|
As the World Social Forum meets this week in the northern Brazilian Amazon jungle city of Belem, four analysts give their views on alternative solutions for the global crisis of
capitalism now under way, the future of the WSF, and the need to 'propose' not just 'oppose'. Interviews by the Inter Press Service.
27th January 09 - Diego Cevallos, IPS News
Prominent Mexico-based German political analyst
Heinz Dieterich said he believes the World Social Forum, which is
meeting this week in the northern Brazilian Amazon jungle city of
Belem, falls short in the innovation department and fails to generate
real change.
In an interview with IPS, Dieterich said the
current edition of the WSF may draw more attention than most of the
previous gatherings, because it coincides with the present "crisis of
capitalism." But, he added, even if it manages to reach any kind of
consensus, it will be unlikely to call for changes that go beyond the
"current social democratic strategies."
According to the analyst, who has lived in Mexico for decades,
such strategies are aimed at keeping "the system alive, with slightly
greater intervention by the state" – a path he says he does not agree
with, because in his view capitalism is not suffering just another
crisis, but the beginning of the end.
Dieterich, who recently retired as a sociology professor from
the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City, wrote "21st
Century Socialism" about a current of social economic thinking that has
been espoused by left-leaning presidents like Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez
and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa.
The main WSF gathering is taking place in Belem Jan. 27-Feb.
1. But parallel meetings will be held in different cities around the
world, including Mexico City and the northern Mexican city of Chihuahua
on the U.S. border.
"The simple fact of holding the forum is important because it
allows organisations, universities, activists and society to come
together and forge connections. But there is a long stretch between
that and actually bringing about changes," Erika Terrazas, an
anthropologist at the National School of Anthropology and History in
Chihuahua, commented to IPS.
The broad range of activities at the Jan. 30-Feb. 1 meetings
in Mexico will include panels on global and local problems,
conferences, and cultural and artistic events.
"It is hard to actually manage to change things, like the
violent crime that we are experiencing here in Chihuahua, for example,"
said Terrazas, one of the organisers of the WSF meeting in her city.
"But just the fact that we are coming together is a step forward, and
that is why we are holding the forum."
Nearly 2,500 people were murdered last year in drug trafficking-related killings in Chihuahua.
The WSF initially emerged as a kind of counterpoint to the
World Economic Forum, which brings the world’s economic and political
movers and shakers together every year in late January in the Swiss ski
resort city of Davos.
Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, a member of
the WSF International Committee, said the participants in the Belem
meeting should take "a clear and visible stance on the global economic
crisis" and how to confront it.
In Dieterich’s view, the WSF, which has brought together
social movements, non-governmental organisations and other civil
society groups every year since 2001, usually in the southern Brazilian
city of Porto Alegre, has failed to offer innovative proposals in the
past and will not do so in the future.
He said the problems plaguing the global economy today show
that "industrial capitalism" is nearing its end, after "250 years of
life," and that it is time "to find a new form of civilisation.
"But the momentum for change will not come out of the WSF,
which was and is dominated by social democratic and progressive
Christian thinking," he said.
"The WSF is more in line with accepting the ‘New Deal’ offered
by the new U.S. President Barack Obama, which translates into a
continuation of capitalism, but with slightly greater state
intervention and a few other minor changes," said Dieterich.
The analyst, who in the past was a staunch supporter of
Venezuela’s controversial President Chávez, has gradually taken a more
critical position towards his government in the past few months.
Prior to the 2005 WSF held in Brazil, Dieterich told IPS that
the gatherings did not generate compelling political statements or
commitments, and that they were more like "summer school."
And although he said this week’s meeting in Belem might be
different, with the global crisis as its backdrop, which could "give it
a boost," he clarified that he expects it to produce no major changes.
Link to original source
'The WSF Should Privilege Alternative Media'
26th January 09 - Alejandro Kirk interviews Boaventura de Sousa Santos, IPS News
Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos argues that community radio
and alternative media are the only platforms that can compete with corporate
media. In an interview with TerraViva’s Alejandro Kirk, de Sousa Santos stressed
that the current crisis requires that participants at the World Social Forum (WSF)
take a unified political stance.
