Contents: 1. News and Announcements 2. Statements/Call For Action/Press Releases/Letters 2.a. CALL TO ACTION of the ANTI-WAR ASSEMBLY, World Social Forum 2005, Porto Alegre, Brazil 2.b Statement of Concern in the WSF 2005, on the threat of violence in the resolution of political differences 2.c Press Release: Nation wide Quit India Campaign against Coke and Pepsi 3. Articles 3.a Roller Coaster of a Decade for the World Trade Organization - Walden Bello 3.b Comment on Iraqi elections: Getting the Purple Finger- Naomi Klein 3.c The World Social Forum Sprouts Wings - Amit Sen Gupta ===================================================================== 1. NEWS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.a Workshop on Patent (Amendment) Ordinance 2004. 9 February 2005, 3.30 Pm Venue: Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh Hall, Opp. BMC Office, Near CST (VT), Mumbai - 400 001 1.b Seminar: Doing Business under the WTO's New Framework and Developing Markets through Competition. 10 February 2005, Mumbai. At Indian Merchants Chambers, Churchgate, Mumbai 1.c Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace, New Delhi. National Committee Meeting. February 25 and 26, 2005. Anti War Meeting - 26 February 2005 2 pm, USO House, Jeet Singh Marg, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110067 1.d Joint Convention of Pakistan- India Peoples Forum for Peace and Democracy, 25-28 February 2005, at the Constitution Club, New Delhi. 2. STATEMENTS/CALL FOR ACTION/PRESS RELEASES/LETTERS 2.a CALL TO ACTION of the ANTI-WAR ASSEMBLY, World Social Forum 2005, Porto Alegre, Brazil ------------------------------------------------------------------- On the day of elections in Iraq, anti-war movements, coalitions and organizations the world over came together in an Anti-War Assembly and called for massive mobilizations on March 19 and 20. Representatives from over 33 countries, including Iraq and Palestine, also discussed strategiesand actions beyond March 20. This is the report of the proposals made at the Assembly. To get involved with the different campaigns, please email
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
-------------------------------------------------------------------- Two years after the invasion of Iraq, there is more opposition to the war in the US, in the coalition countries, and all over the world than ever before. The justifications for the war have all been proven to be lies. A widespread and popular resistance has risen up against the occupation forces. Over 100,000 Iraqis and over 1,500 coalition soldiers have been killed. With the global condemnation of the war and the inability of the United States to quell the resistance in Iraq, we stand at a critical moment in which there is a real chance that the war could be stopped. Now is the time for the anti-war movement to take action, not to retreat. It is time to escalate the protests, not to give up. A defeat for US-led forces in Iraq will be a victory for everybody facing US aggression globally. We demand an end to the occupations of Iraq and Palestine. We demand that the US desists from attacking Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries. We must highlight the dangers of global war especially in Latin America where the US threatens to intervene in many countries. We call for a Global Day of Action against War on March 19/20 demanding troops out of Iraq now, no more wars. We call for a rolling waveof massive demonstrations, civil disobedience, and other forms of protest around the world. IRAQ We call for the immediate withdrawal of occupation troops and support all efforts to bring them home. We support efforts to organize soldiers, conscientious objectors, and military families against the war. We support the counter-recruitment campaign and demand political asylum for deserters. We support the right of the Iraqi people to resist occupation while condemning the killing of innocent civilians. We support efforts to understand the full range of civil, political, and armed resistance in Iraq to further strengthen our campaigns. We commit to deepening our links of solidarity with the people of the Middle East. We demand the closure of US military bases around the world and support efforts towards the abolition of nuclear weapons, the banning of the arms trade, and other moves towards demilitarization. We support efforts to stop the economic occupation of Iraq by corporations and international financial institutions. And we will escalate our campaign against these war profiteers through boycotts and direct action. We call for protests against Bush and his allies wherever they go. PALESTINE We support the Palestinian people¹s struggle for justice, self-determination, a sovereign independent state with Jerusalem as its capital and the implementation of the right of return inaccordance with UN resolution 194. We call upon the international community and governments to impose political and economicsanctions on Israel, including an embargo on armaments. We call upon the social movements to mobilize also for divestment and boycotts. These efforts aim to force Israel to implement international resolutions, and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, to stop and take down the illegal wall and end all occupation and apartheid policies. We support the Israeli anti-colonialist, anti-Zionist activists who share this struggle. We reaffirm the call for a Global Day of Action on March 19/20 and a wave of protest to stop warand end the occupations. *To send plans for demonstrations on March 19/20, email:
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
or
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
For more information on campaigns, email
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
