[WSF-Discuss] [Fwd: Report WSF Morocco Meeting Deals With Cosatu-WSF Problem]

[Madhuresh]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Debate] Report WSF Morocco Meeting Deals With Cosatu-WSF Problem
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:38:36 +0200
From: peter waterman <pwaterma at inter.nl.net>
Reply-To: pwaterma at inter.nl.net,	Debate is a listserve that attempts to 
promote information and	analyses of interest to the independent left in 
South and	Southern Africa <debate-list at fahamu.org>
To: DEBATE <debate-list at fahamu.org>, Elsa Duhagon <eduhagon at item.org.uy>

*Report from the World Social Forum International Council Meeting *

*Rabat 6-9 May 2009*

*Giuseppe Caruso*[1]* <#_ftn1>*

*Network Institute for Global Democratization*

This report summarises the discussions, the decisions and the
substantial food for thought that the meeting has provided its
participants with. From its very opening the local organisers made no
mystery of the very complex political and cultural landscape in which
this IC meeting was taking place and the wealth of “practical and
political” issues they had to face. The controversial decision of
COSATU, member of the IC, to boycott the meeting as it was held in a
country that was occupying the land of another people, the Saharawis,
had generated a vibrant debate before the meeting. At the same time, the
number of observers from the region witnessed the steady expansion of
the WSF process in the Maghreb and Mashreq confirming their strategic
importance for the WSF process.

The meeting started with an assessment of Belem. The Brazilian
facilitation group presented a set of reflections at the heart of which
was the strengthening of the link between culture and politics in line
with the tradition started in Porto Alegre in 2001. The second point
aimed at generating a debate on the development of an innovative
pedagogy built on a new methodology for the forum and new formats both
for the overall event and for the way each activity was thought of and
realised. There is the need to reflect on how to present content in ways
that depart from the traditional “spoken presentation” form and include
innovative strategies of communication to generate truly participatory
knowledge.

In the conversation that followed praises referred to the mass
participation of indigenous people and to the new methodology introduced
in the sixth day of the forum: the assembly of assemblies. Several
members reflected on the changing political nature of the Belem forum:
not only as a function of a possible surpassing of the space/movement
debate (as many pointed out), but also and most importantly due to the
unique articulation that took place in Belem between movements, parties
and governments in a space facilitated by the WSF. As far as the
outreach of the forum was concerned, there was a feeling that the
coverage was more extensive than in previous editions although it was
deemed to be insufficient and below its capacity to generate news. The
Belem forum was reflected very well in Palestine: several web pages
focused on the event and newspapers, groups and individuals discussed
extensively the forum and reflected the centrality of the solidarity
expressed to the Palestinians by forum participants. Most importantly,
the WSF 2009 directly engaged the crisis and offered itself as the ideal
space where alternatives were designed and negotiated, and where
political alliance for the realisation of those alternatives where built
or strengthened. The outcomes of the assembly of assemblies were already
seen in Strasburg, Italy, London which constituted important outings of
the global solidarity movement, showing the potentiality of the WSF
“open space” to catalyse actions. It was remarked also how the social
movements got great recognition in South America although, as a member
denounced, the MST faced a harsh campaign of criminalisation.

As the discussion developed several issues of broader import were
raised. Can the experience of the forum in Belem be replicated or was
that a unique experience? If that were the case what considerations
should be made for the future of the WSF process? How can the failure of
the Youth Camp be assessed and learnt from? How can the poor
communication system be strengthened and can it provide inputs to the
mainstream media while at the same time bridging the gap between
participants of the event and the supporters who cannot travel? How can
the culture of the forum be made more central to the projects that the
WSF wants to facilitate? The presence of the indigenous groups was
mostly just a “presence”: how could that articulation be politicised?

On the actual evaluation of the Belem experience it was suggested that a
more structured process should aim at highlighting the relationship
between the objectives of the organising committee and the outcomes in
order to learn from the discrepancies between goals and achievements. A
further issue on which to spend some analytical time would be the
participation so overwhelmingly Brazilian and Latin American. Although
this factor was duly taken into account when deciding to hold a forum in
the Amazon, it was now important to assess if the decision produced the
expected results or if other principles should inform future decisions.
Also, what was the political impact in the region? What impact did the
meeting with the heads of state have in South America in general and in
the states whose heads participated in Belem? Did the discussion with
Lula on the crisis influence his policies?

