Mario Soares
'War may spark a great crisis of capitalism'

By Mario Osava

The world sits on the edge of the abyss for two reasons: the war Washington is threatening against Iraq and the economic recession that is a symptom of the crisis of capitalism, says Mario Soares, European MP and former Portuguese president. It is time to discuss a new global social contract that preserves the UN and is based on the rights already established in international conventions, asserts the honorary president of the Socialist International who served as Portugal's president during two consecutive mandates (1986-1996) and as prime minister three times between 1976 and 1985. He spoke at the WSF Dialogue and Controversy Roundtable on globalisation and world governance, and brought with him a peace manifesto signed by Portuguese personalities from across the philosophical and political spectrums.

Does the growth of the World Social Forum reflect a crisis in the political parties?

Yes. The collapse of the communist world has made the socialist and social-democratic parties internalise this defeat, although it hasn’t been a defeat for socialism. They started to move towards neoliberalism, adopting certain neoliberal expressions and ideas. This has been most visible with (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair and his "third way", an approach I don't support. Left-leaning people haven't felt represented by the socialists anymore, or they feel they are insufficiently represented by the political parties, which in turn has stimulated new forms of expression and participation. Thus the success of the World Social Forum, which I have followed from the start. But I think socialist parties must be present in this field of social and environmental struggles.

But the WSF is a space for social movements, and political parties do not play a role here.

Social movements cannot replace political parties, which are essential to democracy. Political representation can only be achieved by voting, not by activism. Lula is the best example of this; he got to be president as leader of the Workers Party (PT), and made this point very clear in his speech on Friday. There is no democracy without parties, but the parties do not encompass all of democracy. There are other forms of citizenship, particularly non-governmental organisations. The WSF cannot be more than an apolitical social power, because political power requires legitimacy through popular voting. The Forum also provokes reflections about policy, which is what we did in the Roundtable (What kind of globalisation, and how should the world be governed?). It might feed political parties new ideas, and that is why socialists must be present in the unions, in the social and environmental movements, which are the ones that mobilise today’s masses.

And how do the institutions, the state, come out? Aren’t they undergoing a decline as well?

Those who attack the state the most are large multinational companies, which no longer have national ties, they have no face. We don’t know who runs them anymore, they are anonymous and their sole objective is profit, and more profit. The state ensures security, well-being and development for its citizens, and therefore we cannot align ourselves with those who fight it. It is the neoliberals who want a reduced role for the state. I have always believed that there are economic sectors that must not be privatised, which are strategic for the state, such as health, education, justice, and social security, as well as energy and water, which is a public asset and a human right.

But the state should not try be everything, or it will suffocate social life. A mistake the communists did was to make the state overly present in the economy, which causes stagnation. In a country of public servants there is no freedom, and creativity dies out. But, I am in favour of regional blocs, and the sharing of sovereignty in a European state. I am in favour of a European army, a common currency, and a common foreign policy. This means limiting the sovereignty of national states, but in another dimension and positioning in the world. It is a voluntary sharing. This would also hold true for South America.

Would it be true for the whole of the Americas? For the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)?

No, the FTAA is a way for the United States to dominate Latin America even more than it does already. That is why I am a strong critic of the fact of the European Union has not backed Mercosur (Southern Common Market – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay), and for petty reasons like the Common Agricultural Policy (which protects and subsides European farmers, blocking imports from other countries, reducing markets and pushing down prices).

Do you consider it positive that Lula went to Davos?

That was a masterstroke, it shows great flair. He was invited, accepted the invitation, and has taken the message of the people in Porto Alegre to Davos. He will say no to war, defend programmes to fight poverty, demand more attention to the Third World, to children, to social problems, and will say no to high interest rates and capital gains.

Does Lula's attempt at international dialogue come at the right time? Does it arise from the necessity to negotiate a new global contract?

Yes, it's time to talk about a new global contract. The world is undergoing a grave situation due to two greatly urgent matters: the threat of a war that must be avoided and the economic recession that could turn into the great crisis of capitalism, and which could be accelerated by the war.

As we confront this emergency, we must set priorities. One of them is not attacking the United Nations. The UN is imperfect; its Security Council does not represent the world, but the winners of World War II. Excluded are Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, and maybe South Africa. But the UN does represent the international legal system, which we cannot put at risk. You cannot let every good thing we achieved in the 20th century go to waste, such as the conventions that protect human rights, and the rights of women, children, workers, access to health: in short, all related to the UN, which must be valued and not destroyed. A social contract is needed, yes, but based on what has already been achieved, which now is at risk. The United States has set out to marginalize the UN, and the creation of the G-8 (the group of eight most industrialised countries), which lacks legitimacy, is a part of this scheme.