[WSF-Discuss] heads of state in the wsf?
nicolas haeringer
nicolas.haeringer at gmail.com
Wed Aug 6 09:22:27 UCT 2008
Dear Friends,
I also think that this issue should not be left to 'self management"
which is, in this case, a way not to decide because-coming-to-a-share-
position-would-be-impossible-so-it-is-better-not-to-decide-than-try-to.
The main question is not, in my opinion "heads of the state or not",
but the vision we have of the movement : is it a long term or a short
term one. This question shapes our relation to political power, and
from then on, to heads of the state. Of course, there is no common
answer, that all participants in the social forum process would agree
on together.
The other question is related to the nature of WSF : the IC decided a
few years ago to cancell plenary sessions, explaining that the program
should be self-organized. The big deal, with this decision, was not
only to let participants build the program on their own, but also to
try to transform WSF in a real square for debate - i.e. to avoid big
sessions where one speaker can tell what he/she (most of the time he)
wants without being answered/criticized. Reducing the size of the
rooms was not only a way to avoid the risk of having the same "happy
fews" speaking from one forum to the other, but a way to force
ourselves to have open debates, where (possibly and in an utopian way)
anyone could express his/her self.
WSF has proved many times that its plasticity enabled to make complex
decision avoiding frustration to raise (or frustrating everybody, from
every "tendancy" at the same level which is the same).
Thus, the question is not "heads of the state or not", but "is it
possibile to invite heads of the state without breaching of the
political integrity of those who consider we should remain away from
the issues of taking the power AND without reducing the space for
debate and diversity".
The "tables of controversy" from 2003 were a good attempt to answer
this question in a non mechanical way, whereas Chavez and Lula's
speaches in 2005 were failures, in that perspective. It is quite sure
that there are other formats to explore...
Warmly,
Nicolas
Le 6 août 08 à 09:54, Francine Mestrum a écrit :
> Dear Chico,
> Thanks very much for this clarification, which, in fact complicates
> matters.
>
> If heads of state are invited by participants in the WSF, clearly
> this can
> never happen without the explicit involvement of the organizing
> committee,
> if only for security and logistical reasons. You also mention some
> type of
> 'co-organized event'. This seems to me a very slippery way of
> working. It
> allows for preserving the principles of self-management, but at the
> same
> time the WSF IS involved. And what if indeed, let us say, Ortega is
> invited
> and many people do not agree? How will the organizing committee (or
> the IC?)
> decide? I think it is impossible to organize without very clear
> rules and
> principles. As I had already the opportunity to say before, self-
> management
> is a very beautiful principle, but if left to itself, it leads to
> problems.
> Involvement of the WSF, organizing committee or IC can only happen
> within
> very strict and very clear rules. We should avoid all arbitrary
> decisions.
>
> Secondly, I do not know and therefore do not trust all the
> participating
> organizations. If one organization can invite Ortega or Morales, than
> another will think it can invite Zapatero or Lugo or indeed
> Hezbollah or
> political party responsibles or civil servants from the World Bank.
> I am
> very much against it. This is a highly political question that just
> cannot
> be left to 'self-management'.
>
> Again, I have no objections to inviting heads of state, if it can
> help to
> boost our movements and if the responsibility is with the organizing
> committee and with the IC. But I am absolutely against if it is left
> to
> 'self-management'. It opens the door the many developments we may
> not like.
> And please let us avoid 'mixed' formulas that leaves the
> responsibility
> unclear and undecided.
>
> Francine
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chico Whitaker [mailto:intercom at cidadania.org.br]
> Sent: mardi 5 août 2008 14:54
> To: wsfic_fsmci at listas.rits.org.br; Post WSFDiscuss; CACIM; Francine
> Mestrum; Reitan, Ruth; peter waterman
> Cc: nigd-list at nigd.org; ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe; Teivo Teivainen;
> Reitan, Ruth Carol
> Subject: Re: [WSF-Discuss] heads of state in the wsf?
>
> Before this Peter's provocation to enter in this debate, I had already
> decided to say something, as I felt some misunderstandings were
> appearing.