COUNTRIES DEMONSTRATING on MARCH 19/20: (preliminary list) Iraq, Palestine, Argentina, Brasil, India, US (400 cities), Italy, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Britain, Turkey, Macedonia, Cyprus, Philippines, Australia, Thailand, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Hungary, Poland, Canada, Austria, Mexico, Spain (Barcelona, Madrid), Hawaii, Venezuela, New Zealand, The Netherlands DETAILED ACTION PLAN PROPOSALS FOR MARCH 19/20: - Common slogan: Troops Out of Iraq Now! No more wars! Each country is of course free to use their own slogans. - To hold big demonstrations or other forms of protest in your own countries - List all cities and countries demonstrating on a common website: www.march19th.org <http://www.march19th.org/> PROPOSALS FOR BUILDING LINKS WITH THE MIDDLE EAST AND STRENGTHENING THE RESISTANCE: - Organize a roundtable conference outside Iraq inviting all the different groups and anti-occupation forces in Iraq to dialogue with the global anti-war movement - Support the existing campaigns that build links between civil society in Iraq and other countries. - Send a team to Iraq to work with Iraqis to produce a multimedia project, Voices of Resistance, that shows all the different forms of resistance in Iraq to serve as a mobilizing tool to get rid of US occupation. - Make use of all opportunities to link with the Middle East, including the Cairo Conference March 24-27, the Mediterranean Social Forum in June, the World Tribunal in Iraq in 2005 and the World Peace Forum in Vancouver, Canada on June 21-27, 2006. - Encourage all groups to share contacts and information so as to avoid replication of efforts. PROPOSALS TO OPPOSE OTHER US THREATS OF INTERVENTION - Because George Bush is the symbol of global war, there should be protests wherever he goes: (1) July 2nd-6th: Edinburgh Scotland, Global Action against Bush and the G8. (2) November: Mar del Plata, Protest against Bush and American Summit of Presidents. - Link our anti-war work to campaigns against attacks or threats of intervention in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries. PROPOSALS AGAINST WAR PROFITEERS AND INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS - Strenghten protests and direct action against the 2 largest war profiteers: Halliburton and Bechtel. - Encourage people not to buy goods from US/UK multinationals and encourage people instead to buy from local businesses. - Encourage socially responsible companies to take a stand against the war - Protest against the World Trade Organization (WTO), especially on the 6th Ministerial n December 13-18 in Hong Kong - Launch a campaign to stop Iraq from becoming a member of the WTO - Disseminate materials on the war profiteers in Arabic PROPOSALS FOR PALESTINE - Send civilian missions to Palestine - Launch a campaign of sanctions, boycott and divestments - Launch a campaign for embargo on arms and suspension of economic agreements with Israel PROPOSALS FOR WAR RESISTERS - Organize a gathering of anti-war forces from the countries that support the coalition forces in Iraq to coordinate strategies - Strengthen efforts to encourage young people NOT to join the military - Provide support for soldiers who refuse to fight in Iraq including: (1) encourage countries like Canada and individual cities to provide asylum (2) organize speaking tours of dissenting soldiers (3) collect stories from various countries of soldiers who refused to fight PROPOSALS AGAINST MILITARY BASES AND NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION - Support and get involved in the process of building an international movement demanding the closure of foreign military bases around the world - Show solidarity with the struggle of the Okinawans to stop the construction of US bases in Henoko- Support global actions on May 1 to demand the abolition of nuclear weapons - on the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, call for global actions on August 6-9 to say ³No more Hiroshimas! No more Nagasakis. 2.b Statement of Concern in the WSF 2005, on the threat of violence in the resolution of political differences. The last few years have seen a very large number of diverse groups and organisations coming together in spite of their differences to confront neo-liberal globalisation. However, we are deeply concerned that there are still some groups in the world today that attempt to deal with political differences using physical attacks and death threats. A recent example of this is the situation which has emerged in the Philippines where a number of individual intellectuals, activists (Walden Bello and Lidy Nacpil) and organisations engaged in various forms of struggle against militarism and globalised capitalism have been listed by the international department ofthe Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) as "counter-revolutionary" and as "agents of imperialism". Some individuals named on this list have already been assassinated and, based on past experiences, this list constitutes a credible threat of assassination. Therefore, those of us gathered here in the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil and others in the world, inspired by the pluralism and inclusiveness of this global process, believe that when the security of activists is at stake we cannot act as if the problem is a local one. In our efforts to consistently build an international movement for fundamental transformation we strongly reiterate that the resolving of political differences must be done through the struggle of ideas and democratic dialogue and not through the politics of individual assassination. We call on everyone within the global justice movements to re-assert this principle and express solidarity with all those who are victims of such threats. Alex Callinicos, York University, UK Ali Fayyad, Centre for Research and Documentation, Lebanon Allianca Social Continentale (ASC) Alvaro Porticas, Socialist Party, Uruguay Amit Sengupta aand Prabir Purkayastha, Delhi Science Forum, India Anibal Quijano, sociologist, Peru Anna Maria R. Nemenzo, Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines Anna Marize, ICARIA, Spain Annick Coupe, Solidaire, France Antonio Martin, ATTAC, Brasil Bertil Kinkunnen, Social Democratic Party of Sweden