[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Long live WSF long live: Eric Toussaint

[Patrick Bond]

(Sobering on left government powerlessness. Inspiring on soc.mvt. power 
and energy.)

Counterpunch

March 3, 2009

An Interview with Eric Toussaint
A New Start for the World Social Forum?
By PAULINE IMBACH

Eric Toussaint is president of the Committee for the Cancellation of 
Third World Debt and author of The World Bank: A Critical Primer, Pluto, 
London, 2008.

Some talked about a new start for the movement for another kind of 
globalization with the World Social Forum in Belém. Do you think this is 
the case?

Since the World Social Forum (WSF) went through difficult moments in 
2006, 2007, and 2008, we can really call this 9th edition a new start. 
It was a huge success in various respects.

First it drew a considerable participation, with 133,000, possibly 
140,000, registered participants. This is remarkable and makes the Belém 
WSF one of the most popular. It is comparable to Mumbai’s in January 
2004 or to the one organized in Porto Alegre in 2005. Indeed we have to 
keep in mind that Belém is off the beaten track compared with major 
Brazilian cities such as São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Belo Horizonte, or 
Porto Alegre but also for a number of South American countries. Belém is 
difficult to get to: air fares are expensive and it takes three days by 
bus from Sao Paulo, five from Porto Alegre, and six from Buenos Aires, 
Montevideo or Asunción. Mumbai was much more accessible for Indians and 
Porto Alegre for Brazilians, Argentinians, Uruguayans, and Paraguayans.

Moreover a large majority of participants were under 30. All those young 
people massively attended the various events.

Another element that contributed to the Forum being a success is the 
visible and active presence of indigenous peoples, mainly from the 
Amazon and the Andes.

What is also indicative of a new start is that most participants were 
keen to find in-depth explanations for the various aspects of the 
current crisis and to draw their own conclusions, while eager to act and 
implement alternatives.

This is an obvious change compared with the Nairobi WSF in 2007, where 
the movement seemed to be running out of steam and unable to raise 
fundamental questions.

This turns this Forum into the first major international mobilization 
against the crisis of capitalism that started in 2007.

This new start for the WSF and the alter-globalization movement is in 
stark contrast with the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos mourning 
capitalism. President Lula, who had in former years spent one day at the 
WSF before flying to the WEF, decided that this time he would only be 
seen at the WSF and would not go to Davos. This is most significant 
since it illustrates the depth of the crisis. Lula understood that his 
social liberal management, which already leads to a lot of questioning 
from the grassroots, would be even more negatively perceived if he went 
to Davos. To clip the wings of any criticism on his left he chose to 
stay in Brazil. Similarly no other Latin American left-wing or 
centre-left president went to the Swiss ski resort, though several of 
them were invited. The economic Forum was a sorry spectacle since no 
significant representative of the Obama administration had bothered to 
go. Only Vladimir Putin, the Chinese Prime minister (which says a lot!), 
and Angela Merckel were there to discuss the survival of capitalism. 
Nicolas Sarkozy himself had decided against going to Davos. If Lula had 
gone, or if Obama had sent a high-ranking official Sarkozy would surely 
have been there!

We must also emphasize the media bias. One of the world’s leading 
financial dailies, the Financial Times, did not print one line about the 
WSF in Belém while it devoted two special issues to Davos and had over 
ten pages coverage in its regular issue. By contrast a number of 
newspapers, TV and radio channels had sent special correspondents (there 
were about 3,000 journalists) who reported on the event. Some rightly 
stress the 'reawakening' or 'second wind’ of the alterglobalization 
movement. All the daily papers in the State of Para ran five to eight 
pages about the Forum every day. The international TV channel AlJazira 
largely covered the event and gave CADTM delegates the opportunity to 
speak (see the English video at http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4012 ).

What were the major concerns at the WSF?

There were three main issues.

First the crisis of capitalism in its various dimensions, namely 
financial, economic, climate, energy, food, migration and 'governance', 
i.e. the obvious legitimacy crisis of the G8, the IMF, the World Bank, 
and the WTO. The lack of legitimacy of alternative solutions such as the 
G20 was also central.