> The discussion of this issue in the IC Methdology Commision meeting
> in Belem
>
> came because we, that were there, thought that with what is
> happening with
> presidential elections in Latin America many participants would like,
> perhaps, to invite Heads of State. And then we would need to use the
> WSF
> experiences (as we said: " There were different and coincident
> evaluations
> about the previous experiences of Head of States participation in
> the WSF
> events") to avoid problems putting conditions like the ones we
> indicated.
> For instance: "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" (in prejudice of this selforganized activities).
> So, our idea was not to "change the Charter of Principles" in this
> and other
>
> points, as some have said already (going even to the question of
> violence),
> but to take into consideration the fact that this eventual presences
> (of
> Heads of state), with all the atraction and midiatic weight of it,
> would
> have to be previously analysed, exactly to avoid improvisations and
> solutions that could prejudice the Forum activities.
> That is to say, even invited as individuals and always by
> participants and
> not by the WSF facilitators (according to the Charter), we could
> foresee
> some conditions for this special type of guest (even in "Co-organized
> activities": participants plus faclitators). These conditions could
> then
> enter in the "The Guiding Principles for Holding a WSF Event", a
> document
> that will be also discussed in the next IC, without the intention of
> reviewing the Charter.
> So, local mayors and governors (as it happened in the first Forums)
> and even
>
> Presidents (as it happened in 2003 with Lula) could come to
> wellcome the
> participants to their city or country, but that is all. Other types of
> presence would be according to the Charter of Principles in what
> concerns
> the selforganised activities in the Forum (as it happened in 2005
> with Lula
> and Chavez).
> The Methodology Commission in Belem never thought about the WSF
> facilitators
>
> inviting Heads of State (and then deciding who yes an who not), but
> how they
>
> would manage this issue if some Heads os State were invited by
> participants
> (with perhaps a special difficulty if some have the foolish idea of
> inviting, for instance, Berlusconi...).
> That is all. Please read again the proposal (it is only a proposal for
> discussion) sent by the Commission.
> I hope the misunderstanding can be overcome.
> All the best, Chico Whitaker (speaking personnally, not in behalf of
> anybody
>
> and still less of the Commission).
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "peter waterman" <p.waterman at inter.nl.net>
> To: "Reitan, Ruth" <rreitan at mail.as.miami.edu>; "Francine Mestrum"
> <mestrum at skynet.be>; "CACIM" <cacim at cacim.net>; "Post WSFDiscuss"
> <WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net>
> Cc: "Reitan, Ruth Carol" <r.reitan at miami.edu>; "Teivo Teivainen"
> <teivo at nigd.org>; <ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe>; <nigd-list at nigd.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [WSF-Discuss] heads of state in the wsf?
>
>
> I have already received 4-5 reactions to my 'heads of state @ WSF'
> piece.
> Thanx to all who have contributed. I am awaiting further reactions -
> particularly from people within the IC of the WSF - before responding.
>
> Peter W.
>
> 'This is an innovation, a suggestion that seems utopian and that I
> myself admit to be utopian. When I say that the radio or the theatre
> 'could'
> do so-and-so I am aware that these vast institutions cannot do all
> they
> 'could', and not even all they want.
> ...'But it is not at all our job to renovate ideological
> institutions on the
> basis of the existing social order by means of innovations. Instead
> our
> innovations must force them to surrender that basis. So: For
> innovations,
> against renovation!'
>
> Bert Brecht on Radio, 1932.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Reitan, Ruth" <rreitan at mail.as.miami.edu>
> To: "Francine Mestrum" <mestrum at skynet.be>; "CACIM"
> <cacim at cacim.net>; "Post
> WSFDiscuss" <WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net>
> Cc: "Reitan, Ruth Carol" <r.reitan at miami.edu>; "Teivo Teivainen"
> <teivo at nigd.org>; <nigd-list at nigd.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [WSF-Discuss] heads of state in the wsf?
>
>
> Greetings from South Tyrol (and soon enough to be Miami, again). And
> thanks
> to Jai, Teivo, Peter and Francine for cross-'contaminating' our lists.