Brid Brennan, TNI, Netherlands Campagna Continentale contra a ALCA Chico Whittaker, Brasil Chris Nineham, Stop the War Coalition, UK Christophe Aguiton, European March against Unemployment CUT, Brasil Dot Keet, AIDC, South Africa Ernst Van Weizaker, MP, Germany Franc Branco & Ole von Ulexhill, Right Livelihood Award Foundation Francois Houtart, CETRI, Belgium Hillary Wainwright, Red Pepper, UK Jan Nederven Pieterse, University of Illinois, USA Joao Pedro Stedile, Movimiento Sem Terra, Brazil Jean Luc Rous, Political Director, Greenpeace International Jean Pierre Dubois, Federation internationale des droits des hommes (FIDH) Jeremy Corbin, M.P., UK John Cavanagh, Institute of Policy Studies, USA Jose Correa, Brasil Josu Egireun, ESK, Basque Country Kamal Chenoy, Jawarhalal Nehru University, India Laura Gonzalez de Txabarri, ELA, Basque Country Leo Panitch, Socialist Register, UK Lim Soei Liong, TAPOL, Indonesia Human Rights Campaign Louis Weber, Federation Synicale Unitaire, France Luciano Muhlbauer, SinCobas, Italy Marcha Mundial des Mulheres Marco Berlinguer. Transform! and Parti Rifondazione Communista, Italy Marcus Arruda, Global Workshop on Solidarity Socioeconomy, Brasil Mark Rand, USA Maud Barlow, Council of Canadians Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange, United States Moema Miranda, IBASE Mubarak Awad, Non Violence International, Palestine/US Naomi Klein, Canada Niclas Hallstrom, Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, Sweden Njoki Njoroge Njehu, 50 years is enough, USA Patrice Barrat, Bridge Initiative, France Peiro Bernotti, COBAS, Italy Petros Constantine, Campaign Genoa 2000 Peter Rosset, CECCAM, Mexico Pierre Galand, senator, Belgium Pierre Khalfa, ATTAC France Pouria Amirshahi, 4D, France Rabia Abdel Karim, Senegal/Algeria Robin Broad, American University, USA Rogate Mishane, Tanzania Roger Burbach, CENSA, USA Salim Vally, Anti-war Coalition, South Africa Sandeep Pandey, India Sophie Zafari, Federation Syndicale Unitaire, France Soren Ambrose, 50 years is enough, USA Susan George, ATTAC, France Tariq Ali, UK Tewoo Tangela, Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, SA Tobias Plüger, Member of the European Parliament, Germany, Information Office on MilitarisationToufik Ben Abdullah, ENDA, Senegal Vinod Raina, Jubilee South Vittorio Agnoletto, Deputy European Parliament ===================================================================== 2.c Press Release: A Nation wide Quit India Campaign against Coke and Pepsi On 20th Jan., 2005 thousands of people across India will surround 87 Coke and Pepsi plants with human chain from 12 noon to 1.30 pm and serve a notice to Coke and Pepsi to Quit India on the ground of violating article 21 of the Indian Constitution which guarantees the right to life. Coke and Pepsi are threating the fundamental right to life by mining ground water and creating local water famine. They are also threatening the right to life by selling hazardous soft drinks loaded with toxic chemicals. On 15th of Jan., 2005 the community at Plachimada celebrated 1000 days of resistance against Coca-Cola. For the past year the Coke plant at Plachimada has been closed because of the determined resistance of Advasi women who started anti Coke agitation and the Perumatty Panchayat (Local Government) served notice to the company and went to the High Court. The High Court of Kerala ruled that Coka-cola mining of Ground water was illegal. Ground Water does not belong to Coke or the Government. It belongs to local community and government is merely a trusty of water as a community resource. The government's duty wound to prevent corporation like Coke from mining Ground water. Coke-Pepsi are also violating our right to health. The report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee following the disclosure of pesticides in soft drinks by the Centre for Science and Environment, as well as recent studies published in a large number of medical journals have clearly indicated that soft drink manufacturers have been using significant quantities of very harmful and toxic chemicals in their drinks in order to make them more attractive and addictive.They have been clearly pushing their sales and profits at the cost of public health. The sustained attempt by the Coke-Pepsi companies to refuse to disclose the contents and ingredients of their drinks, is clear Coke-Pepsi are refusing to abide by the order of the Rajasthan High Court ordering Coke-Pepsi to disclose the contents of their drinks (including pesticides) on Coke-Pepsi labels, and instead resorting to endless review petitions and appeals. In fact the requirement to disclose the ingredients of all packaged food items on their labels has been therein the Prevention of Food Adulteration rules for a long time. The fact that it has not been enforced against you shows how Coke-Pepsi subvert and undermine our national laws. It is now known that most soft drinks contain an extremely toxic brew of chemicals which are now known to be very harmful to human health. Apart from pesticides, the chemicals which are deliberately added include large quantities of phosphoric Acid (added to give them 'bite'), caffeine (added to make them addictive), large quantities of sugar (to make it extra sweet), ethylene glycol (an extremely toxic anti freeze compound added to allow them to be drunk 'extra chilled' at sub zero temperatures) and Carbon Dioxide. The response of the soft drinks companies to all this is to employ every stratagem to frustrate any attempt to regulate you in any manner. Coke-Pepsi are not even willing to disclose the harmful chemicals that Coke-Pepsi use in their products. In these circumstances, the time has come to demand that Coke-Pepsi must close down operations and leave the country. The country cannot afford to mortgage our precious water resources and the health of our citizens to Coke-Pepsi super profits and greed. Coke and Pepsi continued crimes against the earth and the people of India compel us to ask the Cola Companies to "Quit