Second, the crimes of the Israeli army against the Palestinian people. 
The Palestinian issue, though Belém lies over 12,000 km away from 
Palestine, was very much with us. From day one, with the opening march, 
a 20 meter long Palestinian flag was unfolded and carried by young 
people of ENLACE, a far-left current in the Brazilian PSOL party. 
Several people carried tokens of solidarity with the Palestinian 
struggle. Though participants had come with different concerns, they 
insisted on showing their solidarity with the Palestinian people. With 
this specific situation it was all the wars of aggression that were 
targeted, such as the war on Iraq or on Afghanistan. All agreed on the 
demand for withdrawal by the army of occupation.

A third priority issue was the struggle of indigenous peoples in 
Amazonia and the Andes. The Forum's first day of work was entirely 
dedicated to the Amazonian area (an area that extends beyond Brazil and 
includes part of Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, and Colombia - not 
forgetting Guyana, French Guiana and Surinam). The indigenous peoples 
issue covered the relationship with nature and the part they play in 
preserving it, as well as the assertion of their cultural identity and 
the way they are affected by capitalist globalization. Indigenous people 
have a lot to teach other peoples, especially with respect to their 
approach to the world (this has already been partly integrated in the 
new Constitutions voted in Ecuador in 2008 and in Bolivia in 2009). We 
could only be impressed by the contribution of delegates of indigenous 
peoples to the Forum's discussions and proposals. They played a major 
part. They gave the Forum its particular touch as they focused 
discussions on the issue of Amazonia and the Andes, and so placed the 
challenge of climate change at the core of socialist and environmental 
considerations.

Next to these three central issues we discussed a number of significant 
questions. For instance, thanks to the dynamic of the World March of 
Women the feminist approach was more visible than in former editions.

Another essential theme: understanding the predatory role played by 
transnational corporations not only in the North but also in the South. 
Since we were in Belém, many actions were directed against the Brazilian 
corporations such as Petrobras or Vale (mining industry). It was 
essential for Brazilians, who made up some 90 % of the participants, to 
become aware of their own responsibility as citizens in bringing an end 
to the nefarious action of corporations located in their country on a 
continental if not global scale.

What is the significance of the declaration by the Assembly of Social 
Movements?

This declaration has something radically new about it. We have to 
remember that from the first Forum in January 2001 there has always been 
an Assembly of Social Movements. Preparations for it go on from the 
first day of the Forum and the Assembly meets on the last day. At the 
end of the meeting a declaration is voted on. It has been drafted by 
delegates from a whole range of social movements.

Up to now these declarations were merely a list of major issues as 
perceived by social movements and a list of upcoming events. Social 
movements and various campaigns presented major moments for their 
mobilization.

The Belém declaration is different. It includes a fundamental diagnosis 
of the crisis of the capitalist system and a clear position as to how to 
move out of it. Its title and subtitle sum up this new approach: We 
won't pay for the crisis! The rich have to pay for it! Anti-imperialist, 
anti-capitalist, feminist, environmentalist and socialist alternatives 
are necessary!

So this declaration is an agenda for alternatives. To be more specific, 
it indicates that if we consider the interest of the oppressed, the 
crisis of capitalism cannot be solved by merely restoring some 
regulation mechanisms. The solution to the crisis involves a break away 
from the capitalist system. In order to overcome the crisis we have to 
grapple with the root of the problem and progress as fast as possible 
towards the construction of a radical alternative that would do away 
with the capitalist system and patriarchal domination.

Moreover the declaration conveys immediate demands: We must contribute 
to the largest possible popular mobilization to enforce a number of 
urgent measures such as nationalizing the banking sector without 
compensation and with full social monitoring; reducing working time 
without any wage cuts; taking measures to ensure food and energy 
sovereignty; stopping wars, withdrawing occupation troops and 
dismantling military foreign bases; acknowledging the peoples’ 
sovereignty and autonomy and ensuring their right to self-determination; 
guaranteeing rights to land, territory, work, education and health for 
all; democratizing access to means of communication and knowledge.

Finally this text proposes a global calendar, with special focus on the 
week of global action from 28 March to 4 April 2009. This includes our 
refusal to pay for the current crisis, our opposition to the G20 meeting 
in London on 2 April 2009, solidarity with the Palestinian people on 30 
March 2009, opposition to the commemoration of NATO's 60th anniversary 
and our demand for its dissolution. This must indeed be a week of global 
action since we agreed both on the dates and on the major themes. 
Moreover the calendar includes the recurring dates for mobilisation: 
Women's Day on the 8 March, Peasants' Day on the 17 April, Indigenous 
Peoples' Day on 12 October (the day that Columbus landed on what 
Europeans were to call the Americas in 1492).

