DEVELOPMENT: Anti-Globalisation Activists, WEF, in Impromptu Debate

By Marwaan Macan-Markar Reprint | | Print |

Marwaan Macan-Markar

CANCUN, Mexico, Feb 28 2001 (IPS) - Anti-globalisation activists entered new terrain Tuesday, when they participated in their first face-to-face debate with representatives of the World Economic Forum, a group they condemn for destroying the environment and violating people’s rights in the interest of profits.

The unscheduled debate held in neutral territory in this resort city – a hotel almost half-way between the venue where business and political leaders are gathered for the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the place where anti-globalisation activists are conducting a parallel ‘Alternative Social Forum’ – was only open to the media.

For Hector de la Cueva, the executive secretary of the Continental Social Alliance, a Mexican group of activists that organised the alternative forum, the 90-minute session was a “historic moment in the struggle for social justice”.

“They were compelled to hear us, the social, environmental issues we were raising,” said de la Cueva, who was among those representing the anti-globalisation activists in the debate. “They cannot retreat now. They have to recognise the importance of talking to civil society groups about the impact of globalisation, with the media as witness.”

The themes discussed included “development and globalisation”, “democracy and globalisation” and “marginalisation as a result of globalisation”.

The significance of this milestone was not lost on Christophe Aguiton either. “It is a clear sign that the leaders in Davos (the Swiss resort town where the WEF is based) have caved into the pressure mounted by those angered by international capitalism’s impact on people, the poor,” said Aguiton, of the Paris-based anti-globalisation group ATTAC.

Furthermore, observed Aguiton, who also represented the anti- globalisation activists in the debate, this turn of events will inspire opponents of the prevailing neo-liberal model of economic development to raise their voices even louder. “What we want is an open dialogue with business leaders who seem to be only interested in profit-making.”

However, Claudia Gonzalez, the spokeswoman for the WEF, took objection to some of the criticisms levelled against the WEF. “We are aware of the problems and have been addressing these issues at our sessions,” said Gonzalez, who participated in the debate for the WEF.

In the programme schedule for the current WEF sessions a number of representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and academia were booked to participate in discussions such as “cultural identify and globalisation”, “social entrepreneurship” and the need for a “social agenda”.

But Bruce Harris questions the sincerity of efforts by the WEF to “include civil society voices”. According to Harris, the regional director of Casa Alianza, the Latin American branch of the New York City-based Covenant House, “So far it has been a monologue; there is no dialogue.”

And Harris should know. He is among the NGO representatives invited by WEF to address business leaders about the social impact of globalisation. “The invitation was okay, it was much needed, but it strikes me as a token gesture. They are trying to satisfy the anti-globalisation activists.”

What is required of the WEF is a “genuine measure, a positive step forward”, said Harris, a leading child rights activist. “They have to come out with something concrete … to demonstrate that the private sector is willing to work with NGOs and others to address the social problems.”

Failure to do so, he added, will only make the ground conditions more unstable, “which is not in the best interest of business and which make investors nervous”. And by way of example, he pointed to Mexico’s 40 million poor. “They are going to rock the boat, create instability, if they are marginalised.”

The same, he felt, would be the case if the 40 million street children in Latin America are ignored by the corporate culture and political leaders. “You cannot have social stability with so many poor children. The Economic Forum needs to have a sincere dialogue about this.”

Josep Catlla agrees with Harris. “Davos can only exist and acquire legitimacy if there is an open and free exchange of views on social problems arising from globalisation,” observed Catlla, the director of communications at the Barcelona-based Universal Cultural Forum, an independent body promoting the exchange of ideas between various cultures around the world.

“The Economic Forum needs to recognise the role activists play,” added Catlla, one of the foreign participants at the WEF’s Mexico meeting. “The way things are moving, you cannot ignore what they are saying in the streets of Seattle or Davos.”

And Araceli Dominguez is determined to get such voices and views heard. “We want them to change the way they are doing business,” said Dominguez, of a Cancun-based ecological NGO and a participant at the Alternative Social Forum.

“For them, the earth is a resource to be exploited, but for us, it is a source that gives life to all,” argued Dominguez. “And we will keep debating them till they acknowledge the difference and recognise the need for change.”