonalds and Starbucks of politics
(social democracy, populism, whatever). Oh well, it may probably mean that
the innovators will have to move to another temporary liberated/open space
away from the big brands. Of course this seems to be precisely the
nature/trajectory of movement cycle.. or is it?

Ciao
Giu





2008/8/4 Francine Mestrum <mestrum at skynet.be>

>  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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ** WSFDiscuss is an open and unmoderated forum for the exchange of
> information and views on the experience, practise, and theory of the World
> Social Forum at any level (local, national, regional, and global) and on
> related social and political movements and issues.  Join in !**
> _______________________________________________
> WSFDiscuss mailing list
> POST to LIST : Send email to WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net
> SUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to
> worldsocialforum-discuss-subscribe at openspaceforum.net
> UNSUBSCRIBE: Send empty email to
> worldsocialforum-discuss-unsubscribe at openspaceforum.net
> LIST ARCHIVES:
> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/
> LIST INFORMATION:
> http://mail.openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum.net/attachments/20080804/d3e8a768/attachment-0001.html