LESS EUPHORIC, THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM RETURNS TO BRAZIL

By Walden Bello and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

BANGKOK, Dec 31 2004 (IPS) - The mood of this year\’s World Social Forum is likely to be affected by the tsunami tragedy in South as well as the changed national context in the host country: the fiscally-conservative policies adopted by the Lula government, which have generated high unemployment and little growth, writes Walden Bello. executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South. In this article, Bello writes that the debate over the effects of globalisation has long been won by its critics, yet neoliberal policies continue to reign in most developing countries, often in the guise of World Bank-sponsored macroeconomic strategies. Bello writes that the war in Iraq will be a central concern of the meeting. It was, after all, at a WSF-related event, the 2002 European Social Forum in Florence, that the call was issued for the global anti-war march that brought out hundreds of millions of people throughout the world on February 15, 2003. That the WSF has survived and become an institution demonstrates that it has tapped into the vast reservoir of energy of global civil society. This column is part of the special series on \”Globalisation & Human Rights\”, a joint effort of Dignity International (http://www.dignityinternational.org) and the IPS Columnist Service.

Now five years old, the World Social Forum is returning to Porto Alegre, Brazil, after its big success in Mumbai, India. The mood of the thousands of people expected is likely to be affected by the tsunami tragedy in South as well as the changed national context in the host country.

At the last Porto Alegre event, in January 2003, the forum was greatly animated by triumph of the Workers’ Party candidate Lula (Luis Inacio da Silva) in the presidential polls a few months earlier. Today, the Brazilian progressive movement that is the backbone of the Porto Alegre process is dispirited owing to the fiscally-conservative policies adopted by the Lula government, which have generated high unemployment and little growth. From being the hope of the Brazilian masses, Lula has become the darling of Washington and Wall Street owing to his full compliance with the measures proposed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The ‘Lula problem’ affects not only Brazilians. Many of the thousands trekking to Porto Alegre are upset at Brazil’s role in reviving the World Trade Organisation. The WTO appeared to have entered an irreversible crisis when its Fifth Ministerial collapsed in Cancun, Mexico, in September 2003. To revive the organisation, the United States and the European Union co-opted Brazil, along with India, as partners to create a framework for negotiations for a new Agreement on Agriculture. The result was the so-called July 2004 Framework Agreement that brought the WTO back on its feet. In almost all aspects, the July Framework was a bad deal for the South, but Brazil and India’s endorsement made it difficult for most developing countries to resist its adoption by the WTO’s General Council.

How to deal not only with the WTO but with the whole phenomenon of corporate-driven globalisation will be a central concern cutting through eleven theme areas. The debate over the effects of globalisation has long been won by its critics, with the overwhelming weight of the evidence correlating free market policies with increasing inequality both within and among countries, growing numbers of poor, and weak, unsustainable growth. Yet, like the proverbial hand of the dead engineer on the throttle of a speeding train, neoliberal policies continue to reign in most developing countries, often in the guise of World Bank-sponsored macroeconomic strategies (PRSPs) ostensibly aimed at prioritising poverty reduction but are actually the same old free-market programmes with cosmetic safety nets added on.

Nevertheless, things are changing. Disenchantment with neoliberal policies is most advanced in Latin America, where one neoliberal government after another has been booted out of office by voters or, as in the case of the Sanchez de Lozada government in Bolivia, overthrown by the people. While Brazil has buckled under pressure, other governments such as those in Venezuela and Argentina are leading the way in charting other paths. Argentina, for instance, has frozen most payments to private creditors and seen its economy grow by eight per cent two years in a row. How it did this –”by ignoring or defying economic and political orthodoxy”, as the New York Times puts it– is likely to be one of the topics of hot discussion among forum participants.

As in Mumbai last year, the war in Iraq will be a central concern of the meeting. It was, after all, at a WSF-related event, the European Social Forum (ESF) held in Florence in November 2002, that the call was issued for the global anti-war march that brought out hundreds of millions of people throughout the world on February 15, 2003. But like Brazil’s excitement over Lula, the euphoria accompanying the emergence of a truly global movement for peace has since given way to frustration at being unable to stop the US invasion and force the withdrawal of US troops. This is linked to shock and anger at what many see as the message of the November 2, 2004, elections in the US: the consolidation of an electoral power base in the US from which the Republican right can rule for the foreseeable future.

Frustration will, however, be mixed with a sense of challenge for many. How to coordinate more effectively across borders? How to bring the resistance to the war from demonstrations to massive civil disobedience? How to connect the global peace movement more organically with civil society in the Middle East, which promises to be the strategic battleground in the next few years? How to hook up local struggles with the broader struggles in Iraq and Palestine? These questions will be explored at the Anti-War Assembly and other venues, and the hope of many is that the peace movement will emerge from Porto Alegre less spontaneous and more organised.

That the WSF has survived and become an institution is testimony to the fact that it has tapped into the vast reservoir of energy of global civil society. The WSF prides itself as an open space for discussion and debate among different movements. Many feel, however, that what is the source of the WSF strength may also its weakness, and that to keep from becoming ossified it needs as an institution to take more partisan stands on the key issues of the time such as Palestine, Iraq, and the WTO, and translate these stands into action programmes. This debate is likely to be more intense this year than in previous years, but whether it is closer to being resolved remains to be seen.

What distinguishes this year’s WSF from previous years? For one, this year’s forum is completely self-organised by participants, with no central panels organised by the host committee, reflecting a conscious effort to build a space that is horizontal and open, and which encourages cross-fertilisation across political, sectoral, geographic, cultural, and language barriers.

There are likely to be no surprises in Porto Alegre this year. This predictability, say many, will increasingly become a liability for what was once a very exciting space. (END/COPYRIGHT IPS)