In response to some of these questions, some considerations were
advanced on the political achievements of the 2009 forum. There was a
great political articulation at the local level, in the slums, in the
city and in the region. The WSF process was able to enrich the region
and itself at the same time. The people of the region were able to
discuss their issues, got fundamental exposure and generated
communication links with people from other regions of the world. Of
course it would have been important to outreach to indigenous people in
India or Africa: this is something that has to be done next time. The
politics of the indigenous culture had, it was argued, a very extended
reach as its message was reported in the news around the world and this
generated a debate on how to move beyond consumption and growth and on
the quality of life while paying respect to the planet: a debate that
had at its centre people not profit.

The debate on the methodology of the WSF event converged towards a more
sophisticated agglutination process and a better structured and
organised assembly of assemblies. As far as the territory of the event
was concerned, suggestions pointed towards focusing on quality rather
than quantity: the WSF tends to build huge spaces but this does not
necessarily help people to participate. Perhaps, a more compact space
could help people to feel included. A crucial issue was raised on the
nature of the interactions that the WSF “open space” generates: in the
WSF, activists tend to agree too much with each other. Instead, the WSF
should facilitate spaces where activists and movements take advantage of
the opportunity to construct through conflict. In this sense, the WSF
space needs to be constructed in political terms whereas too often the
IC advances principles that deal with organisational questions in
technical terms.

The afternoon session developed from four reports on the region, the WSF
process in the region, the expectations that local movements have from
the WSF and the issue of Western Sahara. The first presentation focused
on the complexities of the region: instead of one collective name like
Arab, Maghreb/Mashreq expresses its multiplicity and diversity as far as
religion, ethnicity, culture and political regimes are concerned. The
region displays both different trends of Islam (Shia and Sunni for
instance) and other religions (Copt, Christianity, Judaism). There is
also a cultural Islam with roots in traditional cultures, and there are
political movements (like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahabi
movement) whose ideology is centred on a moral attitude to achieve
power. Ethnically, not all the people of the region are Arabs: there are
Kurds, Armenians, Amazir and others. Political regimes are also very
different: kingdoms and republics; historic kingdoms like Morocco and
new ones like the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. The republics are not
completely democratic and there are presidents who are inherited like in
Syria and perhaps soon in Egypt and some parliaments seem to work like
in the Gulf whereas others are unproductive like in the Maghreb or
nonexistent like in Saudi Arabia. On the issues of rights of women,
children and workers and human rights more broadly some places are
starting to open while others are still impermeable to the demands of
the citizens and of the world. From the economic point of view, instead,
there is not much difference and whereas on one hand inequality is still
vast the policies to address the economic issues are all centred on free
exchange agreements within the region and FTAs with Europe and USA.

The second presentation focused on the history of the forum process in
the region. The Moroccan activists tried to get the WSF in this country
in 2006 but the authorities denied their support. The activists kept
working and eventually this meeting became reality. The first Maghreb
Social Forum took place in 2008 with the main goal to give visibility to
the social movements of the region. “We organised 14 social forums since
then!” But this effort was not devoid of problems, including the fact
that it was necessary to face the risk of producing elitist forums,
something that the activists wanted to avoid in order to expand the
process towards the grassroots, especially unemployed students and
people fighting against the cost of life. Water, environment, women and
youth are the core issues addressed along with “democracy, human rights
and women rights” and migration. Finally, the Palestinian-Israeli issue
is fundamental for the whole region as it is the Western Sahara.

The third presentation was on the expectation of the WSF process from
the people in the region. They should not only be a targeted group but
engaged and effective actors. For this to happen it is necessary to
develop the Maghreb/Mashreq forum so that the whole region can grow
within the WSF. However, it has to be kept in mind that the interest of
people in the WSF is much less than it was 4 years ago. Moreover, as far
a Gaza was concerned it was expected that the activists of the WSF could
produce something effective and there was a lot of disappointment in
that sense. This is a clear expectation of the people of the region: not
only statements but also actions. Facilitating a strong regional process
is not easy due to the differences that criss-cross the region; the next
step should be to expand the IC to representatives of movements and
organisations of the region so that they could be actively involved when
discussing strategic issues: imperialism is a particularly serious
problem for the region.

The forth presentation was by a representative of the people of Western
Sahara who expressed the double suffering of the Saharawis: from the war
earlier and now from the absence of peace. Some of them live in harsh
conditions in the diaspora or in the camps and some live under Moroccan
administration since 1975. The suffering of this people has regional
consequences because the war between the Polisario and Morocco created
real barriers towards the achievement of economic cooperation and
freedom of movement in the whole region. It was registered that
unfortunately even trade unions and other social organisations have a
very chauvinistic approach to the Western Sahara issue and this has to
be denounced in the interest of a fully democratic regional WSF process.