India" The National day of action against Coke and Pepsi is being Co-organised by Research Foundation Science, Technology and Ecology and Azadi Bachao Andolan in partnership with self organised local movements at the following plants. According to local coordinators of the mentioned districts the number of participants in each action are:- Name of District Number of Participant in Human Chain Name of the Convener Kolkata Will be organised on 5th March,2005Sh. Manoj Goa5000Sh. Kalanand MassiMadurai1000Sh. K.M. NatrajanErode1500Dr. V. JeevanandhamCoimbatur2000 Ooty Mumbai5000Sh. Vikas Mahangare/Sh. Atul MishraBhuvneshwar2500Sh. Sanjay Sawant RaiCuttack1500Sh, Ramakant MandalAhmdabadWill be organised on 29th Jan.,2005Sh. Mahadev VidrohiThane1000Sh. Shyam KhairkarNasik2000Sh. Vasant RaojiKosikala (Mathura)2000Sh. P.K. SinghChandigarh(at 500Prof. Vonod NandaPanipat5000Sh. Mahesh dutt SharmaHyderabad Dr. V. KrishnaTrivendrumWill be organised on 29th Jan,2005Sh. Gopinathan NairBanglore Jamshedpur1500Sh. OmprakashPatna5000Sh. Gorelal ManishiVaishali3000Sh. Nishant GandhiBalia5000Adv. Ranjit SinghHathras4000Sh. S.K. SinghHapur5000Sh. Nanak Chandra SharmaPune Sh. Suresh PingleRaisen5000Maharaj Vinay Sagar Ji/Sh. Ramkishor SharmaBilaspur2000Sh. Jayant JoshiPalakkad1500Sh. P. SriniwasanVishakhapatnam1000Sh. K. Jogi NaiduObedullaganj40,000Maharaj Vinay Sagar jiRaipur1000Prof. Shambhu Dayal BhartiJaipur15000Sh. Sawai Singh/Sh. Kesar SirajNazibabad1000Sh. Darban Singh Negi Local communities everywhere will be joining hands in human chains to assert their fundamental right to water. People courts (Jan Panchayat) will be organised at each plant to serve notice to Cola giants who are stealing water and selling toxic drinks. Thousands of Schools and colleges are also declaring themselves Coke and Pepsi free zones where the toxic will not be sold and consumed. What is at stake the life and health of the Indian people. We are committed to defending our life and freedom. We are committed to a Coke-Pepsi free India. For any further information, please contact : Dr. Vandana Shiva / Mr. Gunjan Mishra (9871202269 - Mobile) Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) A-60, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016 Tel : 0091-11-26535422 / 26532561 / 26962989 / 26968077 Fax : 0091-11-26962589 / 26856795 Email :
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
Dr. Banwari Lal Sharma Azadi Bachao Andolan Allahabad Tel : 0091-532-2641872 ===================================================================== 3. ARTICLES ===================================================================== 3.a Roller Coaster of a Decade for the World Trade Organization by Walden Bello* (This article came out as an Attac Germany supplement in the Jan. 21, 2005 issue of TAZ [Berlin].) Our world is not for sale, my friend, Just to keep you satisfied. You say you'll bring us health and wealth, Well, we know that you just lied. (Song to WTO delegates of NGO activists in Cancun in Sept. 2003, sung to the tune of the Beatles' "Can't Buy me Love") When the WTO came into being this month 10 years ago, following eight years of arduous negotiations known as the Uruguay round, it was seen by the global establishment as the "jewel in the crown of multilateralism," as a future director general, Mike Moore, was to later put it. From Birth... The moving force behind the founding of the WTO was the United States, which had effectively vetoed the establishment of the International Trade Organization (ITO) nearly forty years earlier in favor of the much weaker system of governing international trade known as the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the intervening years, US corporations had become more dependent on global markets, giving them a stake in a system of global governance of trade that would protect their interests. ...to Miscarriage in Seattle Nearly five years after the founding of the organization, the third ministerial of the WTO collapsed in Seattle in late November-early December 1999. The collapse was fueled by three developments: failure of the US and EU to agree on a common formula for retaining their massive agricultural subsidies; alienation on the part of most developing countries from a multilateral trading system that sacrificed their development on the altar sake of free trade; and resistance on the part of global civil society to the process of corporate-driven globalization spearheaded by the WTO. Stampeded into ratifying 19 separate agreements as a "single undertaking" to qualify for inclusion in the new organization in 1995, developing countries belatedly discovered that the Uruguay Round Agreement was anti-development through and through. For instance, - by agreeing to eliminate import quotas and signing the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), which declared such mechanisms as local-content policies and trade balancing requirements illegal, developing countries discovered that they had signed away their right to use trade policy as a means of industrialization. - by signing the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), countries realized that they had given high tech transnationals like Microsoft and Intel the power to monopolize innovation in the knowledge-intensive industries via restrictive patent rights, and provided biotechnology firms like Novartis and Monsanto the go-ahead signal to privatize the fruits of aeons of creative interaction between human communities and nature such as seeds, plants, and animal life - by signing the Agreement on Agriculture (AOA), developing countries discovered that they had agreed to open up their markets while allowing the big agricultural superpowers to consolidate their system of subsidized agricultural production that was leading to the massive dumping of surpluses on those very markets, a process that was, in turn, destroying smallholder-based agriculture. The figures spoke for themselves: the level of overall subsidization of agriculture in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries rose from $182 billion in 1995 when the WTO was born, to $280 billion in 1997, to $362 billion in 1998! Instead of the beginning of a New Deal, the AOA, in the words of one developing country trade minister, "has perpetuated the unevenness of a playing field which the multilateral trading system has been trying to correct. Moreover, this has placed the burden of adjustment on developing countries relative to countries who can afford to maintain high levels of domestic support and export subsidies." Reprieve in Doha The crisis of the WTO after the Seattle collapse was temporarily arrested during the fourthministerial in November 2001 in Doha, Qatar, where no more than 60 genuine civil society organizations were present owing to tight restrictions imposed by WTO and Qatari authorities and developing countries were pressured into signing a declaration that put the priority on making sure trade was not subordinated to development, as they wanted, but on a Northern agenda prioritizing the so-called "New Issues"; that is, extending the jurisdiction of the WTO to the areas of investment, government procurement, competition policy, and trade facilitation. While Doha was trumpeted as inaugurating a "Development Round," in fact, developing countries were very resentful of having been blackmailed and procedurally maneuvered into approving a ministerial declaration negotiated by a handful of member countries. Another Collapse in Cancun Coming into the fifth ministerial in Cancun, Mexico, the developing countries were better organized. The Group of 20 led by Brazil and India blocked a new AOA with no significant reduction of the high level of protection and subsidization of agriculture in the EU, US, and other developed countries. The Group of 90 refused to allow negotiations to proceed on the so-called "New Issues" of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation. Meanwhile, the suicide of a Korean farmer Lee Kyung Hae during an outdoor demonstration transmitted the anger of civil society to delegates inside the Cancun Convention Center. The result was the second collapse of a WTO Ministerial in less than four years. US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick blamed what he called the "won't do" countries for the Cancun debacle and Washington proceeded on a two-track strategy of pursuing bilateral trade agreements outside the WTO while trying to destroy the G 20. With this approach failing to yield results and realizing that a multilateral legal order institutionalizing free trade continued to be an indispensable condition for global corporate hegemony, the US shifted tactics early in 2004 and worked with Brussels to salvage the WTO. The Geneva Surprise First, Washington and Brussels brought Brazil and India , along with Australia, as key partners in devising a framework of negotiations for a new AOA. Second, worried about the unpredictability of ministerials brought about by the presence of civil society organizations and the press, the key trading powers pushed to have the General Council that meets regularly in Geneva assume the powers of a ministerial. The upshot of this maneuvering was the so-called "July Framework Agreement." The EU-US drive to restart the WTO succeeded brilliantly. The US and EU were the main beneficiaries of an agreement to cut non-agricultural tariffs (NAMA). Both the EU and the US scored a victory by getting the developing countries to agree to begin talks on trade facilitation, one of the New Issues that the developing countries had rejected in Cancun. But it was the US that scored the biggest gains, getting as it did an expanded "Blue Box" (a set of subsidies exempted from elimination or significant reductions) in which to house a considerable portion of the subsidies legislated under the US Farm Bill of 2002. The key to the victorious US strategy to bring the WTO back on its feet after Cancun was the cooptation of India and Brazil in agriculture. India's key concern was to avoid a formula that would require it to bring down its agricultural tariffs substantially. The EU and the USreadily conceded this. Removing agricultural subsidies in the North was the main Brazilian concern, and here it seemed to get its way. The final text affirmed the phaseout of export subsidies, making Brazil the big gainer, with some estimates placing its gains as some $10 billion. The other developing countries got hardly anything, which resulted in much consternation and accusations from other developing countries that Brazil and India had betrayed them. The Hong Kong Ministerial: Will it Matter? What are the implications of the July Framework Agreement for the sixth ministerial in Hong Kong to be held in December of this year? According to a recent assessment of the United NationsConference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), "The fact that the [July] Framework was decided at the GC (General Council) level with some Ministerial participation raises interesting questionswith regard to the relative role of Ministerial Conferences. Taking into account the setbacks at Seattle and Cancun, the future role of Ministerial Conferences may be increasingly geared towards stocktaking, the injection of momentum, and putting a political seal on deals already worked out in the GC." Nevertheless, the GC usurpation of ministerial power has tenuous legitimacy and many of the agreements on the modalities of negotiations contained in the July Framework are vague and fragile. The WTO is supposed to work on the principle of "consensus" among its members, and the current consensus around the July Framework is very weak indeed. Many developing country governments and civil society networks are putting their energies into derailing the WTO a third time. If that happens, putting Humpty Dumpty together again will be extremely difficult. *Walden Bello is executive director of the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South 3.b Getting the Purple Finger- Naomi Klein the Nation [from the February 