Excerpts from the interview follow:
IPS: Do you stand by your ideas about the nature of the World Social Forum in
the context of the global crisis of capitalism that we are experiencing?
BOAVENTURA DE SOUSA SANTOS: That is a very important question at this
moment. I believe that the changes that have taken place over the past few
months have created a new situation. As you know, since its inception, there
has been a discussion at the WSF about whether it should be an open space
for all progressive tendencies that fight against neo-liberal globalisation - a
space for coming together and nothing more. Some have argued the
contrary: that it should have a stronger role and intervene, present proposals
and organise global political actions - intervention for change.
In some way, this requires that I modify my position. For a long time I have
defended the idea of an open space because I believe that it is important to
maintain a place in which people can come together without a specific
agenda. But over the past two years my view has changed somewhat. I
believe that the WSF should continue to be an open space but that we should
identify some topics about which there is consensus so that the Forum can
present political and thus programmatic positions.
IPS: What topics are you thinking about?
BSS: The WSF should have a proposal to reform the United Nations. It is a
process that has been discussed for a long time and one that we also have
discussed at the WSF, but there is no common position.
The second issue is the financial crisis, which has created a new situation
over the past few months because at the WSF we always criticised neo-liberal
globalisation - and especially the predominance of financial capital - which
has led so many countries to ruin.
The financial crisis that exploded in the United States and Europe is a crisis
that the countries of the so-called Third World have been suffering for 30
years. All of these countries have proposed solutions that are very similar to
the ones that the United States and Europe are implementing: nationalizing
banks and so on.
Now that the crisis is in the United States and Europe, in the heart of the
global capitalist system, the measures that those same central countries
strongly rejected - through the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (FMI) - for southern countries are being adopted. That is where the
crises of Asia, Argentina, Brazil and Russia came from. So I propose that the
WSF assume a visible international position on how to resolve the crisis.
The WSF should demand the elimination of the FMI and the World Bank or
their radical reform. These positions have been discussed ad nauseam and
there is consensus. Why don’t we transform that into a policy position?
IPS: And you can’t forget Palestine.
BSS: Yes, in the third place, the crisis in Palestine. This aggression is an Israeli
occupation that is more brutal than before. Right now war crimes and crimes
against humanity are taking place and are being perpetrated because there is
the certainty of total impunity. I think that the WSF has to take a very clear,
internationally visible position on Palestine.
Though we have not done so directly in the Forum, we have fought for peace.
The Assembly of Social Movements called for a world protest against the
invasion of Iraq and I do not believe that we should limit ourselves to protests
this time.
IPS: Do you believe that this attack was launched in an attempt to achieve
something before Barack Obama assumed the Presidency of the United
States?
BSS: Yes. This aggression was a premeditated provocation on the part of the
State of Israel. The international media never mention this. The first violation
of the cease-fire [between the government of Gaza and Israel] was at the
beginning of November, and it was an Israeli bombing. In response, Hamas
requested a renegotiation of the cease-fire, which Israel rejected. That’s how
it started.
Israel has three direct objectives. The first involves internal politics. The
central-right coalition that governs the country is at risk and wants to
recover its electoral leadership. Second, the Army wants to make people
forget their complete defeat by the Hezbollah organisation when it invaded
Lebanon in 2006. The third objective is to create a fait accompli before
Obama was sworn in.
These are the three factors that have led to a war of aggression that has
nothing to do with Gaza. It is extermination. Months ago, the Vice Minister of
Defence of Israel [Matan Vilnai] threatened the population of Gaza with the
word Sho’ha, which means ‘holocaust’ in Hebrew. That was announced
months ago. It is horrible, because they don’t realise that the Jewish people
were victims of a Sho’ha in Europe, and history shows that the ‘final
solutions’ always come back on those who have tried to implement them.
IPS: Is there a way out of this?
BSS: Very serious things are happening. People who have always defended
the existence of the State of Israel are now asking themselves if in these
conditions - I repeat, in these conditions - the State of Israel maintains that
right to exist.