The discussion followed and a number of interventions stressed the
complexities of the region and the achievements of the WSF process. The
strategy commission would focus in the next months on the enlargement of
the process to the region and this meeting is a step in that direction.
It was noted that political Islam shouldn’t be underestimated as its
relevance is crucial in the region. Other interventions noted that the
Saharawi issue raises questions of self-determination, rights and
recognition that are at the heart of the WSF value framework. Although
the decision of COSATU has to be respected, it has to be recognised that
isolation of the activists of the region is not beneficial to their
attempts to reach out and look for support in their struggles.
Furthermore, although all the limitation in democratic practices of the
government of Morocco are noted and taken stock of, it is also the case
that in the whole region there are only two places where these kind of
meetings can take place: Morocco and Lebanon. This is a fundamental
difficulty of the expansion process in the region: how is it possible to
reach the masses of the potential activists in the region?

Someone later wondered to what extent such political issues should be
discussed at the IC meeting and if it is instead the case that this
confuses or conflates the WSF and IC. The IC should only discuss
methodological and procedural issues about the organisation of the
biannual events and how to shape the space where the political
discussions can take place. Responses suggested that the issues
discussed at the IC although might seem merely political involve
fundamental principles on which the WSF is built. In the case of Western
Sahara, for instance, is the principle of self-determination at the
heart of the WSF values that is called into question. This debate raised
questions on the distinction between political issues and questions
related to principles. Several members articulated the importance of
strategic analysis and information and knowledge gathering in order to
facilitate the convergence that is the mandate of the IC.

*Second day: Analysis of the Crisis*

The presentation that opened the meeting reflected extensively on the
nature and potentiality of the measures aimed at solving the current
crises comparing it to the 1929 crisis. It reflected on Roosevelt’s new
deal and suggested that the current proposals of a green new deal aimed
not at dealing with the causes of the crisis but at addressing the most
glaring shortcomings of capitalism without surpassing it. In this sense,
the most progressive attempts to reform capitalism are those developed
by the Stiglitz Commission. A special mention was made to the call
written by F. Houtart to the UN Ecosoc. This call will later resonate
several times in the words of some IC members who stressed the
importance of an IC represented at the Ecosoc. It could indeed have a
role in negotiating from inside the palaces of power real alternatives
to build another world, as the struggle against neoliberalism is not
sufficient to move beyond capitalism as for that it is necessary to
attack the core conditions that generated the current crisis.

A second presentation focused on the ways in which social movements
responded in their contexts to the crisis. The first kind of response
was a celebration that another world is indeed possible. Some of these
reactions were ecstatic other, more nuanced and realistic, acknowledged
the difficulty of capitalism in the current conjuncture but did not
deemed it more than bruised while recognising an ideological victory
against those who claimed that markets are self-regulated and exposing
that the exit from the crisis involves substantial state intervention.
The second wave of reactions started as unemployment hit due to fall of
consumption especially in places whose economy are based on foreign
consumption. This could be considered too an ideological victory but it
has a dire effect on people. In this sense a sober attitude was called
for when rejoicing about the crisis. This crisis is not anymore a
financial crisis: in directly affecting the life of millions: it is an
economic, food, employment, housing crisis. The third kind of reactions
focused on specific ways to get out of the crisis and often voiced the
frustration of the movements vis-à-vis the Forum. They asked if the WSF
had any idea on how to reform the financial architecture of the world.
Some movements are interested in the South Bank project of ALBA
(although from other points criticism are articulated that the South
Bank will look too much like the WB). Some would want to give up WB and
IMF but others maintain that the world can't do without a global finance
system and that the current one has to be reformed. Perhaps a regional
system of finance in which civil society has a fundamental role could be
the response. The fourth wave is represented by the responses to the UN
system reform. In this sense the inclusion of India and China in G20 is
to be considered just a token attempt to give legitimacy to the system
during the current juncture of broad disrepute. To conclude, the meeting
of the G7 in July will represent a privileged site of movement
demonstration, because real politics is discussed within that framework;
moreover this G7 is going to be a test of street resistance for the
movements. Later was suggested that the other fundamental event for the
movement during the current year is the Copenhagen convention on climate
change.

