[WSF-Discuss] [nigd-list] RE: heads of state in the wsf?

[Tord Bj ö rk]

Dear all

The discussion concerning the presence of Heads of states in the social
forum process brings up a lot of unresolved questions. It also shows a
worriesome lack of knowlegd what actually takes place. As i consider all or
at least most of other people taking part in this discussion as more
experienced in the social forums than I am I must say a get rather amazed. I
never been to any ESF or WSF and I soon found out that much of the romantic
and insecure information about what actually happens in the social forum
process creates a lot of problems. It also seems that there are very
different understandings of basic temrs as open space and taking effective
action, civil society and how discussions are linked to action.

The success story is over

For a long time social forums got their main legitimacy by growing numbers
of participants and forums. This time is now over. Now is a time when there
is a growing need to legitimise social forums by the quality of its
discussions and how it influences action. Thus inviting heads of states
representing governmental action becomes interesting for some while other
see it interetsing to invites indigenous people struggling wíth whatever
means they have at hand against transational corporations and governemtns.

Francine Mestrum seems to have the most coherent vision while Ruth Reitan
mainly relates to pragmatic realities and Waterman warns us from becoming a
tool for governments and Whitaker states that there is more or less no
change at all proposed, mainly an issue of avoiding time clashes.

I have come to appreciate the kind of sharp formal open space idea that the
organizing committee or EPA/IC do not organise any programme. It is of
course a great problem when there is a lack of joint efforts, much of the
work beomes ad hoc and poorly organised, but one avoids building an
international bureaucracy to some degree. But as it now is, it is all up to
participating organsiation and individuals to coordinate themselves and make
such initiatives that brings the discussion and action forward. Mestrum sees
on the contrary that we do have a need to organise some common plenaries on
specific issue that concerns us all. I would at first agree with Mestrum. My
experience tells me something totally different.

Self-management worked well for the issues rasied as of common interest

Firstly in the preparations for ESF-5 there was some proposals for
organising some activity jointly mainly on WSF and climate. As it turned out
it was not necessary. The Italians took the lead on organising seminars on
WSF and altermondialisation movement and Friends of the Earth Europé on
Global Justice movement. The global justice seminar wass merged, mainly in
the direction intended by FOE to involve movements ignorant or in oppsition
to social forusm and active in the global justice movement. Very any climate
seminars have been merged in different ways allowing for as process during
the whole ESDF with a dozen seminars and furthermore climat street action
during the ESF as well as a speaker at the party that have been arrested for
her climate action in Malmö. In my view thanks to the strict idea that the
partciapnts organise the program was it possbile for an alliance between
Froiend of the Earth, Via Campesina and indigenous people to influence the
programme a lot more in the direction Mestrum seems interested in, tahn if
there in principle was the idea that EPA/IC/OC shoud organise some main
debates. 

Great inbalances in the program due to lack of general discussion

I do agree that the ESF program have some great wholes due to the way the
ESF process is informaly organised. The main open space idea is a neoliberal
fair where different organisations compete with their dífferent activities
while they all claim they certainly not compete. This is endorsed by the
byzantine secrets of how to influence the process via a consensus who in
reality is no concensus but a game of knowing how and when to black mail
others or vote with ones feet. It is for example interesting to see how
participants in the preparatory process claims that Europé is the most
important focus for ESF while Wéurope is tottally lacking as an issue in
the4 seminars. Instead of addressing the new realtionships within Europé due
to the developments away from relations between soveriegn states to an
emprical order where a pemanent second class societies have been created in
the enlargement towards the East and neighbouring countries gest one by one
attached to the EU neoliberal regime an overwhelming number o seminars
address the issue of EU and its realtionsship towards the third world. (My
small organisation Association aktivism.info tries to organise such a
seminar but with little success so far). The structure of the formal
preparatory process is without it being necssary also destroying
possibilities for having an informal coherent discussion. The neoliberal
open space idea thus creates economic chaos in the prpepatory proces by
demanding excessive resources for developing extraordinary webbpplaces with
advanced technical possivbilites, which is very little used and
compartementalise the preparatory process as there is no general place to
discuss the overall idea of the forum and its politics, only lots of
fragmented competing projects trying to do the same thing or very
specialised narrow projects concering very few people. Setting up a normal
discussion forum would have been almost for free, and would make the process
a lot more open and promoting many to think the way Mestrum does on the
totallityt of ESF, but this does not happen. This discussion wse carry oin
here should of course take place at such a forum, but as the open space is
the oppsite to an open space this does not take place and instead this
discussion takes place on an elitist email list like this.