It is notable that when you read the founding texts of Israel, like the writings
of Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, it is really clear that they understood that their
State was an occupation that would always come up against the resistance of
the occupied and that there would therefore never be peace. The two-State
solution was a hypocrisy negated by the facts - by so much Jewish presence
in the West Bank that made it impossible.
It would be a serious problem if the WSF met in this context of global crisis
and we did not emerge with a position from the International Council or WSF
Assembly. My fear is that people will come away with the impression that the
Forum didn’t do anything. That is why I have proposed voting.
IPS: But voting would be complicated at the Forum.
BSS: There could be an electronic voting process each night. It is very easy to
do. I have been told that we are not representative of the world. Of course we
aren’t - but there are 100,000 of us.
IPS: The Forum no longer receives as much attention from the traditional
media. Is this because of censorship, or a lack of professionalism, or has the
Forum simply lost validity?
BSS: This is an important issue given the power of the media in the
international context. The mainstream media is a great instrument of global
capitalism, of opposition to progressive politics. You can see that the media
are opposed to change in countries throughout Latin America right now.
The absence of the media at the Forum doesn’t have to do with weaknesses.
At one point the WSF was a novelty for the corporate media because we
started as an alternative to the Davos Economic Forum - an inverted mirror.
That created the curiosity that brought the media to the first two forums.
When they realised that the Forum had a counter-hegemonic bent, they lost
interest.
For our journey, the most important thing is the alternative media, the free
press. This time a world forum of free media will be held in Belem.
I work a lot in Bolivia and Ecuador, and I can tell you that the community
radios, the alternative press, are the media for bringing progressive
knowledge to the people.
The Forum’s Communications strategy has not always been a strong one, but
now I think that the WSF is aware that if we do not give all the weight to the
alternative media - the free press that fights to bring different information to
the people - we will not get far.
Link to original source
‘It Is Time to Aim Beyond Capitalism’
26th January 09 - Alejandro Kirk interviews Walden Bello, IPS News
The World Social Forum meeting this week in
this city in Brazil’s Amazon jungle region has an urgent and crucial
task: coming up with alternative solutions for the global crisis of
capitalism now under way, and pushing for democratic control of the
economy and state worldwide, Filipino academic, author and activist
Walden Bello tells TerraViva editor Alejandro Kirk in this interview.
IPS: In the context of the current global crisis, what is the World Social Forum’s (WSF) most relevant task?
WALDEN BELLO: We are at a very critical historical juncture in which
neoliberal capitalism is unravelling and I think that the WSF is a site
where very serious discussions should be taking place, in terms of both
anticipating what is the likely response of global capitalism as well
as pushing forward alternatives to the current crisis. We must really
put the task of the WSF in the context of the truly massive global
crisis.
IPS: So Belem is to be a crucial stage for the WSF’s future?
WB: Yes, definitely. It would be extremely critical for
global civil society at this point to respond to this crisis beyond the
kind of stabilising solutions you are beginning to see in Europe and
the United States.
The capitalist elites are in many ways already going beyond
neoliberalism, so I think on the one hand it is really important in
Belem to come to a consensus about the crisis of capitalism and we
ought to have very serious discussions on how to go beyond (such)
solutions. I think we need to contend alternatives from within the
system, like an expansion of social democracy for instance.
IPS: How can the WSF come out with such a response and how could it possibly implement it?
WB: What you really need to look at seriously, in Belem, is
to identify not just a crisis of neoliberalism but a crisis of
capitalism. We’re talking about the roots of the crisis being dynamic
at the capitalist mode of production. The alternative to that is
something we need to seriously come to grips with.
We really need to frame our responses in terms of common universal
values, like the question of justice, the question of equity, creating
an alternative that really cares for the welfare of people. I think the
discussion in Belem will really be very critical in terms of framing
the alternatives.
As for implementation, you really need to be quite innovative. We need
to be looking at solidly linking our movement across different
countries, interacting with respect to the alternatives that are being
pushed. It can’t be easy, but this kind of sharing of experiences,
creation of networks, sharing of ideas - I think this is something that
the forum will play a very critical role at.