The third report of the morning focused on the role of the WSF facing
the current crisis. The WSF process is indeed moving towards becoming a
better articulated space in which social movements can plan together how
it was shown in Belem by the encouraging exercise of the assembly of
assemblies. It is precisely on the basis of this last experience and on
the experience built in 10 years that the WSF has to build a stronger
and more sophisticated process. The forum has a precise responsibility
as the movements are demanding that the WSF after talking about the
crisis, offers a way forward. This call was resonated later several
times in more or less passionate ways. Several voices stated their
frustration to the fact that the WSF members were so good at generating
analysis and criticisms but completely incapable to generate alternatives.

A brief debate ensued on how to proceed after the presentations. The
chair proposed two minutes per intervention and loud voices responded
that it was unacceptable as the introductory presentations were so long
and this was simply too unequal and outcome of a rather unsophisticated
discussion methodology for the ambitions of the WSF. This methodology
makes the discussions not only imbalanced but also very boring as
everyone uses the few minutes at their disposal to shoot out their
general concerns on a very broad subject without linking their
reflections with what has been said previously, repeating often things
remarked several times already and in sum reproducing a kind of debate
that is inconsistent with the innovative pedagogical tools that the WSF
wishes to generate. While this may be the case for the original open
space methodology and for some of the methodologies applied during the
events, the IC meetings are structured in the most un-innovative way.
This not only generates overall frustration, but also prevents the IC to
realise its full potentialities.

The following interventions raised issues that complemented the analyses
presented at the beginning. It was recalled that capitalism develops in
cycles interrupted by recurrent crisis. In this sense capitalism cannot
be expected to die, not even during a crisis, of a “natural” death, it
rather has to be pushed over the edge. If a more radical solution than a
neo-Keynesian is advocated, it is then necessary to fight the structures
that hold capitalism in place. Among these structures are the military
bases of the United States that represent the system of control of
American capitalism. A strategic alliance is necessary between social
movements and the unions in order to face the current crisis that has to
be expected of no rapid solution. The calls in this sense are for a
shorter workday to allow more workers to keep or find a job and for a
strategic alliance between workers and migrants to break the spiral of
competition between illegal migrant and precarious workers and the
correlated system of modern slavery. Further, a focus of the current
struggle should be on services and public goods because that is the
stage on which the drama of the people affected by the crisis is taking
place. For others the solution to the crisis must be found in the
research and implementation of new forms of production and consumption
to be practiced by the left in the first place to show their viability
and legitimacy. A new global left should create wide alliances but
without hegemony: there must be more sophisticated articulations than
the one lead by the PT.

Like previously someone attracted the attention of the participants on
the mislead nature of the current debate that should take place in a WSF
rather than the IC whose role should only be to facilitate the space
where such debates should take place. Indeed in Belem such debates did
take place and the role of the IC should be to make sure that the
connections between movements are made easy so that they can implement
the decisions they have taken. Some proposals were advanced that perhaps
a dedicated person or even a small office should be in charge to foster
such connections and design a plan for the next global day of action. It
was convened however, that no strategic response was indeed possible
without an adequate analysis of the conjuncture. As it is not the IC
mandate to make an analysis on behalf of the movement, the IC can,
though, facilitate opportunities in different regions of the world to do
legitimate analyses.

Following reflections suggested focusing on the political and social
dimension of the crises to replace the continuing focus on the financial
aspects by the media. While paying the necessary attention to the
multi-faceted aspects of the current crisis of capitalism and more
profound and generalised call was made to appreciate how this is in fact
a broader crisis of civilisation that includes all aspects from cultural
to social, political, economic, financial and environmental.
Keynesianism and social democracy are but one more Eurocentric approach
to a generalised problem. In this sense and within this analytical
framework, the indigenous people can propose alternative civilisation
models and lifestyle framed outside of the marginally progressive
“sustainable development” paradigm and in terms of “sustainable
societies” questioning the roots of the industrial society. This is a
unique opportunity to articulate a new model of redistribution without
growth while shifting deeply the focus of the system of values on the
basis of which the capitalist world is structured. In this sense from
many sides was renewed the call for a strategic goal of the Forum to
expand the participation of indigenous people in the Forum. This process
might generate ripple effects that expanding might challenge the system
that created the current crisis. The ideal space for further
articulations with other social movements would be the assembly of
assemblies. However to avoid it to become a source of further
fragmentation a substantial work of survey and systematization needs to
be done and followed up after the forum.

