<

About this report

The Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) believes that the growing profile of citizen-based agendas in global affairs represents one of the most promising developments in the international arena. The most prominent example of such a transboundary network of citizen groups working on both the local and global levels is what is commonly referred to as the “global justice movement.”

Since 2001 this movement and other networks working on issues related to economic justice, human and gender rights, sustainable development and the environment, and peace and militarization have gathered annually in Porto Alegre, Brazil, to participate in the World Social Forum (WSF).

This international gathering gives activists from across the planet an opportunity to discuss shared challenges, evaluate strategies, assess progress, articulate alternatives, and coordinate efforts. In effort to help citizen-based agendas succeed on a global scale and capture some of the outcomes of the 2001 WSF, the IRC asked a group of activists in the United States to share their thoughts on the Port Alegre summit and to talk about how this global forum has impacted their own local activism.

This work was partially funded by a grant from the Solidago Foundation and reflects the IRC’s 23-year commitment to internationalism and crossborder cooperation.

Background on the World Social Forum

In 1999, key individuals involved in the European component of the international campaign to defeat the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) gathered to discuss the idea of creating a shadow event to the World Economic Forum (WEF), an elite meeting of world economic and political leaders usually held each year in Davos, Switzerland. Since 1971, the WEF has played both a symbolic and real leadership role in shaping the global economy. Its organizational base is a Swiss foundation that functions as a UN consulting body and is funded by more than 1,000 multinational corporations.1

These activists, some connected with the French publication Le Monde Diplomatique and the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC), were interested in bringing together the global justice movement in a way that would create an equally influential counterweight to the WEF and challenge the conventional notion that “there is no alternative” to neoliberal, corporate-led globalization.2

A number of groups were already active in organizing “shadow Davos” events through the “Public Eye on Davos” campaign, but these events derived their impetus from the WEF rather than internally, were handicapped by their location in Davos, were organized by intermediary nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as opposed to grassroots social movements, and were more focused on protest than on articulating concrete alternatives to neoliberalism.3

At the same time, a group of social movements and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Brazil working on issues related to economic and political inequality and democratization, as well as elements of Brazil’s Worker’s Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, PT), were also discussing the virtues of having some kind of alternative to Davos. They envisioned an annual gathering that, like the WEF, could advance concrete proposals and alternatives—but with a focus on social, as opposed to purely economic, reforms.

These two activist clusters met and began to plan the event. They selected Porto Alegre in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul as the venue for several reasons. In the first place, they wanted to convene the event in a Southern city for symbolic reasons. Secondly, the city would provide a hospitable climate—under the political control of the PT since 1989, the municipality of Porto Alegre has pioneered innovative progressive policies such as a participatory budget-making process. Finally, the municipality as well as the state of Rio Grande do Sul were willing to provide resources and logistical support for the initiative.

WSF 2001 & 2002

The World Social Forum (WSF) met for the first time from January 25-30, 2001. According to the WSF secretariat, approximately 20,000 people participated. Of those, 4,702 were delegates representing 117 countries, 2,000 were participants in a Youth Camp, and 700 were participants in the Indigenous Nations Camp. One hundred and four speakers gave presentations in four thematic areas and more than 420 workshops were scheduled as opportunities for encounter and debate.4 The overall thematic focus of the first forum was on articulating critiques of the neoliberal economic model.5

The second WSF was held January 31 to February 5, with 12,274 delegates representing 123 countries in attendance—the total number of participants is conservatively estimated to be around 50,000.6 In contrast to the first WSF, the U.S. delegation was much larger in 2002, being the fourth-largest national delegation after Brazil, Argentina, and Italy. The number of governmental and intergovernmental officials who attended was also higher at WSF 2002, including several French ministers, UN representatives, the Director General of the ILO, and the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. The central theme of WSF 2002 was “Another World is Possible,” and sessions focused on formulating alternatives to the neoliberal model.7

In 2002, activists also began organizing smaller, regional- or country-specific social forums to complement the global event. For instance, prior to WSF 2002 in Porto Alegre, a regional Social Forum was held in Genoa and an African Social Forum took place at Bamako, Mali.

WSF 2003 will once again take place in Porto Alegre and will be preceded and followed by several regional and thematic social forums at various locations across the globe. WSF 2004 will be held in a different country, most likely India.

WSF organization

Eight organizations make up the WSF Secretariat (formerly known as the Organizing Committee). The Secretariat is composed of the organizations that started organizing the first WSF (see Appendix C on p. 23).

After WSF 2001, this group drew up a charter of principles that provides guidelines for participation in the event, as well as for organizing other regional or thematic Social Forums. In June 2001 an International Council (IC) made up of organizations and representatives from across the globe was established. One of the IC’s first actions was to approve the charter of principles (See p. 23 for a list of IC members).