But this cannot be solved by given more formal tasks to EPA/IC/OC. The
problem is not lack of political support for a formal common organisation.
The problem is among the movements participating in the social forums and
their internal relationships. At the moment is it in Europe much of a
problem with francophone imperialism, or some leftover of its earlier
dominant role, in the international cooperation as well as francophone
backwardness in understanding how the process can be strengthened. Exactly
what Mestrum asks for was promoted at the European program meeting in Malmö
in April, that a special seminar should be organised about the
mutidiemsnional crisis we now see emerging and the linages between different
issues of interest to popular movements. This proposal goes directly against
the neolliebral principles that the framented open space idea promotes. It
was interesteing to see how it was destroyed and how the movement thus
¨makes itself intelectually backward. It was destroyed mainly by the
francophone participants. The idea was not to have EPA to organise such a
seminar but instead the social movement assembly. With other words there
were no formal arguments against the proposal that came from Via Campesina.
The francophone attack came against the hope that the social movement
assembly could organise a seminar, it was stated that a consensus on such a
seminar was not possible. This is of course bull-shit. If sufficient number
of organisations actively prepares a proposal before a social movement
assembly then the assembly will support it or be in the problematic
situation of becoming a side liner. Now the francophone attac with the help
from some other old-times on Via Campesina proposal amde the young person
prposing the idea to withdraw it all together and another yoiung
environmentalist partciapting at the meeting called the meeting a
kindergarten. 

Solutions on the formal level cannot solve the problem in the informal
process

Now Mestrum wants to solve the problems with mainly french organisations
stopping us from organising seminars on important special issues with wide
support by giving a formal body the task of organising special issue
plenaries/seminars. This is to avoid the problem which is to find ways to
get movements to cooperate better before, under and after social forums. It
cannot be solved formally. I claim to not have participated at ESF or WSF
but I have been once to an EPA before the preparatory process for this years
ESF started. It was in Berlin preparing ESF in Paris. I do remember well how
the French delegation destroyed the preparations in many different ways. One
was to take up half of the time in the negotiations and having their
internal disputes handled at the European level while formally each country
was supposed to have one representative in this editorial committee.
Secondly and more interesting was how certain issues were taken away from
the agenda, and that was the issue of differences of strategy and tactics in
the global justice moveemnt. That was according the the French a to
sensitive issue to bring up as a theme for a plenary in Paris. Putting the
task into the hands of a formal body does not get us better quality than by
utting into the hands of the market mechanism of the oopen space concept.

Linking discussion and governmental or liberation action

What instead is needed is putting the movement of movements linking
discussion and action into the core of the understanding of how to develop
social forums. The Global action day and the US Social Forum are two
examples showing interesting positive developments while the lack of
interest for inviting zapatistas and other as guest of honours of equal
importance to Lula or Chavez on Porto Alegre and instead discussing how to
handle heads of states shows a development in the opposite direction.

Once again Mestrum have good intentions of coherence and clarity but base
his ideas on inaccurate information on what actually takes place and a
serious redefintion of what is an armed group. Generally in Sweden we are
ruleabiding in the movements and society. That means that NOC has statutes,
protocolls from meetings of the board, the coordination groups and the
working groups which everybody can read, we of course have majority
decisions as anyone having big economic responsibilities noprmally have and
that the WSF declaration has been taken seriously. The intention Mestrum has
that there should be some lear rules is positive. The problem is that the
WSF declaration is in many regards a reactionary tool by social partnership
political parties and NGOs to split the global justice movement away from
mass civil disobedience and global cooperation among zapatistas, indigenous
people, peasant, fishermen and the like. Of course a lot of good thing have
emerged but main coinflict still is there between the neoliberal open space
concept and a multispace concept including both discussion and action, the
zapatistas and hezbollah as well as Gandhians, Muslims, Jews, Christians and
maybe even heads of states but at the bottom peopular movement organising
discussions and solidarity.