>
> I propose the following:
>
> Keeping in mind that (macro)regionalism is the likely global trend
> in the
> near and medium term, and giving due respect to the 'magical'
> formula that
> is the WSF Charter of Principles, I think we should be
> cautious about altering the Charter to include elected officials in
> their
> 'official' capacity (not, as the Charter currently allows, as
> individuals),
> because it might have unforeseen--or wholly foreseeable, depending
> on one's
> current opinion--consequences, such as: the polarization of the
> Forum space,
> outright campaigning and counter-campaigning, bringing back the
> competitive
> and majoritarian logic of electoral politics, the possiblity of
> charismatic
> leaders instrumentalizing the Forum for their own advantage,
> triggering a
> boycott, or at least considerable protests, on the part of women
> (and some
> men) who find Daniel Ortega more politically--because sexual abuses
> of power
> are fundamentally political--vile than Sarkozy, and, finally,
> begging the
> obvious next question of: why invite our ostensible 'allies' in
> political
> parties or office and not in armed groups? Inviting Ortega at the
> extreme
> but even Morales at the other begs the question of why not the
> Zapatistas?
> Or Hamas? Or Hezbollah? Or Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia? The answer to me
> is not
> obvious; if it is to you, then you need to have a long,
> introspective look
> at why that is so.
>
> While the Charter mentions its support for non-violent struggle two
> or three
> times, are we really all in agreement that this is the only
> supportable
> method? Do we really want to have that discussion in the IC? Maybe
> we do. If
> so, then invite the political parties, by all means. Things will
> start to
> get interesting again (and the SWP should be the first to thank you
> for
> it).
>
> But if the IC does not want to open the discussion re: armed groups,
> then
> they (we) should not take up the debate on political parties or
> elected
> officials. Because doing so makes some untested assumptions about a
> shared
> 'common sense' and 'common methods of struggle' that I do not think we
> really have; or if we do have it, then 'we' are not as diverse as I
> assume
> we are, nor as 'we' ostensibly aspire to be.
>
> How to avoid this unhappy but largely foreseeable confrontation with
> our
> diversity, while safeguarding the WSF Charter of Principles in the
> off-chance that its current formula is what makes the whole thing
> work? I
> would say kick it down to the level of the regions: Because what
> makes
> 'common sense' in the current context of Latin America may also make
> sense
> in Europe today, but it may make less sense elsewhere, or next year.
>
> Is there not also being planned, simultaneously to the WSF 2009, an
> Amazon
> Social Forum, or it's equivalent? Perhaps that regional committee,
> if it
> deems it politically useful and with proper protections of the Forum
> space
> and schedule, could take it upon itself to organize such parallel or
> auxiliary events. This would forego a big roiling discussion within
> the WSF
> IC in September that may snowball at future meetings, and would
> avoid the
> WSF making such a political decision for the 'world' of social
> forums, so to
> speak.
>
> I think an equivalent decision has already been taken by the ESF
> Preparatory
> Assembly around the time of the last ESF in Athens, to allow parties
> to be
> openly represented and thus to drop the charade of front
> organizations which
> had developed within the ESF, or am I mistaken? In any case, this is a
> decision that, while it will still be controversial, is most
> appropriately
> discussed at the regional level, not something over which we should
> try to
> amend the WSF Charter. In the context of South America, inviting
> Morales
> (for sure) and Ortega (eh, maybe) could have positive, synergistic
> effects;
> but I foresee big problems if we attempt to take this up at the IC
> for the
> whole WSF. Leave it to the level of the regional social forum to
> decide, if
> at all.
>
> Ruth
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nigd-list at kaapeli.fi on behalf of Francine Mestrum
> Sent: Mon 8/4/2008 11:50 AM
> To: 'CACIM'; 'Post WSFDiscuss'
> Cc: 'Teivo Teivainen'; nigd-list at nigd.org
> Subject: RE: [WSF-Discuss] Fwd: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of
> state in
> the wsf?
>
> Away from capital, church, state, corporations, even empire .
>
> Wow Peter, how very well said!
>
> This formulation certainly will have success! Such a clear, easy to
> understand and pure message!
>
>
>
> But then, I come to think: who will pay?
>
> Who pays for your travel costs? Who pays the organizations that pay
> for your
> travel costs? Who pays the ngos? How many leftwing philanthropists
> do we
> have in our movement?
>
> Ever thought that we can only exist and meet thanks to capitalism?
> Thanks to
> the air companies that bring us all over the world? Thanks to the
> states and
> corporations that give us their space and infrastructure? Who will
> pay the
> secretariat, the organization, the travel costs??? Or shall we only
> virtually exist? Through the internet? Do you believe that?