There were also disagreements on some of the aspects of the analyses
presented. The US, was reminded for instance, were not turning to
socialism and state intervention has in fact nothing to do with
socialism or social democracy. Obama won’t deliver what the poor need
and the tens of millions of people left out by American capitalism could
have the chance to explore alternatives paths for the US if they manage
to break the cycle of criminalisation that hit them for decades: next
year US social forum, symbolically organised in Detroit could constitute
a strategic opportunity. As far as India and China are concerned neither
country is implementing any form of Keynesianism. Both, in fact, tried
to integrate in the global economy but this conjuncture presented itself
before they were fully integrated. Unlike 1929 today, in a much more
integrated movement, the response to the crisis, while being localised,
it has a global scope and impact. The WSF has the chance to mount a
global challenge to capitalism if it is able to constitute a space to
catalyse such global challenge. If the WSF does not manage to be
innovative, its future is doomed, as the social movements will look
elsewhere for strategic partners.

The subjective spaces of disappointment and anger generated by the
crisis impact women to a greater extent, as they become the mistaken
target of that anger and the violence it generates. Moreover that
generalised anger turns itself into rage in extreme religious practices.
In an intervention that drew warm applauses a member wished to clarify
that the so-called global crisis was American in origin and global only
as far as the consequences were concerned.

Finally, for the IC to be able to facilitate the realisation of the
activities decided at the assembly of assemblies and to catalyse the
follow up process the role of the commissions should be strengthened.
The Expansion Commission should focus on expanding the reach of those
agenda entries to new regions. The Communication Commission should deal
with collecting and analysing the proposals and generate the
communication process and diffusion of those proposals. To facilitate
the participation of engaged actors, more sophisticated methodologies
are necessary and this is the task of the Methodology Commission. The
strategy Commission should provide strategic analysis of the thematic
issues for example with respect to the “crisis of civilisation”. Finally
the Resource Commission should make sure that resources are raised and
made available to achieve these goals.

The final interventions on this item of the agenda suggested that it was
necessary that the WSF critically positioned itself on the social
transformation it aims to facilitate. In this sense if the current
crisis is a systemic crisis, then as systemic crisis develop according
to inherent logics the WSF has no role in intervening in such processes.
It would be perhaps useful to think about the crisis in different terms
and mould the critical thinking on the crisis in order for it to be
coherent with the social analysis that generated the WSF process and its
vision of another world.

*Expansion Commission 1^st Meeting*

Reports were presented that looked at the process of expansion of the
WSF in both regional and thematic areas: Russia, Europe, Asia,
Maghreb/Mashreq and Indigenous people. The core value of the WSF
expansion committees: at its heart is the recognition that in such
process no one invites anyone else to a set table. Instead the process
is centred on creating the conditions to generate new relationships with
new members. The participation of the new comers creates productive
transformation as new languages, new issues and new ways to communicate
and think meet in the WSF space.

The following interventions suggested steps to take in order to generate
a virtuous process of expansion of the WSF process. The language issue
was discussed both by members of the WSF Maghreb/Mashreq process and by
Chinese participant. Their argument was that if the WSF aims at reaching
the wider public in their regions, the WSF should add Arabic and Chinese
among its work languages. The translation into local languages would not
only enable a real expansion of the process of the WSF but also avoid
issues like those encountered by the Egyptian attempt (immediately
aborted) to organise a local Forum: its being attempted in English
generated an intolerable elitism. A further point was made: language is
not all, although a crucial starting point. Cultural differences make
very difficult to translate the language of the WSF into specific
cultural languages.

Further issues were raised that were at the centre of the debates of the
overall meeting: a stress on the indigenous participation and on the
privileged South-South relations among activists to strengthen the WSF
process in the regions where it is not as strong as it could be. It was
acknowledged that so far the WSF process has fundamentally been South
American not only from the point of view of the language, but most
importantly as far as its culture, its way of being and its main
politics were concerned. The expansion to the new region of the
Maghreb/Mashreq and the potential extension of the process toward East
Asia would considerably enrich the WSF process while at the same time
transform its culture by making it more global in accordance with its
vision.

To accomplish a wider and inclusive expansion of the WSF, it was
suggested that parallel initiatives were organised at the same time of
the IC meeting in local contexts so that the conversations taking place
in the IC could generate debates at the local level. Further on the
issue of the linguistic sensibility of the expansion process a caveat
was added to the suggestion that Arabic were to be added as working
language: Arabic was not the only language or culture of the
Maghreb/Mashreq region and that such colonial and “Orientalist” approach
should be avoided by the members of the WSF. One way to strengthen the
expansion process at regional level should focus on organising
structured participation of the members of the Maghreb/Mashreq region to
all other Forums organised in Africa. This suggestion was directly
connected with the earlier consideration that the expansion process will
have to be driven by regional South-South cooperation to become as
robust as it should and could.