IPS: In your writings you seem to avoid classical terms such as
socialism, revolution and the like, to describe the kind of society the
Forum should be looking forward to.
WB: I do not so much shrink from articulating the
alternative. We are looking at democratising the ownership of means of
production. Whether you call that socialism or people’s democracy, or
democratic socialism, what you are really talking about is democratic
control of the economy.
We need to be looking at the possible articulation of mixed economies,
with different systems of ownership within the economy, which will
probably include social enterprises, cooperatives, private enterprise
and state enterprises.
That’s one dimension. Another dimension is the question of refocusing
on the internal economy, the domestic economy instead of export
markets; national economic development. We would be talking about the
critical importance of equity, fairly strong mechanisms of income and
redistribution. And about an ecologically sustainable alternative. I
don’t want to use the term socialism because there are certain
connotations of what socialism is all about, that bring up the image of
Eastern Europe.
IPS: Is something like this actually happening anywhere in the world right now?
WB: I think what we are seeing are efforts along this line in a number
of countries, certainly in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela. I mean, of
course each process has its own particularities, its own dynamics.
I would say that as the crisis deepens - and I think we are at the
beginning stages of this crisis - peoples’ struggles are going to go
beyond the very traditional mechanisms of stabilisation now under way.
So I would imagine that we will see more and more of these efforts, for
democratic control and participation as the crisis deepens.
IPS: In this process, developing countries take the lead and the industrialised North stays behind?
WB: I wouldn’t say that. I think people are still stunned
by the crisis, especially in the United States, Europe and Japan. The
crisis is moving very very quickly. I would not discount the emergence
of popular movements in these areas of the world.
IPS: There is also the risk of radical right-wing reactions such as those of France and Italy.
WB: That is definitely a possibility. What we are going to
see is three possibilities: a radicalisation to the left, a
radicalisation to the right – this a great danger in the North, in
places like Italy and France – or just paralysis. So there is no
guarantee that progressive alternatives are going to grow.
Progressives, with their knowledge of society and their strategy, must
fight for hegemony.
IPS: The German Left party seems to be an exception to the rule.
WB: I think that Die Linke in Germany is a very very good
example of trying to innovatively grasp the situation, moving from
denouncing to pushing beyond social democratic responses to the current
situation. Creating a situation to move towards people power,
participatory democracy in both the economy and the state.
IPS: You have recently written that the global balance of power is shifting to the South.
WB: What I mean is that what we’ve seen over the last
decade has been the weakening of the traditional centre economies. We
saw that the U.S. went into this consumption, finance-driven form of
capitalism, financed by China. Chinese credit has kept the U.S. economy
going.
In the last 10 to 15 years, countries like Brazil, China and India have
become relatively stronger economic actors with the shift of jobs and
capital; they have become the creditors of the North. That’s what I
mean in terms of balance of power. I’m not saying they have become the
new centre. Hegemonic power continues to be the North , especially the
United States.
IPS: Is this positive for the kind of struggle you call for?
WB: It depends. Overall, the less hegemonic countries of
the North become, and the more power is diffused to the global system,
I think it is a positive development. On the other hand you must
realise that these countries (of the South), these economies are
controlled by, for all purposes, a capitalist elite, and in many ways,
for instance in the case of China, it is less accountable than, say,
the elite in the U.S.
So on the one hand the positive thing is a diffusion of power, and on
the other we are also talking about these new economy actors that are
making a big difference, they are under the domination of a
developmental elite. I think the challenge in the North is really for
progressive movements to push their agenda, which is more participation
and more democratic control of the means of production, of economic
decision-making. The agenda is the same for movements both in the North
and the South.
IPS: In this context, how do you see the Israeli attack on Palestine?
WB: I have held all along that there are certain key
struggles that the WSF must take a very strong stand on. Definitely,
the Palestinian issue is one of them. The WSF should take a very strong
stand condemning Israel and supporting the right of Palestinians to
their own state, and supporting the right of return of Palestinians to
what is now Israel.