>
> Please let us stop to speak and think in slogans. They do not help us.
>
>
>
> Now seriously.
>
>
>
> I have no real problems with the invitation of 'our' heads of state or
> governments. Sure, it will lead to very difficult discussions on who
> can be
> invited and who not, but that is a minor problem. A speech by Correa
> or
> Morales can boost our movement(s), can be very mobilizing and give
> us some
> media attention. They can make us stronger. So no, I am not against
> is.
>
>
>
> But there is another part of Peter's message that is very correct:
> it is now
> the organizing committee/methodology commission that is
> 'politicizing' the
> WSF, whereas for other matters they absolutely refuse it.
>
>
>
> So I think that if we invite heads of state of government, it should
> also be
> possible to give other political gguidelines to the Forum: apart
> from the
> self-organised events, there could be some co-organised events on
> specific
> issues that concern us all: the food or energy crisis, trade issues,
> development, financial matters. I still would like to defend the
> idea of
> organizing some major debates with the best people we have who can
> present
> to us the terms of the debate, the context in which we are working,
> the most
> recent developments. This could help the different movements to take
> political positions, as networks or movements, not as WSF. It could
> help to
> prepare the alliances we need to have a real political impact. If
> the WSF
> wants to survive, it should be more than an 'open space' for
> meeting, it
> should help us prepare our positions and our alternatives. We are
> losing
> momentum, heads of state are not enough to save us. This is very
> urgent.
>
>
>
> Francine
>
>
>
>
>
> From: worldsocialforum-discuss-bounces at openspaceforum.net
> [mailto:worldsocialforum-discuss-bounces at openspaceforum.net] On
> Behalf Of
> CACIM
> Sent: lundi 4 août 2008 6:56
> To: Post WSFDiscuss
> Cc: CACIM; Teivo Teivainen
> Subject: [WSF-Discuss] Fwd: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of
> state in the
> wsf?
>
>
>
> Monday, August 4, 2008
>
>
>
> Here is something from another list (.another two lists) that those
> on this
> list will surely want to know about, and maybe also to discuss.
>
>
>
> I am also copying this to the authors, Teivo Teivainen
> and Peter
> Waterman, with the request that if you are already on this list,
> please
> consider posting such information and/or comments here; and if you
> are not,
> then to consider being so. and doing so.
>
>
>
> JS
>
>
>
> fwd
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "peter waterman" <p.waterman at inter.nl.net>
>
> Date: August 4 2008 1:26:11 AM GMT+05:30
>
> To: <nigd-list at nigd.org>, "debate: SA discussion list "
> <debate at debate.kabissa.org>, "CACIM" <cacim at cacim.net>
>
> Cc: Teivo Teivainen <teivo at nigd.org>, ginavargas at telefonica.net.pe
>
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?
>
> Reply-To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at debate.kabissa.org>
>
>
>
> I have a simpler answer to the question posed above and argued below:
>
>
>
> THE WSF MUST BECOME MORE AUTONOMOUS OF CAPITAL AND STATE, CHURCH AND
> PATRIARCHY, EMPIRE AND MILITARY.
>
>
>
> I am well aware of the compromises the Social Forums have made with
> both
> statespeople and corporations. And of the fact that such compromises
> have
> NOT been extended to the Zapatistas, whose military moment was short
> and
> long past. And whose example has inspired the global justice and
> solidarity
> movement.
>
>
>
> The complex and slippery formulations in the proposal below speak of
> bad
> faith, a messy compromise and are an invitation to endless argument
> about
> which head, or which state is 'progressive'. (South Africa under the
> ANC
> Government of Mbeki? In the future under Zuma?)
>
>
>
> The originality and prestige of the WSF rests on its
> 'representation' of
> global civil society. 'Representation' is, of course, a disputed
> concept, as
> is 'civil society'. I take these terms to be aspirational and
> processal:
> that means that the WSF should be seeking ever more energetically to
> engage
> and speak for civil society - the latter understood as that social
> force
> that emancipates society from the hegemony of capital, state,
> organised
> religion, militarism, patriarchy, etc.
>
>
>
> With the proposal below, it will be leading figures and/or organs of
> the WSF
> that will split the WSF rather than those 'extremists' they have
> castigated.