28, 2005 issue] This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050228&s=klein "The Iraqi people gave America the biggest 'thank you' in the best way we could have hoped for." Reading this election analysis from Betsy Hart, a columnist for the Scripps Howard News Service, I found myself thinking about my late grandmother. Half blind and a menace behind the wheel of her Chevrolet, she adamantly refused to surrender her car keys. She was convinced that everywhere she drove (flattening the house pets of Philadelphia along the way) people were waving and smiling at her. "They are so friendly!" We had to break the bad news. "They aren't waving with their whole hand, Grandma--just with their middle finger." So it is with Betsy Hart and the other near-sighted election observers: They think the Iraqi people have finally sent America those long-awaited flowers and candies, when Iraq's voters just gave them the (purple) finger. The election results are in: Iraqis voted overwhelmingly to throw out the US-installed government of Iyad Allawi, who refused to ask the United States to leave. A decisive majority voted for the United Iraqi Alliance; the second plank in the UIA platform calls for "a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq." There are more single-digit messages embedded in the winning coalition's platform. Some highlights: "Adopting a social security system under which the state guarantees a job for every fit Iraqi...and offers facilities to citizens to build homes." The UIA also pledges "to write off Iraq's debts, cancel reparations and use the oil wealth for economic development projects." In short, Iraqis voted to repudiate the radical free-market policies imposed by former chief US envoy Paul Bremer and locked in by a recent agreement with the International Monetary Fund. So will the people who got all choked up watching Iraqis flock to the polls support these democratically chosen demands? Please. "You don't set timetables," George W. Bush said four days after Iraqis voted for exactly that. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called the elections "magnificent" but dismissed a firm timetable out of hand. The UIA's pledges to expandthe public sector, keep the oil and drop the debt will likely suffer similar fates. At least ifAdel Abd al-Mahdi gets his way--he's Iraq's finance minister and the man suddenly being touted as leader of Iraq's next government. Al-Mahdi is the Bush Administration's Trojan horse in the UIA. (You didn't think they were going to put all their money on Allawi, did you?) In October he told a gathering of the American Enterprise Institute that he planned to "restructure and privatize [Iraq's] state-owned enterprises," and in December he made another trip to Washington to unveil plans for a new oil law "very promising to the American investors." It was al-Mahdi himself who oversaw the signing of a flurry of deals with Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco in the weeks before the elections, and it is he who negotiated the recent austerity deal with the IMF. on troop withdrawal, al-Mahdi sounds nothing like his party's platform and instead appears to be channeling Dick Cheney on FoxNews: "When the Americans go will depend on when our own forces are ready and on how the resistance responds after the elections." But on Sharia law, we are told, he is very close tothe clerics. Iraq's elections were delayed time and time again, while the occupation and resistance grew evermore deadly. Now it seems that two years of bloodshed, bribery and backroom arm-twisting were leading up to this: a deal in which the ayatollahs get control over the family, Texaco gets the oil, and Washington gets its enduring military bases (call it the "oil for women program"). Everyone wins except the voters, who risked their lives to cast their ballots for a very different set of policies. But never mind that. January 30, we are told, was not about what Iraqis were voting for--it was about the fact of their voting and, more important, how their plucky courage made Americans feel about their war. Apparently, the elections' true purpose was to prove to Americans that, as George Bush put it, "the Iraqi people value their own liberty." Stunningly, this appears to come as news. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown said the vote was "the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people." on The Daily Show, CNN's Anderson Cooper described it as "the first time we've sort of had a gauge of whether or not they're willing to sort of step forward and do stuff." This is some tough crowd. The Shiite uprising against Saddam in 1991 was clearly not enough to convince them that Iraqis were willing to "do stuff" to be free. Nor was the demonstration of 100,000 people held one year ago demanding immediate elections, or the spontaneous local elections organized by Iraqis in the early months of the occupation--both summarily shot down by Bremer. It turns out that on American TV, the entire occupation has been one long episode of Fear Factor, in which Iraqis overcome ever-more-challenging obstacles to demonstrate the depths of their desire to win their country back. Having their cities leveled, being tortured in Abu Ghraib, getting shot at checkpoints, having their journalists censored and their water and electricity cut off--all of it was just a prelude to the ultimate endurance test: dodging bombs and bullets to get to the polling station. At last, Americans were persuaded that Iraqis really, really want to be free. So what's the prize? An end to occupation, as the voters demanded? Don't be silly--the US government won't submit to any "artificial timetable." Jobs for everyone, as the UIA promised? You can't vote for socialist nonsense like that. No, they get Geraldo Rivera's tears ("I felt like such a sap"), Laura Bush's motherly pride ("It was so moving for the President and me to watch people come out with purple fingers") and Betsy Hart's sincere apology for ever doubting them ("Wow--do I stand corrected"). And that should be enough. Because if it weren't for the invasion, Iraqis would not even have the freedom to vote for their liberation, and then to have that vote completely ignored. And that's the real prize: the freedom to be occupied. Wow--do I stand corrected. 