I really feel the WSF can no longer say that we just want to provide a
roof for discussions to take place. I have always said that that kind
of academic posture will eventually dissipate the spirit of the WSF,
and I think that has already happened to some extent.
To really reinforce its soul and continue to provide a strong kind of
energy in support of civil society movements, the Palestine issue, and
Afghanistan, the issue of capitalism really - these are issues in which
the WSF must take a very strong stand.
IPS: Such an approach demands a permanent structure.
WB: Yes, I think that we should find ways of really making
the International Council a more accountable body. The problem now with
the IC is that it is mainly a discussion group rather than a body with
real effective powers to move the struggle on.
IPS: Should the IC be an elected body?
WB: We can’t be tied to forms, but we really need an
International Council that is accountable, that is representative, so
to speak. There are various kinds of formal mechanisms. I feel also
that we should probably have a more effective kind of Secretariat that
is there not organising the next forum but to ensure the implementation
of resolutions and the accumulation of lessons.
One of the problems of the WSF has been that there is no sense of
accumulation of lessons from one WSF to another, so accountability,
accumulation of lessons and decision-making that is democratic - this
is the challenge of the WSF. Having said that, despite all the
unnevenness and weaknesses of the WSF, it is still a very important
mechanism for global civil society to be able to influence the course
of global events.
Link to original source
'We Have to be Good at Proposing, Not Just Opposing'
26th January 09 - Miren Gutierrez interviews AYE AYE WIN of Dignity International, IPS News
NGOs like Dignity International are packing
their bags to fly to Belem in Brazil where the World Social Forum (WSF)
is taking place this year. The stakes are high.
"We are all
gathering in Belem because we still firmly believe that another world
is possible," says Aye Aye Win, executive director of Dignity
International, a Netherlands-based organisation supporting people and
groups engaged in fighting for human rights. "I do believe that the
current global economic crisis in many ways confirms the importance of
the WSF as a forum that proposes viable alternatives, and it would be
wise for the World Economic Forum at Davos (Switzerland) to lend its
ears to ideas coming out of it."
Aye Aye has worked for the Council of Europe, an organisation
that seeks to develop common principles based on the European
Convention on Human Rights. She has coordinated the Global Forum for
Poverty Eradication, from which Dignity International originated. She
has worked also for the Advocacy and Early Warning Department of the
London-based NGO International Alert, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation in
Japan, and the Development Centre of the Organisation For Economic
Cooperation And Development (OECD, a grouping of 30 wealthy nations).
Aye Aye Win spoke with the IPS Editor-in-Chief about the role of the WSF today.
IPS: The WSF is a movement against the "kind of globalisation which
is based only on the values of market and profit," in the words of WSF
international committee member Roberto Savio. Do you feel vindicated by
the global financial crisis?
Aye Aye Win: The financial crisis is a sad proof that
globalisation based only on the values of the market is fundamentally
flawed. You cannot endlessly go on speculating in the global casino.
The bubble cannot endlessly grow. All of them eventually burst, leaving
millions destitute, as is the case now. The reckless behaviour of the
financiers, and the system that permits it, amount to a crime of
unimaginable scale. What angers me in all this is that governments come
galloping along to rescue the very financial institutions that have
profiteered from the people and whose behaviour has led to the crisis!
Having said this, it is also obvious that state intervention is
necessary now that chaos has come.
IPS: Do you think this will lead to a different type of capitalism?
AAW: After a bit of patchwork here and there through bailout plans and
stimulus packages, there is a real risk that things will soon return to
business as usual - capitalists return to market worship, start playing
again in the global casino and again enter another cycle of
speculation. We as social activists have an opportunity now to go back
to the drawing board to reconstruct the global economic system to be
one based not on greed but one that does reward hard work and
innovation, a system built on solidarity and justice. We need to come
up with viable alternatives - move beyond ideology and find solutions
that work. This will indeed be a challenge. We are so good at
'opposing' but we need to become much better at 'proposing'!
IPS: The WSF meets in January, when its 'rival', the WEF convenes in
Davos. How far do you think the WSF has imposed issues on the WEF
agenda?