*Third Day*

The first item on the agenda was the summary report of the discussion on
the crisis. The report highlighted the wealth of discussions and
acknowledged how it had been characterised by many and at times
divergent perspectives. The members of the Commission agreed that the IC
has no mandate to make analysis on behalf of the social movements but
instead its members discussed some analytical issues in order to promote
and facilitate reactions among the movements. At the centre of the
strategic interests of the WSF are issues referring to the enlargement
of its space and its innovation. It was stressed that to accomplish this
strategic mandate, analysis was necessary as well as action. The WSF is
not an agenda setting space as the assemblies may assume that role.
However, the IC and the strategy commission working in the spirit of
those assemblies need to facilitate the follow up in order to promote
actions and further articulations. The IC should disseminate information
and analysis, stimulate the discussion, stimulate the creation of new
forms of action and raise money to support the actions.

Following on the agenda was the presentation of the proposal of the 2011
WSF venue. The process of selection was long and involved an initial
choice among Senegal, Niger, South Africa and Tanzania. Lately only two
candidatures were left: Senegal and Niger. Eventually the African
partners realised that Senegal offered better possibility for a WSF
event while Niger offered the space for a thematic forum in 2010 on the
impact of the crisis on Africa and on specific issues like migration,
the environment, the food crisis, security and terrorism.

The decision-making process was very complex but it generated a
consensual outcome and the compact support of all the social forces in
Senegal and Africa as well as of the local and national authorities in
Senegal. The latter would ensure full access to Dakar to all who would
apply for visa. Freedom of speech will be protected and accommodation
and access to the venue will be ensured by the city infrastructure. The
social movements in the regions must be considered like a global
consciousness that should make the humanity think about the consequence
of capitalism given the destruction that this crisis has generated in
the continent. The African forums will stress the collaboration between
movements and activists from the South, the most affected by the crisis
generated in the North and will debate possible solutions. They would
create an opportunity to expand the process and to consolidate and
deepen the collaboration between African movements and activists. At the
same time, the forum in Senegal will be a global forum with a stress on
Africa but in which all will find themselves at home. If these
principles were to be accepted, a set of innovations should be devised
for the methodology of the forums in Africa and their thematic aspects.

After the break the conversation started with a series of interventions
that told about a wealth of WSF related initiatives for the current and
next year. Some of the entries in the virtual agenda were: the Cumbre
Indigena from the 12^th to the 16^th of October; the Fourth Indigenous
meeting in Puno in May will focus on the crisis of civilisation
affecting the planet and possible alternative paradigms to the
Eurocentric, colonial and modernist one. In March 2010 a thematic forum
on the crisis of civilisation will be organised in Cuzco, Peru. A
thematic forum will be organised in Morocco to reflect on meaning,
nature and potentiality of the WSF process as part of the outreach
initiatives in the region. In March 2010 a meeting will take place in
Rio de Janeiro to discuss the right to housing. In South Asia two
initiatives will take place sometime next year: the South-Asian social
forum in Nepal and a thematic forum on democracy in Bangladesh. Between
the 22^nd and 26^th of June the 2^nd United States social Forum will
take place, charged with symbolic meaning as it will be held in the
capital of the automobile industry Detroit. In September or October will
be held in Palestine the World Forum on Education. In January 2010,
between the 24^th and the 28^th of January a forum will be held in Porto
Alegre to celebrate the tenth anniversary f the WSF. In Mexico a
thematic forum will be held on the financial and economic crisis. The
European Social forum will take place in June in Istanbul. The Catalonia
Social Forum will be organised in January. The thematic forum on the
collective rights of the peoples will be organised in Cartagena, Colombia.

The list of initiatives and activities was further enriched by more
entries and proposals and soon it became clear that a crucial challenge
for 2010 was to generate a continuous, dispersed but coordinated, world
forum throughout the year. A set of initiatives that could be linked by
a virtual baton passed from one forum to the next. Thematically, a set
of complex articulations could be thought and the process could be
linked thanks to the work of the communication commission and the
activists who could facilitate a more sophisticated use of technology to
create a feeling of connection and a more diffused participation of
those who could not participate to all or even any of the events. Also,
reference to the strengthening of the involvement of the youth was done
repeatedly.