3.c The World Social Forum Sprouts Wings - Amit Sen Gupta ( this article was originally written for the February issue of Peoples Democracy) As we walked through the venue for the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre at the banks of the Guaiba river, on 23rd January, it all seemed so familiar. The WSF was back in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where it had begun in 2001 and had gained strength in 2002 and 2003, after the interlude in Mumbai in 2004. But Porto Alegre 2005 could well have been Mumbai 2004. The same surging crowds - over 100,00 in number, the same cacophony of myriad voices, the same beating of drums, the same confusion, and the same determination on the faces of people who had come to celebrate protest and resistance. And the same determination with which people debated in over 2000 events,spread over four days, and organised in the sprawling venue of makeshift tents over about 4 kms.of a green verge skirting the river. The first message from the WSF this year was: resistance and protests that confront imperialist globalisation today have assumed truly global proportions. Two years ago in the WSF in 2003, the mention of India or Mumbai was likely to be greeted with questioning looks. No more so - after the Mumbai WSF, both are firmly on the map of the WSF. As will be Africa which shall hold the Forum in 2007, as will be numerous other places in the globe as the WSF takes wings and flies to different corners. We are Not Alone The abiding memory that everybody who was in Porto Alegre brought back was a sense of solidarity, the feeling that "we are not alone". A feeling that the gross injustice that we face across the globe is being confronted by pockets of resistance all over the world. Pockets of resistance that are also starting to link up, to strategise together, to form an united surge of resistance. We saw all this happening in Mumbai, and those who were at Porto Alegre came back with the confidence that the movement to "globalise resistance" is alive and growing, and that "Another World" is indeed possible. Bush still rules at the White House, Iraq continues to be bombarded by a savage imperial monster,the WTO continues to use trade as a weapon of mass destruction, Debt continues to cripple almost the entire continent of Africa, neoliberal economic policies continue to kill in thousandsacross Asia and Latin America. But the WSF is about shared concerns, about hope, and aboutbelief that the tide must turn. The WSF is also about differences - differences in what must change, and how it must change. But it is also about a conviction that we must join together inspite of differences. Diversity of Opinions The differences were there for all to see. Not just in the different languages that people spoke,in the many different ways they expressed themselves, the different ways in which they dressed, but also in the political articulation of the way forward. Possibly nothing captured this as wellas the massive 100,000 strong opening march of the WSF on January 23rd. In 2003, the opening rally was akin to a victory celebration for thr then recently installed Lula Government in Brazil. Posters of Lula and flags of the PT (the Partido dos Trabalhadores or Workers Party which Lula represents) dominated the march in 2003 and vied for attention with the sea of Che Guevara posters and green Palestinian scarves. In 2005 Che still dominated the march, the Palestinian scarves were as prominent, but the posters of Lula were few and far between. Instead there were far louder voices questioning the policies of the Lula Government, some claiming that the Government was pursuing the same neoliberal policies of the previous Government. The PT was there in force with t-shirts that had "100% Lula" stamped on them, declaiming their support for the Government. The PCDoB (the Brazilian Communist Party) had a huge contingent that marched behind a massive truck from where slogans were raised that underlined their critical support for the Lula Government. The CUT (the central federation of trade unions in Brazil) also had a huge presence, with a prominent participation by large numbers of youth -- both men and women. Between this huge political mobilisation of different hues marched those who espoused a large variety of causes - ant-war and anti-Bush protestors, ant-WTO activists, environmentalists, for cancellation of global debt, for a sovereign Palestinian state, a Dignity rally lead by the landless peasants movement (MST) in Brazil with a large Indian participation from dalit groups, and so may others. With them marched artists who performed dances, skits and mimes throughout the route, some walking on ten feet high stilts. But not just these - one could also hear a few chants of Hare Krishna from saffron robed men and women and also a handful of saffron clad Ananda Marg activists. The opening march in a way depicted the diversity of the Forum, and possibly also brought out the dilemma that may in the Forum face. While all those who are at the Forum (or most at least!) acknowledge the need to come together to face the Imperial power of globalisation led by the US,the WSF "open space" continues to be a space that is bitterly contested at the level of ideas. The major actors in the WSF include the left of various shades (communists, social democrats, fourth internationalists), religious groups (many ascribing to the "liberation theology"positions and genuinely opposed to imperialism) and NGOs. There are obvious differences within all these groups regarding the characterisation of globalisation, and the tactics and overall strategic understanding regarding it. So, while what knits the Forum together is an opposition to neoliberal or imperialist