Finally this calendar of events also includes major mobilizations on the 
occasion of the G8 meeting on Madgalena Island in Sardegna in early July 
2009, the UN Copenhagen summit on climate change in December 2009 and 
the global week of action against the debt and International Financial 
Institutions from 8 to 15 October 2009.

The groups that were most actively involved in the drafting of the 
declaration of social movements were CADTM, which put forward a proposal 
for collective drafting, the World March of Women (WMW), Via Campesina 
(particularly its Brazilian branch the Movimento sin Terra), the 
Organización continental latinoamericana y caribeña de estudiantes 
(OCLAE), delegates from European, African, and Asian social movements, 
and delegates from indigenous associations in Amazonia and the Andes.

Usually, during forums, the conclusions of the Assembly of Social 
Movements (ASM) are made public on the last day. This year, since the 
last day was dedicated to thematic assemblies and the Assembly of 
Assemblies, on which more below, the Assembly of Social Movements took 
place on 30 January, two days before the end of the Forum. On hearing 
the conclusions of ASM, Joao Pedro Stedile, from MST, said such a 
declaration was evidence of the ASM’s maturity in that it defines a 
clear agenda. In this Forum the ASM still played a stirring part since 
it defined issues in radical terms and reinforced a dynamic that had 
been present all through the Forum, namely a search for global and 
radical explanations and solutions.

If we read the declarations that most of the 11 thematic assemblies 
adopted on 1 February morning, we notice that the crisis is repeatedly 
analyzed as a crisis of capitalism. It is particularly striking when we 
read the declaration of indigenous peoples, that of the anti-war 
movements, or that adopted by the assembly of women. We are not 
interested in palliative answers based on market logic in response to 
these crises; this can only lead to a perpetuation of the same system. 
We need to advance in the construction of alternatives [. . . so as to 
confront] the capitalist and patriarchal system that oppresses and 
exploits us.

The declaration of indigenous peoples uses similar terms to those found 
in the ASM declaration to formulate demands for an antiracist, 
antipatriarchal and socialist alternative that would respect the earth 
mother. The crisis of the capitalist, eurocentric, patriarchal and 
racist development model is complete and opens onto the biggest social 
and environmental crisis in the history of humankind. The financial, 
economic and energy crisis contributes to structural unemployment, 
social exclusion, racist violence, machism, and religious fanaticism. So 
many deep and simultaneous crises spell out a genuine crisis in Western 
civilisation, the crisis of the ‘capitalist development and modernity’ 
that jeopardizes all forms of life. Yet even in such a quandary some 
still dream of improving this model and will not recognize that the 
present crisis is a product of capitalism itself, on eurocentrism with 
its model of a State for one nationality, of cultural homogeneity, of 
Western positive law, and of commodification of life.

While some social movements or campaigns (particularly European ones) 
are still hesitant if not reluctant to mention socialist alternatives, 
the assembly of indigenous peoples is quite explicit about it. And it 
has to be stressed that the two texts were drafted by different people 
at different venues of the Forum, even though the ASM declaration was 
discussed in a general assembly of delegates of all represented 
movements, including of course those of indigenous peoples (who were 
massively present at the ASM).

In the drafting committee we had debated how we could indicate the 
contribution of indigenous organizations to the struggle against 
capitalist globalization. A first draft mentioned the indigenous 
movements ‘reappearing’ over the past 15 years, which I hardly found 
satisfactory. And as soon as the text was read in the general assembly, 
several delegates of indigenous movements demanded that the text be 
changed and mention a ‘new encounter’ between indigenous and social 
movements over the past years. The indigenous peoples rightly observed 
that they had not waited for other social movements to find out about 
them before starting their own struggle. They have been resisting 
capitalism and various forms of domination imposed on them for five 
centuries. The assembly considered they were right and the text was 
changed accordingly.

What can be said about the presence of political parties and certain 
governments at the WSF?

The participation of political parties is a new development, since 
political parties were not much in evidence at the previous Forums in 
Brazil and Africa. They were not much in evidence either at the WSF in 
Mumbai, India in January 2004 or at certain regional or continental 
Forums, in particular those in Karachi, Caracas, or Athens in 2006.

First of all, it should be said that the left-wing Brazilian parties 
(the PT, PSOL and PSTU) were particularly present in the Forum program 
itself but that their participation varied in nature. For the PT, it was 
more a matter of Lula’s government and administration being present 
(several ministers attended) than of PT participation as such. On the 
other hand, the PSOL and PSTU, both of them opposition parties, were 
active in supporting the interests of trade unions they are close to, 
especially ConLutas and Inter Syndical.