After lunch the suggestions on the thematic foci of the forums that
would lead to the 2011 Dakar WSF were articulated further. The
environmental crisis was at the centre of the interventions of many and
a symbolic logo was thought of that transmitted a message of urgency.
The suggestions of the morning to create a year long forum was
complemented by the suggestion that a working group should be created by
the IC to generate ideas and coordinate the process, facilitate
connections among initiatives and avoid fragmentation and dispersion of
limited energies and resources. In this sense the fundraising process
should be coordinated to avoid competition between the social actors
organising the different initiatives.

The debate on the 2011 forum centred on issues of thematic coherence,
accessibility of the venue and relative financial autonomy of the
process while at the same time ensuring the global nature of the event.
Dignity was the feature of the Mumbai Forum and the presence of
indigenous people was the distinctive character of the Belem forum: what
would be the feature of the Dakar forum? Given the global conjuncture
the thematic focus should be on the environment and it was suggested
that perhaps after ten years of WSF the slogan could be changed to
“Another world is Urgent”. Moreover, the double occasion of the Niger
Thematic Forum and the Dakar forum was recognised as a crucial
opportunity to give the chance to the African Diaspora to meet in Africa
to discuss the current effects of slavery and colonialism in their
historical but also in their contemporary forms.

The issue of the South-South cooperation generated some disagreement. It
is the task of the WSF, it was argued, to create new forms of dialogue
between North and South, and East and West and more sophisticated
categorisation of global social structures. Such categorical spatial
divisions are precisely the strategies mobilised by capitalism and
neoliberal globalisation in order to divide, rule and exploit the world.

A strategic fundraising campaign needs to be started soon in order to
achieve a greater share of local funding to insure autonomy and
ownership crucial concepts to the pedagogy inspired by the WSF. It is
also important that the process and the event are closely coherent with
the WSF values. The WSF has to practice more and more what it preaches
with respect to multinational companies, solidarity economy, waste
disposal and recycling, labour relations etc. Following on from this it
was stressed how the logistics of the event are not merely technical
issues but inherently political ones. Moreover, important steps need to
be taken as far as the methodology of the event is concerned and
especially for what relates to the process of agglutination that needs
to be outcome of a mature and sophisticated process of differences
negotiation.

*Fourth and final day*

The fourth day was devoted to the reports from the Commissions. The
first was the *Communication Commission* whose report highlighted the
need to ensure a continuous and coherent communication process among the
yearlong forum of 2010. New technologies and the Internet would make
sure this is achieved with relative ease once a formal coordination is
put in place. These technologies should also aim at creating interactive
bridges between those who take part in the forum events and those who
don’t have the chance to reach the venues and wish to be included in a
participatory process. The tools to achieve these goals would focus on a
new and more updated website for the WSF process which replaces the
current one, an updated database of participant organisations and an
‘information central’ that functions as a hub for interaction and
coordination. The communication of the WSF should not be considered
though as a mere diffusion of information but as part of the political
process of the WSF, helping it and facilitating its development.

*Methodology Commission: *The WSF is moving into a new phase of its
development and to fully express its current potentialities needs new
and more current methodologies. The Commission, building on its history
and the experience of the WSF process, while stressing the importance to
articulate a methodology that is centred on the crucial recognition of
the profound crisis of civilisation that the world finds itself in, will
coordinate a process of deep and critical reflection on the
methodological avenues to be explored in the next years. The
coordination group selected by the commission to articulate these
reflections will meet the day before the next IC meeting and aims at
organising a meeting with the African organising committee. The group
will reflect on the Belem process, on the agglutination process and on
the outcome and process of the assembly of assemblies. The learning
process of the group will be flexible and constantly open to the
developments that will take place in the locations of the forums through
a process of constant feedback between the Methodology Commission and
the local organising committees.

In the brief discussion that followed one fundamental point of concern
was raised on the expression “crisis of civilisation”. It was suggested
that this expression should be replaced by “crisis of capitalism” as it
is not the Egyptian, the Indian or even the Western civilisation that
are in crisis. Such essentialist and widely generalising expression
should be more contextually articulated to make sure that the
participants of the WSF are sure to comprehend what the WSF stands
against or aims to facilitate.