globalisation (there are differences among Forum participants even about the term globalisation), there is no consensus on how it is to be opposed. Challenge of the "Open Space" This diversity in opinion and approach is both a strength of the Forum, as well as its principal weakness. The Forum derives strength from this diversity as it provides the opportunity for a very large number of movements and organisations to come together, each feeling that their views have a place in the open space of the Forum. At the same time the diverse trends and opinions leads, often, to a sense of frustration that the Forum is not able to hammer together a consensus regarding both a strategic understanding and tactics to be applied. This has led to a tendency to attempt to "force" the Forum to take unified positions. An example of this was the declarationof a "Porto Alegre" consensus by a few prominent individuals this time at the WSF. While the contents of the "consensus" suggested was fairly bland and not objectionable, what was problematic was the fact that this went against the grain of the way the WSF as an "open space" functions. The WSF was conceived as a Forum that was not designed to lead or take decisions on behalf of movements, but rather to provide enabling conditions for movements to come togerther, exchange experinces and opinions, and forge alliances. The WSF space cannot and should not dictate to movements, nor should it force movements to take unified positions unless they are willing to do so. But the impatience to move forward is sometimes being translated into trying to make the WSFa body that takes decisions and positions on behalf of movements. This is a major challenge today for the WSF: how to accelerate the space for movements to forge common actions and strategies, while at the same time keeping the space friendly for everyone opposed to neoliberal globalisation to join in. Given the complex political entitities that form part of the Forum, an attempt by any force within (however well meaning) to hegemonise the Forum at the level of ideas, might well sow the seeds of the Forum's ultimate collapse. The challenge for the Forum, thus, is not of how certain kinds of ideas may dominate, but to ensure that the Forum is truly representative of the upsurge of global opinion against imperialist globalisation. Today, large mass and political movements are handicapped in their ability to participate in the Forum, because of lack of resources. as a result the Forum tends to be dominated by large funded NGOs, largely from the North. While many of such NGOs have and are playing a major role in opposing globalisation, there is an inherent asymmetry in the participation in the Forums. It is critically important, if the Forum is to become truly representative of global mass movements, that the WSF process is able to draw in a much larger participation from such movements. This is happening to an extent and the proactive manner in which mobilisation for the Forum was done for the WSF 2004 in Mumbai - where a conscious effort was made to ensure representation of mass and political movements -- has contributed to this. But a lot has still to be done in this regarded, and if if the WSF process is to be "directed" in any manner it should be to ensure that such movements are able to come into the process in large numbers and also that they represent adequately all geographical regions of the globe. If the Forum becomes really representative, then it would really be up to the movements to use the space provided by the Forum to work out shared visions and actions. Clearly, the WSF is not going to be the forum to take forward such actions, that is something that the movements themselves would have to decide. Good Bye Porto Alegre? The 2005 Forum, while formulating the programme, had articulated in clearer terms the direction provided by WSF 2004 in trying to ensure that shared concerns and themes are not discussed in dispersed events. The attempt from the event registration process itself was to try to ensure that events are largely organised by combining the efforts of different organisations. This is a process that has to be accelerated, and the methodology used in 2005 to be evaluated to improve upon it further. The WSF 2005 had also departed from earlier practice by not having any events directly organised by the WSF - i.e. all events at the WSF 2005 were organised by individual participating organisations. The response to this innovation was mixed this year, and many felt that the absence of some large "unifying" events with broad political messages led to the diffusion of the political sharpness that the Forum was able to provide. This is again an issue that will have to be evaluated by the International Council of the WSF. In fact, in the absence of such unifying events, the only two large events this year were those addressed by President Lula of Brazil and President Chavez of Venezuala. While these were not formally part of the WSF programme, they drew huge crowds from WSF participants. The International Council decided in its meeting just before the Forum in Porto Alegre that in 2006 there would not be a single Forum, but attempt would be to organise dispersed Forums in different continents. In 2007 the Forum travels to Africa, the venue for which is being discussed within the African Social Forum process. Mumbai had shown that the WSF can be made to be a success in a setting vastly different from Porto Alegre, and the WSF is now poised to sprout wings and fly to different corners of the globe. As we prepared to leave Porto Alegre, the question on the lips of everybody who lives in the city was : is this the last Forum in Porto Alegre? We do not know the answer today. But everyone who has been in Porto Alegre for the Forum, this year or in earlier years, will hope that maybe the Forum will come back again one day to this city which embraced us all with such love and affection. Good bye to Porto Alegre for ever? Perhaps the WSF is not ready for that yet! | 