Since WSF 2002, the IC has become a more central body to the direction of the WSF process. Issues related to overall policy and the directions the WSF should take, as well as the organization of the annual events, are debated and resolved by the council. Originally established to strengthen the process of internationalizing the WSF, the IC is now a policymaking and operational body that has come to supersede the WSF Secretariat as the key political body for the forum.9 The WSF process explicitly privileges the self-organization of activities by participants. The IC works to monitor and link the various regional and thematic Social Forums, but does not drive the process.

Process and participation

The WSF is not an event per se, but is better understood as an ongoing process. In the words of the WSF Secretariat:

The World Social Forum is an open meeting place where groups and movements of civil society opposed to neoliberalism and a world dominated by capital or by any form of imperialism, but engaged in building a planetary society centered on the human person, come together to pursue their thinking, to debate ideas democratically, formulate proposals, share their experiences freely and network for effective action. The WSF proposes to debate alternative means to building a globalization in solidarity, which respects universal human rights and those of all men and women of all nations and the environment, and is grounded in democratic international systems and institutions at the service of social justice, equality and the sovereignty of peoples. ... The World Social Forum is a plural, diversified, non-confessional, nongovernmental and non-party context that, in a decentralized fashion, interrelates organizations and movements engaged in concrete action at levels from the local to the international to build another world. ... It thus does not constitute a locus of power to be disputed by the participants in its meetings, nor does it intend to constitute the only option for interrelation and action by the organizations and movements that participate in it.10

This process, which was largely Latin American and European at WSF 2001, has rapidly become more internationalized both in the sense of the breadth of participation and in the holding of Social Forums organized regionally or thematically in other parts of the globe. Some analysts seek to understand the WSF as the descendant of the Internationals of the 19th century, or something akin to the Non-Aligned Movement.11 But this mistakes the nature of the process of the WSF, which emphasizes diversity and pluralism within a universal commitment grounded in human rights, social justice, and democracy.

The WSF focuses on participation by civil society. Official delegates must come from civil society organizations or associations. Non-delegate status participation is open to any groups or individuals who are not connected with governments or political parties. Members of governments and parliaments may take part in a personal capacity, providing they agree to abide by the charter of principles, and governments can be (and in Brazil have been) partners in organizing WSF events.

Tensions and issues

A number of issues have emerged as points of tension within the WSF process. Three of the larger ones are:

• “Reform vs. Resist.” One of the leading tensions is usually framed as a reformist vs. radical divide over three analytically distinct but related issues: whether the “enemy” is capitalism, neoliberalism, or globalization; whether intergovernmental institutions like the World Bank, IMF, and WTO are reformable, and whether working to strengthen national sovereignty and state power (including working with and through political parties) is a desirable and/or a viable strategy for social transformation. In some cases this is framed as a clash between reformist/statist or social-democratic NGOs versus more militant, anti-capitalist, grassroots-based social movements, although it is not the case that the ideological divide always plays out along these lines.12
• Gender issues. Another tension has to do with the under-representation of women at the WSF, and a perceived disconnect between discussions by women’s organizations and the class- and nation-dominated discourse of the global justice movement.13
• Organizational representation. A third tension has to do with the relative role of social movements as opposed to NGOs in managing the WSF process.14 For example, the Organizing Committee of the first two Social Forums was mainly composed of NGOs, with only minority representation for Brazil’s two main social movements—the CUT trade union federation, under the central leadership of the PT, and the MST, identified with the PT’s more radical base. A number of analyses refer to the NGO-ification of the WSF process from WSF 2001 to WSF 2002. Nevertheless, with the IC playing a more central role in shaping the trajectory of the WSF process, there is room for more balance in the representational structure between social movements and community-based organizations on the one hand and NGOs on the other.

While process issues could be resolved more quickly, the political tensions are likely to exist for the foreseeable future, and a challenge facing the WSF process will be to find ways to channel such tensions in ways that promote creative and constructive dialogues and exchanges among and within citizen movements and organizations.

Conclusion

The ethos of the WSF is not to offer “one alternative” to the vision of the world offered by Davos, or the crises currently facing numerous countries. Such an effort would simply mirror the Davos framework of arguing that there is one “right” way to structure society and life. It would reproduce the dogmatic approach to economic policy that neoliberalism represents.

Despite being in its infancy, the major accomplishment of the WSF has been to puncture the basic conceit of the Davos agenda—that there is no alternative to neoliberalism and that critics of neoliberalism were only unified in their opposition to neoliberalism and lacked any coherent alternatives. The WSF has also had a more practical effect—it has provided the opportunity to maximize the benefits of organizing in the Internet age with the face-to-face communication that is essential if networks and alliances of social movements and NGOs are to be able to forge the kind of trust and common language that is found among the Davos elite.

