Eyewitness report on the World Social Forum IV
Mumbai, India
The WSF IV took place in the context of big changes in the global justice movement over the last year.
First, there was the war on Iraq and the struggle against the war, followed by the Iraqi resistance and the growing movement against the occupation; second, the victory at the Cancun Conference, the successful action of the Group +20, followed by Miami and the struggle that took place there. We have also had one year of the Lula government in Brazil and the start of the US election process.
At WSF III, following on the European Social Forum, the global justice movement made a big step forward with February 15th -- the biggest day of action against a war in human history. This event was a point of reference in articles in Terra Viva and in presentations on the current and future role of the WSF in the global justice movement.
In spite of February 15th and other anti-war actions, the United States with Britain, Australia and a few other intimidated "allies" invaded Iraq and now occupy Iraq in the grand tradition of Rome, Spain, Britain and other imperial empires.
At the Cancun WTO talks, a bloc of developing countries led by Brazil, India and China walked out over continued subsidies by US and European governments for agricultural exports. The livelihood of peasants, farmers and rural workers comprising the majorities in India, China and other developing countries are jeopardized by these products. As Walden Bello wrote, "The potential of this group was indicated by Celso Amorin, the Brazilian Trade Minister who has emerged as its spokesman, when he said that it represented over half the world's population and over two-thirds of its farmers." By 2010, the number of farmers, rural workers, etc., that will migrate from the Indian countryside to the cities, looking for work, is twice the combined populations of Britain, Germany and France. In neighboring China, some 300 million farmers are expected to move out of the rural areas into the cities.
Such incredible social dislocations are fuel for social change. But, in addition, at least in India, there are organizations that will help to organize the struggle against this dislocation.
At any rate, the 20+ countries agreed on one thing: no agreement is better than a bad agreement.
Here too the victory is circumscribed by the fragility of the alliance -- the Indian and Chinese governments are right-wing governments and in this case, the three major countries represent agro-exporting countries, unlike many developing or poor countries. The response to Cancun by the rich countries is to develop bilateral treaties between individual rich countries and developing and poor countries. Such treaties do not bode well for the overwhelming majority of people.
Thus, the struggle against globalization changes as a result of our victories and theirs. Globalization itself is shaped by this struggle, its successes, failures and adaptations.
The World Social Forum took a big step forward holding the WSF in Mumbai, India. The WSF created a space for tens of thousands of Indians to voice their concerns through meetings, workshops, demonstrations, videos, literature, with the support of thousands of other southeast Asians as well as Europeans and activists from the Americas.
Creating that space is no small effort or project and it cannot be belittled. In a world so dominated by capital -- by the voracious pursuit of profit -- it is a worthwhile effort to create a space, if only for a few days, where the struggle against capital -- against a capitalist globalization -- is the focus of tens of thousands of people.
At the same time, movements, by their nature, do not stand still. They go forward or they diminish, change character. What is the impact of the Mumbai Forum on the Social Forum process internationally?
First, the powerful presence of women, of the oppressed themselves in the Forum.
"Never before at the World Social Forum have women been so visible, nor has the issue of gender played such a central role. Everywhere, women are talking, dancing, leading, organising, crying and laughing. The most charismatic names are women (Captain Laxmi Sehgal); the big movement leaders are women (Medha Patkar); women deliver the best speeches (the Dalit human rights campaigner Ruth Manorama) and organise the most interesting seminars."
And further,
"But this World Social Forum should not primarily be remembered as an event where we started to make rules, but as a beautiful political festival dominated by women. According to gender research, women are perceived as "many" or "in majority" when we occupy 30% of a space. At this forum, women were approximately represented in accordance with our proportion of the world's population: around 51%. I think that is why many observers perceived women to be everywhere at this forum.
"One of the largest and most important panels - perhaps the most significant of all - was called "Wars against Women, Women against Wars". There, Arundhati Roy did one of the most beautiful things one can do: she gave away space, space that she had fought for to get, that today she can access in a privileged way."
She spoke mostly about the massacre in Gujarat, but also about women doing horrible things to other women. And then she spoke less, to give space to another woman, to tell her story about police brutality ...
"Something happened in Mumbai that makes this year's forum deserve to be named the World Women's Forum." -- America Vera-Zavala.
This basic fact, expressed in various ways by many writers on the Forum, underlines how much the forum was a big step forward for the global justice movement.
From the beginning, this forum was self-reflective. There was a discussion on the nature of the WSF and its process.
One of the key questions was the need for common action. It is unlikely that the WSF will endorse any actions, in keeping with its main mission of creating a space for the struggle against globalization. At the same time, WSF organizers are concerned that, in the absence of any definitive position of the WSF on actions, that more and more the proposals for action from the Global Assembly of Social Movements or the Global Anti-War Movement Assembly, will be taken as representative of the WSF as a whole.
Roberto Savio, founder of the Independent Press Service and a member of the WSF International Committee wrote in Terra Viva #2, "WSF at turning point: reform or become irrelevant" that:
"The movement faces three challenges -- participation (which eludes the political system more and more each day), mobilization and the design and the implementation of plans of action and other responses to the innumerable disasters created by the neoliberal system."
Christopher Aguiton, a leader of the Social Movements Assembly, was quoted in Asian Age on January 21 saying: "The WSF should be made more practical, to reach out to those in politics and the governments of individual countries. …."
The Assembly of Social Movements and Mass Organizations was not as systematic as it was in Porto Alegre, but it met and issued a call supporting several key actions over the next year including March 20.
Another question is the participation of political parties, which is formally prevented by the WSF Charter. At Mumbai, for the first time, individuals currently occupying government posts -- Jeremy Corbyn, an antiwar MP from Britain, Gilberto Gil, cultural minister of Brazil, Winnie Mandela, representing the African National Congress, were invited to speak at conferences, workshops etc.
Participation by political parties draws fire from different sides of the political spectrum for different reasons. There are those who oppose them simply because they are government and think their presence undermines the nature of the WSF. There are those who argue that political parties should be part of the process. The decision to invite political figures came about as a result of the growing conviction that the dialogue of the WSF cannot be confined to NGOs, social movements, etc. It needs to take into account governments, their policies and actions, and apparently, it needs to dialogue with representatives. The Communist Party of India, which leads the government of three Indian states, played a critical role in organizing the forum in India, according to newspaper reports and Terra Viva.
Candido Grzybowski, another member of the WSF International Committee, wrote inTerra Viva #4,
"The problem will come when at the moment when the WSF becomes a hegemonic arena for some partisan force. Does such a danger exist? Without a doubt! " Further,
"To try to eliminate contradictions at the core of the WSF and turn it into a more homogenous space and process for confronting neoliberalism is the aim of certain forces, inspired on the classic political partisanship of the left. I would say that this struggle within the Forum is legitimate and deserves respect, given its visions and values. …. The risk does not lie in who is seeking this, but rather than other organizations and movements would cease to play their role as a counterpoint."
"It is as a space for democratic conflict that the WSF must be preserved if the Forum is to continue being what it is. We must be radically political in the process of the Forum, and each one must seek out his or her party to achieve what it necessary, and possible in the society in which one lives."
Fred David ~ January, 2004. q