> In so far as 'politics' is taken to be that which pertains to state
> power,
> it will be the WSF that 'politicises' the forum, rather than those
> who have
> been accused of wishing to do so.
>
>
>
> Oh, and I am not relieved that Sarkozy will remain univited.
> Firstly, who
> the hell would invite him? Secondly, however, this leaves open the
> possibility that a 'progressive' European leader, of some
> 'progressive'
> state will be found suitable for a future invitation.
>
>
>
> I am appalled that whilst the embattled Zapatistas continue to be
> excluded,
> the argument below would allow for the possible presence of the head
> of a
> one-party dictatorship (addressed here by his first name!), and one
> condemned by feminists and (global) civil society - if not his
> courts - of
> raping his step-daughter.
>
>
>
> What this whole exercise smacks of is the social-partnership
> politics of
> Social Democratic, Communist and Populist parties and movements of
> the 20th
> Century - compromises that led to the irresistible rise of the
> Neo-Liberalism the WSF is supposed to be against!
>
>
>
> It makes possible invitations to 'socially-responsible' corporations
> or
> CEOs. Also to heads of 'progressive' inter-state organisations, such
> as the
> International Labour Organisation (itself profoundly compromised with
> capital, state and globalisation).
>
>
>
> Finally, it cannot but confuse an international public increasingly
> confronted by state-sponsored, corporation-supported efforts that
> have long
> been trying to profit from the successes of the WSF and the global
> justice
> and solidarity movement, such as 'Make Poverty History!'.
>
>
>
> Should we not now change the slogan of the WSF from 'Another World is
> Possible!' to 'An Old World is Possible Again!'?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Waterman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Teivo Teivainen"
> <teivo.teivainen at helsinki.fi>
>
> To: <nigd-list at nigd.org>
>
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 6:11 PM
>
> Subject: [nigd-list] heads of state in the wsf?
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear NIGD,
>
>
>
> One of the controversial issues in the WSF events since the
> beginning has
>
> been the relationship with states and, more particulary, with heads of
>
> states. One of the issues to be debated in the Copenghaguen
> International
>
> Council meeting is the following draft document on this question.
>
>
>
> Love & peace,
>
>
>
> Teivo
>
>
>
>
>
> Outline for the debate about the participation of Head of States at
> the
>
> WSF 2009
>
>
>
> This document is a draft for discussion prepared by a working group
>
> composed by WSF International Council Content and Methdology
> commission
>
> members: Ana Maria, OCLAE Brasil; André, MST Brasil; Chico W., CBJP
> Brasi;
>
> Gina, AFM Peru; Gustavo, CUT Brasil; Isolda, MMM Brasil; José
> Miguel, CTC
>
> Cuba; Rodrigo, CLACSO Brasil; Salete, IPF Brasil). This draft is still
>
> being discussed by its members and it will be submitted for the
> assessment
>
> of the International Council members gathered in its next meeting
>
> (September, in Copenhague, Denmark).
>
>
>
> The debate had as starting point the fact that Heads of State or
>
> governments have been present to the WSF, invited by the organizations
>
> participating at the event and in accordance with its Charter of
>
> Principles. It was like so in 2005 and 2006. It is highly probably
> that
>
> the issues will be posed for 2009, considering that WSF will be
> carried
>
> out in a region where there are many national governments which are
>
> considered progressists or also left governments. If only the Amazon
>
> region is considered (the 8 sovereign countries of the Amazon region
> and 1
>
> French colony struggling for its independence), the list, can include,
>
> according who prepares it, the following governments (in alphabetical
>
> order): Chávez / Venezuela; Correa/Ecuador; Evo / Bolivia, y Lula/
> Brasil.
>
> If we consider all Latin America, the list is even longer and polemic
>
> (again, the order is alphabetical): Bachelet/Chile; Cristina/
> Argentina;
>
> Lugo/Paraguay; Ortega/Nicaragua, Raúl/Cuba y Tabaré/Uruguay. [It was a
>
> consensus, however, that following head should not be invited as
> they are
>
> considered undesirable right wings: [Uribe / Colombia , García /
> Peru and
>
> Sarkozy / president of the colonial metropolis which subdue Guyana].
> (this
>
> would have to be discussed concretely with those who think in inviting
>
> them. if there are crazy enough to do so.)