The presence of political parties within the Forum precincts seems to me 
vital, since the Forum should be a platform for debate between political 
parties, social movements, citizen organizations and grass roots 
movements. It would be perfectly logical if, at each edition of the 
Social Forum, the political parties linked to the Forum process were 
present. It is time to end the “ghetto-ization” of the social movements, 
NGOs and citizen movements, as if they were incapable of debating, let 
alone actively collaborating, with political organizations that are 
willing to fight against capitalist globalization.

Note that for the first time, four presidents were there together: Evo 
Morales (Bolivia), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Fernando Lugo (Paraguay) and 
Hugo Chavez (Venezuela). They represent the aspirations of the global 
justice movement in general and Latin-American social movements in 
particular. We should recall that in 2005 there were two meetings of 
Latin-American presidents during the WSF - the first attended by Hugo 
Chavez, and later, a second by president Lula. In addition, on the 
occasion of the 2006 polycentric forum in Caracas, Hugo Chavez took part 
in another big public meeting.

What was new at Belém was that for the first time, four presidents were 
addressed by social movements. It is very important that social 
movements confront presidents with a number of realities and try to get 
them to commit to measures for implementing an alternative model and 
regional integration in Latin America – an integration that is genuinely 
favourable to the people, respectful of nature and not subordinated to 
the interests of capitalist transnational corporations. It should also 
be emphasized that the four presidents had been invited by social 
movements, specifically on the initiative of the MST (Landless Rural 
Workers’ Movement), La Via Campesina and the WMW (World March of Women), 
all of which had decided to exclude Lula, given the content of his 
anti-social policy (the local press made much of this exclusion).

Lula’s political stance is close to the liberal social model of Gordon 
Brown in England, or of Zapatero in Spain. It mainly favours the big 
capitalist Brazilian companies established throughout Latin America, the 
powerful Brazilian agribusiness sector, the private banking system, and 
the big transnational corporations located in Brazil. It is a policy 
that promotes exports as fundamental to development, in particular the 
sugar cane industry with a view to producing ethanol, and transgenic soy 
exports. In ecological terms, however, the consequences for the last 
five years have been catastrophic. Since 2003, Lula’s policies have 
engendered deforestation in Amazonia over an area equal to that of 
Venezuela.

During the WSF, the Lula government’s aim was to regain some legitimacy 
with a left-wing sector and with politically committed young people 
opposed to Lula’s neo-liberal policies. While the message of the Lula 
government was geared to be anti-neoliberal, the participants themselves 
were a move ahead, placing responsibility for the global crisis squarely 
on the capitalist system.

1,000 social movement delegates were present at this meeting attended by 
four presidents. Many more WSF participants would have liked to be there 
but it was necessary to proceed by delegation. The session began with a 
political address by Camille Chalmers, secretary general of PAPDA 
(Platform to Advocate Alternative Development) in Haiti, who is a member 
of Jubilee South, CADTM and COMPAS (a Caribbean alliance of social 
movements). He stressed the positive nature of the audit initiative of 
the Correa government in Ecuador and the partial suspension of 
commercial debt repayments. He then addressed Hugo Chavez and Evo 
Morales on setting up debt audits in their respective countries and 
reminded them that they had undertaken to do this after the Alba 
meeting, in the presence of Rafael Correa, at the end of November 2008 
in Caracas. Before the presidents took the floor, two feminists also 
spoke: Magdalena Leon of REMTE and Nalu Faria of the WMW .

The first president to speak was Rafael Correa. His arrival at the Forum 
had been a subject of controversy. The day before he came, the 
Confederation of Indian Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE) sent a message 
to the WSF asking that Correa be declared persona non grata in view of 
his policy regarding foreign investment in the country’s extractive 
industries, which directly affect the indigenous populations. In 
response to this radical challenge, in his speech Rafael Correa adopted 
a very left-leaning discourse on 21st century socialism. While his 
speech might be seen as altogether positive, placed in its context it 
appears to be a way of regaining a legitimacy that has been damaged by 
the type of capitalist, productivist, national model he is installing in 
his country. In addition, he made no mention of the debt issue, whereas 
in his introduction Camille Chalmers had stressed the positive nature of 
the debt audit and Ecuador’s partial suspension of repayments since 
November 2008.