AAW: Whilst the WSF is really the Mecca for the social
activist, very little about the WSF is known outside this circle. On
the other hand, the WEF, that enjoys not only access to but also
control of the global media, is much better known to the broader
public. Whilst recognising the efforts made by charismatic civil
society leaders from the WSF to influence our issues at the WEF, I feel
that the impact so far has been marginal. Therefore we need to sharpen
our ideas and develop viable proposals. If our leaders need good ideas,
let them come to us at the WSF, and not go dancing to the corporate
tune at the WEF circus in Davos.
IPS: The eighth WSF last year was truly global, with the Global Call
for Action (GCAP) inviting organisations from all around the globe to
mobilise on Jan. 26. How do you see this wandering meeting evolving?
AAW: To get good coverage and make impact you need a
combination of interventions acting in concert. So this global
mobilisation was great to have; different groups ranging from the most
well-known international NGOs all the way to community based
organisations doing something on that same day. There are clear
opportunities to go beyond your usual conference circuit goers and
reach out to the people to organise something at national or local
levels and yet have the feeling that you are part of a global
initiative. Obviously it cannot work on its own. This needs to be
combined with a clear central message that captures the spirit of the
WSF.
IPS: Inside the WSF, there are different groups, some advocating a
more centralised, coherent approach. Others have criticised it for its
attempts to become a central decision-making venue for dissident
groups. What is your position?
AAW: The WSF is many things to many people including what
you have just described. I personally don't get involved in either the
romanticising of the WSF or the politicking within it. I look to the
WSF for what it is - a great global space for exchange and solidarity.
I also look to the future - when WSF can be practical and effective, be
a global leader and opinion shaper - to communicate our messages
clearly, and to develop our proposals and to bring about change.
IPS: Dignity International strives to build new generation human
rights NGOs aiming at lasting social transformation. What is your role
at the WSF?
AAW: Dignity's role at this forum is to support our social
movement partners from Africa, Asia, the Americas, to consolidate
existing alliances and to make new ones, but above all to sharpen our
strategies and work out joint concrete action for the future. We want
to strengthen local-global linkages and develop innovative ways of
doing local-global campaigning.
IPS: What do you expect from this edition of the WSF? With the
conflict in Gaza and the financial crisis, the WSF seems to be the last
thing on anyone's mind...
AAW: WSF will certainly come up with strong views on all
the prevailing global issues - foremost being the situation in Gaza,
and the financial crisis. I expect there will be clear solidarity
statements with our brothers and sisters in Gaza, and renewed calls for
peace in the Middle East and the realisation of the Palestinian
statehood dream. On the financial crisis there will be very strong 'I
told you so' statements. We need not be smug but now put our heads
together to propose what the reformed global financial and economic
architecture can actually look like.
IPS: In December, IPS spoke with Sylvia Borren, Co-Chair of the
GCAP, about the results of the Doha Financing for Development
Conference, but she said that it had been "four days spent agreeing to
another expensive U.N. meeting." What is your opinion?
AAW: To be honest I am not sure that we need any
additional agreements and yet more inflation of so-called political
commitments. We already have very strong human rights standards and the
human right of everyone to live life in dignity entrenched in the
various national, regional and international human rights instruments.
Everything about legal justice, social and economic justice, gender
justice and an enabling international order to achieve it all, and the
obligations of governments including donor countries is all there.
With these instruments governments not only have a moral
obligation but they have a legal obligation to eradicate poverty from
our planet. We need to discover the power of human rights and bring it
back from oblivion. In an age when our basic human rights are being
attacked from all sides, let's wake up, re-establish the primacy of
human rights - take a clear stand that human rights prevail over
corporate 'rights'.
IPS: President Barack Obama has brought a message of hope. What do you expect from the new government in the U.S.?
AAW: Once the honeymoon is over, the new administration
will be confronted with the fact that there are so many vested
interests at play, most notably from powerful corporations. It will
feel somewhat daunted by the fact that the structures of discrimination
and injustice are so deeply rooted that it isn't going to be so easy to
bring about fundamental change! All through the campaign he has talked
the talk, now Obama needs to walk the walk!
Link to original source
|