>
>
>
> There were different and coincident evaluations about the previous
>
> experiences of Head of States participation in the WSF events.
> However,
>
> the following consensus was reached and the issue remained open for
> new
>
> consultations and debates.
>
>
>
>
>
> Consensus
>
>
>
> In case of having the presence of Head of States, we need to
> consider that
>
> they attract an exceptional attention from the press and even from WSF
>
> participants. In this way, it is necessary to avoid that any event
> with
>
> them be held at the same time of self-organized events held by the
>
> movements and organizations taking part at the WSF.
>
>
>
> For evident reasons, an activity with Head of States must not be
> placed in
>
> the Opening session, and even less, in the Closing session, in order
> to
>
> avoid that the media consider it as WSF "conclusion". Answering to
> these
>
> concerns, in case one or many Heads of States be present at the WSF,
> the
>
> methodological proposal is:
>
>
>
> 1) That the event be held after the program of self organized
> activities
>
> (comprised between the 8 am and 6:30 pm), that is: they can only be
>
> registered after the 6:30 pm
>
>
>
> 2) That the event do not be placed in the opening session (27), nor
> in the
>
> Pan Amazonian day (28), which will be a moment for presenting
> contents and
>
> issues to the participant organizations, particularly the Amazonian
>
> issues.
>
>
>
> 3) That the activity be not held in the Closing day (February 1st)
> when
>
> there are scheduled events for presenting results and conclusions by
> the
>
> participant organizations and movements.
>
>
>
> 4) It is proposed, as consequence, that those events with Head of
> States
>
> be held the 29 and/or 30 January 2009, after 6 pm and outside of the
> WSF
>
> territory (composed by UFPA and UFRA).
>
> Open issue
>
>
>
> There were three (3) proposals on the table about who organize the
>
> activity:
>
> a) Being a co-organized activity, according to the experience made in
>
> other WSFs: the WSF "Organizing Committee" (which could mean the
>
> Brazilian "Facilitating Group", the Pan Amazonian Council - under
>
> constitution - or the WSF International Council) organizes the
> event. This
>
> would mean to do the invitations (setting up the list of those who
> would
>
> be invited or not, etc.) and arrives to a consensus on the
> methodology
>
> and issues to be dealt with (someone has proposed a "round table of
>
> dialogue and controversies" model, as it happened with some
> governments
>
> and political parties in other WSF events in Porto Alegre, only that
> now
>
> it would be held with head of States and who would talk from the
> side of
>
> the civil society etc.)
>
> b) That the International Council decides in its meeting in Copenhague
>
> only the general "framework" in which those activities could be held
>
> (points 1 to 4, listed before), but that all the rest be solved in a
> self
>
> organized way, by those who invite the head of States.
>
> c) A co-organized activity on the 29, only with the head of States
> from
>
> the Amazonian region, and other with head of States outside from the
>
> Amazoni on the 30th, debating with those who invite them the
> possibility
>
> of having the activity in only one place and time (always after 6
> pm) or
>
> in many different venues. To be seen.
>
>
>
> [Reporter, even being late: Gustavo, CUT Brasil / July 26 2008, with
>
> amendments made by by Chico Whitaker - CBJB Brazil]
>
>
>
> THIS IS A FIRST VERSION, SUBJECT TO AMMENDMENTS BY THOSE
> PARTICIPATING AT
>
> THE WORKING GROUP AND, AFTER A CONSENSUS IN THE GROUP, WILL BE SENT
> TO THE
>
> INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Dr. Teivo Teivainen
>
>
>
> Head of Department, Professor of World Politics
>
> Department of Political Science
>
> Unioninkatu 37
>
> POB 54, 00014 University of Helsinki
>
> Finland
>
> *phone: +358-9-19124858
>
> *cell: +358-50-3505120
>
> * e-mail: teivo.teivainen at helsinki.fi
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________
>
> This message was sent to NIGD-list at nigd.org
>
> To unsubscribe, send the command "unsubscribe NIGD-list"
>
> to majordomo at nigd.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> DEBATE mailing list
>
> DEBATE at debate.kabissa.org
>
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ** 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_ope
> nspaceforum.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ** 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_ope
> nspaceforum.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ** 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
--------
photos : http://www.flickr.com/photos/haeringer/
More information about the WorldSocialForum-Discuss
mailing list