Fernando Lugo then made a speech in which he stressed that it is 
absolutely vital for Brazil to acknowledge that the application of the 
Itaipu treaty is causing a terrible and unfair debt burden for Paraguay. 
The binational company Itaipu has a total debt of US$ 20 billion, half 
of this sum to be repaid by Paraguay and the other half by Brazil. 
Almost 95% of these debts are owed to Brazilian companies. Lugo 
explained that he expected Brazil to adopt a friendly and honourable 
stance by acknowledging the one-sided nature of this treaty. The 
Paraguayan authorities and people want the debt held against them to be 
radically reduced. They want to be able to increase the price of the 
electricity they supply to Brazil and sell electricity to other 
countries in the region, so as to increase the State’s revenues and thus 
be in a position to start the social reforms for which Lugo was elected 
in April 2008.

Lugo also intends to set up a commission for an international audit of 
the Itaipu treaty. He has decided that negotiations with Lula on the 
Itaipu treaty will be public, though the Lula government wants them to 
be confidential and on a diplomatic basis.

Evo Morales was the next to speak. His speech was interesting in that he 
positioned himself as being part of the social movements. He affirmed 
that none of the presidents here today would be president if there had 
not been profound social struggles and if social movements had not 
frequently overthrown presidents favouring neo-liberal policies. He told 
the social movements they should not hesitate to summon the presidents 
regularly so that they would be obliged to make reports. Evo Morales 
alluded to the situation of his country after the adoption by referendum 
of the new constitution on 27 January 2009 (that is, on the first day of 
the WSF), which is a major step forward for Bolivia.

Finally, he explained the entirely counter-revolutionary role of the 
Bolivian catholic hierarchy: playing on the WSF slogan, he exclaimed 
“another Church is possible”. In this way he was addressing his 
colleague Fernando Lugo, a former Catholic bishop and liberation 
theologist, and, in the audience, François Houtart who is also a 
liberation theologist, working for the Church of the poor.

Chavez, in his turn, insisted on the anti-capitalist and socialist 
option and added a feminist dimension by declaring that he had become a 
firm feminist.

After these speeches, João Pedro Stedile, president of MST, gave a 
closing address that was very exemplary in manner. Instead of 
congratulating the presidents, he said that the time they had lost and 
the fact that they had proven unable, in the face of the crisis, to 
adopt measures for the benefit of the people, were regrettable. In this 
way he was criticizing all the Latin-American presidents who met in 
Salvador de Bahia in December. Addressing the four presidents before 
him, he declared that in the absence of a joint response from all the 
presidents, the social movements expect the four left-wing presidents to 
take fundamental, stuctural measures without delay to respond to the 
capitalist crisis. In addition, he suggested they did not wait to be 
summoned by the social movements, but to regularly invite those 
movements to come to them and then listen to what they have to say.

This meeting was an important event within the WSF, and a step forward 
in the dialogue between social movements and governments. This type of 
exchange could only happen in Latin America, in the sense that several 
left-wing governments have emerged from radical social struggles linked 
to the WSF dynamic: before being elected president in April 2008, 
Fernando Lugo had attended the WSF of Porto Alegre in 2005 as a 
Paraguayan delegate, travelling there by bus from Asunción.

At the end of this day, president Lula called another meeting at another 
venue in Belém – more a presentation of his politics than anything else. 
He invited H. Chavez, R. Correa, E. Morales and F. Lugo, all of whom 
also spoke. This meeting took place in a very different context. There 
was no question of dialogue with social movements or of listening to 
eventual criticism of his policies or those of the other presidents.

Can we note a switch to the left among some Latin American governments? 
Is there any progress in terms of regional integration?

We cannot really say the four governments invited to the WSF are moving 
to the left. In Venezuela, a series of positive measures have been taken 
in 2008 in term of nationalizations, such as the nationalization of the 
big steel company Sidor after an extended social conflict, or the 
nationalization of the Bank of Venezuela which belonged to one of the 
two largest Spanish private banking groups. It is quite hard to assess 
Lugo’s work since he has only been in office since August 2008, i.e. for 
less than six months. To be able to form an opinion, it is necessary to 
leave him more time. Nevertheless, what can be said is that, in view of 
the crisis that begins to directly affect the Latin American economies 
and populations, the four governments have not managed to implement a 
concerted alternative policy.