The *Strategy Commission* will produce a summary of the debate on the
crisis that took place in this meeting. The Commission will ask the IC
members to share their analyses. Later few questions will be posed to
all members in order to provoke further reactions. Finally in September
the Commission will produce a document to be used as base for the
discussion in the October IC meeting. The following item of the report
concerned the organisation of a special day of reflection and action at
the USSF 2010 on the crisis to be potentially replicated at some of the
other events of the year-long forum. In particular the commission
suggested that it is made clear in Detroit that the effects of the
crisis are multiple just as multiple and different can and will be the
ways out of it elaborated by the social movements the world over. The
third item of the report was about the Dakar forum of 2011 and although
the group did not have enough time to explore in detail its role
vis-à-vis that initiative, nonetheless two ideas were discussed: 1. the
new thematic common point could be the global climate crisis. 2. the
different assemblies of Belem could be asked to evaluate their documents
and actions in order to provide the Commission with some input on how to
construct the document for the next IC meeting.

*Resources Commission*: As far as the next budget is concerned it is
necessary to clearly know what would be the plan for the next year to be
able to focus on a targeted fundraising in order to avoid competition
between local organisers. As far as the Forum in Dakar is concerned, it
is necessary to stimulate and facilitate a fundraising process that
focuses to a great extend on local funders. A mention was made to the
importance of the translation and to its high cost. In Belem, for
instance professional translators were contracted and this was one of
the most important items in the overall budget of the forum. A final
announcement generated warm applauses: the debt from 2005 was fully
cleared and words of thanks were articulated towards Abong who
shouldered the debt for four years.

The members of the *Expansion Commission* discussed both the geographic
and the thematic expansion of the WSF process and assessed six
applications to the IC and made recommendations. The Expansion
Commission formed four working geographical and thematic groups. Middle
East, Asia, Russia and indigenous movements and peoples. The Commission
realised that there are several instances of overlap with Communications
so it decided to establish structured connections. The commission wants
to publish a bulletin of the expansion group and introduce Russian and
Arabic as strategic languages and later Mandarin as well. It was decided
to add Mother Earth as an actor that the WSF should give more attention
to, in terms of planetary justice. Traditionally the Expansion
Commission has discussed the place of next venue: this time they
proposed 6-8 October in Montreal. However they are aware that in the
Copenhagen IC meeting it was decided that three consecutive IC meetings
should take place in the South (Belem, Rabat and one in Asia) they
thought it was important to hold the IC in Montreal as the Mexicans who
would like to host an IC meeting do not have the time to organise one in
such short time. Finally, 13 orgs contributed to solidarity forum and
all those who asked for solidarity fund to attend the present meeting
will be covered. In the following discussion some considerations were
raised. Middle East and MENA are colonial and imperial definition so the
region should be referred to as Maghreb and Mashreq. As far as the
thematic areas are concerned Health and Youth Activism had to be considered.

Decisions were taken on the location of the next IC meetings: Montreal
in October; in the first half of 2010 the IC will take place in Mexico
and in second half in Dakar. In order to strengthen the African process
and to create a solid coordination between the local and the global
members of the WSF, in July a seminar will be held in Dakar with the
coordination group of the IC. The composition and mandate of such
coordination group were discussed and it was decided that a document
that highlighted some guidelines for discussion would be circulated soon
in the IC mailing list.

Harder was to agree on the process to choose the logo and slogan for the
next few years of the WSF process and the assessment of the Liaison
Group of the IC whose mandate will expire in October. After a complex
conversation it was decided that there was no possibility to decide at
this stage anything about the slogan and the logo and it was mandated to
the coordination group to make suggestions and to launch a consultation
on the proposals. As far as the evaluation of the work of the Liaison
Group it was suggested that the group members will produce a document in
which they self-assess what did or did not work and how those issues
could be overcome and, more in general, what were the lessons learnt
that will help the IC to learn from their experience and devise better
structure of governance and work for the future.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1> I wish to acknowledge Teivo Teivainen for his extensive
contribution and advice in compiling this report.

_______________________________________________
Debate-list mailing list
Debate-list at fahamu.org
http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list


-- 

**********************************************
Office :
CACIM
A-3 Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024, India
Ph / Fx : +91-11-4155 1521 [O]
madhuresh at cacim.net [Work]
www.cacim.net / www.openspaceforum.net

Residence :
32-D, DDA Flats, Masjid Moth, Phase I, New Delhi 110 048
Ph : +91-11-2624 2140 (R), +91-98-18 905316 [Mobile]
Email : kmadhuresh at gmail.com [Personal]
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.51/2151 - Release Date: 06/02/09 17:53:00