This reactionary WSF principles was in the interest of intellectuals that
hoped for gaining more influence than they deserve by delinking discussion
from action. When action becomes more dangerous and supporting action today
in my and many countries is equal to treason as my and many other countries
participates in imperial wars it is of course a cute little thing to declare
that armed groups should not be invited while at the same time politicians
as persons should get a sepcial treatement. This reactionary politics have
been central to academicians since long time carried by such people as
Jürgen Habermas in his historic attack against the new left movement in
Germany claiming that sit-in action was a fascist way of struggling as it
was aganist the constitution. Lula attacked the indigenous movements in
Bolivia of similar reasons as he meant they were undemocratic whne they
blocked the streets a<nd at the smae time he appeared as star at WSF. While
WSF was used by a person that atacked mass civil disobedience, the WSF
declaration axcluded many movement in practice that supported mass civil
disobedience and belonged to the Peoples Global Action and the PGA meeting
in Cochabamba in Bolvia were underr heavy repression money streamned to WSF
and PGA had great difficulties.

Inviting zapatistas and hezbollah

The solution to this problem is of course simple. In politics you have to
make your hands dirty. I have been the most criticial person in public in
Sweden against social forums, styill as FoE Sweden were I am active thought
it useful to try to participate i do my duty as coordinator of the Contact
group for Europe and the World. At the beginning there were some problems
when the neeoliberal open space idelogy and the WSF declareation limited the
work but after some time it was rather the popular movement cooepration
ideology of Friends of the Eart Sweden that had easier to win trust and be
undertsandable to people than rethrroics about unique civil society open
space. 

We had decided years ago as part of our criticism to invite the zapatistas
and we also cooperate closely with mainly mvoement who also were much more
dom,inat in PGA than in ESF and WSF process, Via Campåesina and indigenous
people. So we and 30 other mainly Latin Maerican solidarity oirfganisatins
and Via camnpsina in Sweden invited the zapatistas to Malmö. If they can
come or not is an open question. Anyone willing to criticise us can do so.
Wee do not mind. If ESF wants to place itself outside the global justrice
movement it is not our problem, it is a problem for ESF who then show itself
as irrelevant. Of course we in that case organise an event with the
zapatistas outside ESF if necessary in the same city. ESF has itslef its
main legitimation as expression of the global justice movement and is not a
owning the movement.

But furthermore Mestrums attempt to claim that zapatistas is not an armed
organisation is opportunism of a very dangeorus sort. In general Mestrum
want coherence and here suddenly there is none. EZLN is today the only
Zapotista organisation and it is for certain armed in such a way that any
day it can defend itself. The reason why so many want to claim that the
zapatistas is an exception is of course because one wants to exclude all
opther armed groups. But have a little small space for the zpatistas as a
decoration to the general debate dominated by totally other forces. This is
shown by the mentioning of the threat that maybe hezbollah could be invited.
But comeon, hezbollah has already been invited to ESF and was present in
Athens. So why maintain an fictional discussion instead of discussing
realities?

As it looks now the WSF declaration is both sacrosant and irrelevant. Its
content have never been taken very serious and the decision mechanism to
change it in substance does not exist. Its destiny is to become more and
more empty rethorics hopefully leaving some ideas of Whitaker and other
promoters of serious democratic openess intact. As an environmentalist I
have enjoyed reading recently again Challenging Empires on WSF were Jai Sen
with such a democratic energy reveals the history of the WSF declaration.  A
decisive shift was made from antropocentric idelogy opposing the
environmental movement in the first draft to a more planetary and ecological
understanding in a revised version. But it was the original version that was
distributed globally, so little interest was there in the extreme difference
in the two versions from and envionmental standpoint, or from anyone
interested in seeing the WSF declaration as important. The content in the
declaration is one problem with its odd notion against totalitarian thinking
but almost all discussion has instead been around the form, which ones
should be excluded or included.

As a revision of the WSF declaartion seems less possible the solution is
rather amendements where it is necessary to have higher importance to
liberation movements tha governments as liberaltion mopvements always have
been closer to popualr movements than governemnts. Thus how heads of states
are treated is also how leiberation moveemnts shoudl be treated, but more
geneorus when it comes to liberation movements. Than of course one could
start making a social mvoement declaration and gradually replace to WSF
declaration into the history of a short attempts from intelelctuals and NGOs
together with social partnership political parties to dominate the movement
of movements. But such attempts will emerge when neccessary and pose no big
problem. 