A source of inspiration should be the proposals drawn from the 
conference that was convened by the Venezuelan authorities in October 
2008, “Responses from the South to the global economic crisis”. This 
conference resulted in a declaration which included a series of very 
concrete proposals that, unfortunately, have not been followed by 
decisions up to now. As far as integration is concerned, it must be 
noted that the Bank of the South, which has officially existed since 
December 2007, has not yet started business. It is clearly in a stalemate.

After these very important critical observations, some positive elements 
deserve to be highlighted. First, in December 2008 Salvador do Bahia 
hosted a meeting of all Latin American presidents which marked Cuba’s 
return to the common Latin American scene. On this occasion, the Mexican 
president Felipe Calderon (right wing government) and Raul Castro (from 
Cuba) met without the US government being invited to this summit. And 
yet, since the 1959 Cuban revolution, the US had managed to 
diplomatically isolate Cuba to such an extent that the main meetings on 
the continental scale were those of the Organization of American States 
(OAS), which consists of the states of North and Latin America, 
excepting Cuba. Now Latin American states, including right wing 
governments, are forming a coalition without Washington, so as to 
resolve by themselves some regional problems, such as the conflict that 
broke out on 1 March 2008 after the Colombian army intervened on 
Ecuadorian territory. It is positive.

The other positive element regarding the integration process is the 
continuing enlargement of the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative for the 
Americas). At the beginning, it included Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. In 
2008, it extended to include Honduras and the island of Dominica. For 
some months we have noted Ecuador’s cautious rapprochement.

What went on about the debt issue?

Several talks dealt with the debt topic. The most attended one gathered 
some 500 people and was about debt auditing in Latin America and the 
Brazilian Congress setting up a Parliamentary Investigation Commission. 
The CADTM and Jubilee South were the most represented networks in the 
WSF. Latindadd, Eurodad and Afrodad were also present. As mentioned in 
the final declaration of the debt campaigns, a new international crisis 
of the public debt is in the making.

Was there anything new about the organization of the Forum?

Yes. The Assembly of Assemblies, which followed the self-managed 
thematic assemblies, is an important innovation. From the first, WSF 
social movements have established the tradition of a final unifying 
assembly, convened alongside the official programme of the Forum. For 
several years, a series of constituent parts of the Forum have been 
asking for the Forum itself to actively and consciously promote 
convergences among participating organizations, so as to bring forth 
common alternatives, common actions and proposals. There was some 
resistance within the International Council (IC), but this year is a 
turning point and marks an advance for the WSF with the convening of the 
Assembly of Assemblies.

On the first day (27 January) the Forum started with a big opening march 
in the streets. On the second day all activities focused on the Amazon 
region, which highlighted the contribution of indigenous peoples. This 
pan-Amazon day was followed by two days in which all topics could be 
dealt with in self-managed activities. And finally, on the morning of 
the last day (1 February), self-managed thematic assemblies were held, 
followed in the afternoon by an Assembly of Assemblies where the 
conclusions of each thematic assembly were presented as well as the 
final declaration of the Assembly of Social Movements – ASM – (which 
took place on 30 January). It was obviously an extremely positive choice.

This being said, it has to be qualified: the IC and the local organizing 
committee did not put enough energy in coordinating the self-managed 
activities of the third and fourth days. This resulted in too much 
dispersion since almost 2,000 activities were organized. In the 4 to 6 
months before the Forum a group of volonteers and permanent staff should 
have been in touch with all the organizations registering activities so 
as to group and merge them. It would have avoided many duplications. In 
this respect the CADTM made a special effort since all its activities 
were co-organized with others. The CADTM did not organize any activity 
on its own. As far as responses to the crisis are concerned, the CADTM 
was involved in two initiatives that gathered tens of different 
organizations . Similarly activities on the debt issue were held with 
Jubilee South, Latindadd, and national campaigns active on the issue, 
especially in Brazil.

Another weak point: the Assembly of Assemblies was held in unfavourable 
material conditions. It was held outdoors, without any translation 
system. Participants could not ask questions to people reading the 
conclusions reached by the various thematic assemblies. For the next 
editions an indoor venue and a translation system will be needed to make 
a real exchange on the conclusions possible.

Compared with the edition held in Nairobi in January 2007, was the Forum 
more accessible to the more oppressed people? Did the local population 
actively take part in the Forum?