The important reality becomes more global than regional

More problematic is Reitans notion on regionalism which Mestrum justifiably
reacts to. Here we are at the basis of understanding what is important, what
to adjust to and what to oppose. Contrary to Reitan I see a growing global
awareness among popular movements which is the promosing trend starting when
the workers movement started to loose their grip on other movements. The
workers movement and to them linked reformist or revolutionary parties have
long controlled the political culture among system critical movements by
stating that other movements were single issue movements and contacts
between movements should be organised through the left and claimed that the
workers movements was the leading moveemnt. In fact it was and is the
opposite. Of the five main popular movements invited to a seminar on popular
movement cooperation dialogue at ESF four have conciously established a
global leadership based to a large extent in the South, only the trade
unions maintain the Northern dominance in their global movement while
feminists, envrionmentalists, peasants and indigenous people in different
ways have a lot more third world influence in their global leadership,
something that have grown since the 1980s. Another example is the Nordic
rebellion against Western Europé in the ESF preparation on demands for the
ESF demonstration. Instead of Europé an overwhelming majority voted yes to
another world is possible instead of another Europe is possible on the
emaillist. One of the reasons for this is that the most active popular
movement cooperation in NOC is among Latin American groups. Here 30
organisations, big and small cooperate, First the division between migrant
issues and third world soilidarity isusues was detstroed. The third world
NGOs wanted only to address the foreign policy issues but were defeated by
the migrants organisations. Furthermore while the ethnic Swedish popular
mvoements and more and more becomes pressure groups and Ngos doing advocay
and being service providers the migrant Latin American groups and their
strong linkages to popular movements in Latin America makes then much more
close to the Swedish popular movement tradtion were carrying tables at
meetings and self organisation of practical matters were essential. Thus ESF
have provided a plattform were the migrants can considerably strengten a
Swedish popular movement tradition abonded by many Swedish ethnic
organisations and gaina strong influence oin the preparatory process with
their practical and political capacities. But also many oher movements are
museums from the 1970s beleiving in liberation movements and global
solidarity, among them the environmental movement who always promoted
another world instead of another Europé.

Interestingly this kind of processes in global popular movements is not much
discussed although it may be important than social forums. Of course I know
that regionalism is at formal political level a trend, but not at the formal
global popular movement level which in the end is more important if we do
not want to reduce movements to pressure groups.

So rather than being to preoccupied with the formal level of social forums
it is about time to organise the informal process better and to challenge
the devastating dichotomy between open space and decision making gathering
by stating that a social forum a set of multiple spaces for discussion and
action at the same place and time.

Yours


 
Tord Björk

Finlandsgatan 2
291 31 Kristianstad
Sverige/Sweden
Tel: +46 (0)44 12 32 94
Mobile: +46 (0)738 44 68 50
E-mail: tord.bjork at mjv.se







Den 08-08-06 09.54, skrev "Francine Mestrum" <mestrum at skynet.be>:

> 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.
> 
> Thanks a lot Ruth for your useful comments.


------ Vidarebefordrat meddelande
Från: Francine Mestrum <mestrum at skynet.be>
Datum: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:15:28 +0200
Till: "'Reitan, Ruth'" <rreitan at mail.as.miami.edu>, 'CACIM'
<cacim at cacim.net>, 'Post WSFDiscuss'
<WorldSocialForum-Discuss at openspaceforum.net>
Kopia: 'Teivo Teivainen' <teivo at nigd.org>, <nigd-list at nigd.org>, "'Reitan,
Ruth Carol'" <r.reitan at miami.edu>
Ämne: [nigd-list] RE: heads of state in the wsf?

Thanks a lot Ruth for your useful comments.

However,
- I do not think the proposal implies a change of the Charter: making a
difference between the 'individual' and the 'function' is of course totally
irrelevant when we speak of heads of state. So one could easily say Morales
eg is invited as 'individual'.
- The question on armed groups is very relevant: the case for the Zapatistas
could be made since there can be discussion on whether it is really an armed
group. In general, whatever we think of the means for the struggle, even if
we approve of armed struggle in certain cases, the Forum as such cannot
accept them for obvious reasons of legitimacy.
- I think that at any rate, a decision for inviting a head of state can only
be taken by consensus in the IC. I do not think there will ever be a
consensus, not on Ortega and not on Hezbollah.
- I do not remember the ESF having decided to accept parties; inviting heads
of state does not imply to accept parties.
- Leaving the decision up to the regional level does not seem to me a good
solution. It will give rise to exactly the same discussions in a context
that is sometimes more difficult, eg Europe.
- If, eg for India, inviting heads of state is not possible, than the
question is solved for lack of consensus.

Enjoy yourself in Tirol!
Francine
> 
> 
> ----- 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.
> 
> 
> 
>