The Forum was very well attended by people of the region. About 100,000 
people from the state of Para, the capital of which is Belem, were 
present. The entry fee for Brazilians amounted to 30 reals, that is 10 
euros, the price of 8 to 10 meals in a popular canteen. It was thus a 
high price to pay for the sector of the population that devotes 80 per 
cent of its income to mere survival. The entrance fee should have been 
even lower so as to prompt larger participation.

Another questionable aspect, for which the organizing committee is not 
responsible, but which is the result of the federal government’s and the 
state of Para’s policies, is the discrimination against the poorest 
neighbourhoods of the city. 200 antiriot police were stationed in the 
two poorest neighbourhoods and the authorities imposed the Ley Seca, a 
law that prohibits selling alcohol in the evening. It is thus an obvious 
discriminatory policy against the “dangerous classes”, to use a 19th 
century expression. In the rest of the city, the police presence was 
very discreet and alcohol could be sold at any time of the day and night.
It must also be said that people living in flimsy houses around the 
university where the Forum took place were evicted right before the 
Forum so as to “clean up” the place.
During the International Council, the CADTM raised the question of the 
entrance fee with the organizing committee and criticized the State 
authorities’ attitude regarding poor populations. The members of the 
organizing committee said they were deeply concerned by this kind of 
policies too.

To conclude, the WSF should be fully open to the local populations 
without any financial barrier. The organization of a Forum should not be 
accompanied by security measures in which the police target the lower 
classes, while these ought to be the central actors of change in a 
process like the WSF and alterglobalism.

What are the developments within the International Council (IC)?

A positive evolution has been noted within the IC around this WSF. On 
the one hand, before the Forum, given the strategic choice of convening 
an Assembly of Assemblies, and on the other hand, after the WSF, during 
the two-day IC meeting. The Forum’s success resulted in the 
dispassionate climate of IC debates and proposals. The meeting included 
a strategic discussion introduced by a document presented by Gus 
Massiah. Without any vote being held on the subject, the IC was visibly 
willing to make the action plans succeed, and especially the global week 
of action that was agreed on during the ASM. Whereas in past editions 
some constituent parts, including some founding members of the Forum, 
were opposed to organizing large demonstrations as part of the Forum, 
especially the ones organized against the war in 2003 and 2004, on this 
occasion, they approved the agenda of actions. It is clear that the 
global crisis of capitalism has changed things. Everyone is now faced 
with the need to act.

This raises several questions: does it reflect the IC’s response 
capacity, which was slumbering and reluctant to push for action? Will 
the change observed after the Belém Forum be lasting or temporary?
It is important for the organizations that can actively spur the IC in 
the good direction to assume their responsibilities. In this regard, the 
CADTM firmly intends to assume its responsibilities together with other 
organizations willing to improve the IC’s functioning, so that the IC 
contributes to facing the challenges of the global capitalist crisis.

Moreover, a proposal that must be supported was launched during the IC, 
i.e. holding a meeting in Gaza in 2010, with attendant public activities 
designed for hundreds of participants. This project has to be made 
reality in the first half of 2010 to support the Palestinian people’s 
struggle.

Does the social movements’ action plan stand a chance to succeed?

For the ASM’s call to be successful all the organizations that 
participated in the Forum or support this call must organize it all, so 
that in their respective country or region, this call results in 
mobilization. There are other events we have to participate in. Surely 
some current or recent struggles (in Greece, in France, in Guadaloupe 
and Martinique …) can help this agenda to succeed. Workers and unions 
affected by the large layoff plans in entire economic sectors must get 
involved.

Translated by Judith Harris, Stéphanie Jacquemont and Christine Pagnoulle.


See http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4087
See http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4087

See http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4104

Original text in Spanish: http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4133

Read: Ignacio Ramonet, La vraie gauche et les mouvements sociaux. 
http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4102

See the full declaration http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article3802

See the final declaration of the debt campaigns which was read by 
Camille Chalmers (member of CADTM and Jubilee South) during the Assembly 
of Assemblies http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4128

The CADTM delegation to the WSF was composed of nearly thirty delegates 
from 14 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Benin, Brazil, Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, France, Haiti, India, Ivory Coast, 
Japan, Marocco, Pakistan, Togo. The delegates from Colombia, Venezuela 
and Tunisia were not able to arrive in Belem).

One of these initiatives led to the declaration “Let’s put finance in 
its place!” http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4120

See the complete document, entitled “The dangers and opportunities of 
the global crisis” http://www.cadtm.org/spip.php?article4099