Although the WSF does not spend time on developing a unified platform and declaration, there is space for attendees to do so, and at the WSF 2002 the Call of Social Movements: Resistance to Neoliberalism, War and Militarism: For Peace and Social Justice was issued, offering an analytical framework of sorts, a language, and an agenda of mass actions that is being used as a touchstone by some of the subsequent social forums.15 The WSF process, combined with the growing social mobilizations worldwide (even in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks) and the recent Workers’ Party victory in Brazil are all contributing to the necessary liberation of imagination that is necessary to believe, and to act upon the belief, that “another world is possible.”

Notes:

1 Samir Amin, Bernard Cassen, and Susan George, among others, see The Other Davos. The Globalization of Resistance to the World Economic System, François Houtart and François Polet, eds., (London: Zed Books Ltd., 2001).
2 For a history of ATTAC see the ATTAC-France website [http://www.france.attac.org/index.php?idpage=398&langue=2] and Rodrigo Araya Dujisin, “La globalización de los ciudadanos: El caso Attac,” Nueva Sociedad, No. 176, 2001, pp. 87-101.
3 See the Public Eye on Davos website: http://www.evb.ch/index.cfm?folder_id=111.
4 The four areas were: Production of Wealth and Social Reproduction; Access to Wealth and Sustainability; Asserting Civil Society and the Public Realm; and Political Power and Ethics in the New Society. The WSF has a well-developed set of distinctions among types of presentations. Conferences aim to highlight the most worked-out proposals by civil society on WSF themes. Workshops are intended to allow groups, coalitions, and networks to meet, exchange experiences, and plan and define strategies in view of their present and future action. Testimonies are opportunities for individuals with a distinguished record of activity on behalf of freedom and human dignity to share their experiences, analyses, and views. The purpose of seminars is to identify, develop, and explore in-depth specific themes that have not yet come to be embodied in clear proposals as well as to permit related public debate and the socialization of strategic thinking from a WSF perspective.
5 Report on meeting of Regional Social Forum organizers, Email notice, June 18, 2002.
6 The funders/partners for WSF 2001 were: Rights and Democracy, Ford Foundation, H. Boll Foundation, ICCO, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oxfam, Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor (RITS, Information Network for the Third Sector), the Rio Grande do Sul State Government, and the Mayor’s Office of Porto Alegre, while for WSF 2002 they were: RITS-Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor (Information Network for the Third Sector), EED, CCFD, NOVIB, OXFAM GB, Centro Norte Sul, ACTIONAID, ICCO, Ford Foundation, Rio Grande do Sul State Government, the Mayor’s Office of Porto Alegre, Procergs, and the World Forum for Alternatives.
7 Report on meeting of Regional Social Forum organizers, Email notice, June 18, 2002.
8 Report on meeting of Regional Social Forum organizers, Email notice, June 18, 2002.
9 WSF website, http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/main.asp?id_menu=2&cd_language=2.
10 Various pages on the World Social Forum website, http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/home.asp.
11 See, for example, Jason Adams, “WSF 2002: Hopes for a True International,” Z Magazine, February 13, 2002; Michael Hardt, “Porto Alegre: Today’s Bandung?” New Left Review 14, March–April 2002, and Tom Mertes, “Grass-Roots Globalism: Reply to Michael Hardt,” New Left Review 17, September–October 2002.
12 See, for example Adams op. cit. and Satya Sivaraman, “Dissent Rumble in the WSF Jungle,” Terra Viva, http://www.ipsnews.net/terraviva/01_dissent.shtml, ND. For samples of other discussions on strategy see Hardt op. cit., Mertes op. cit., Emir Sader, “Beyond Civil Society: The Left after Porto Alegre,” New Left Review 17, September-October 2002, and Peter Waterman, “The Still Unconsummated Marriage Of International Unionism And The Global Justice Movement: A Labor Report on the World Social Forum,” LaborNet Germany, April 23, 2002.
13 See for example Virginia Vargas, “Is Another World Possible?” Social World, http://www.socialwatch.org/2001/eng/Thematic_reports/wsf_2001.htm, ND and Waterman, op. cit.
14 In this argument, NGOs are defined as mid- to large-sized organizations that do not have a direct constituency at the grassroots and/or don’t work locally but rather focus on policy advocacy and research.
15 See http://www.grscotland.net/News/Call%20of%20social%20Movements.htm for the text.

Results in Brief

Thirty-one individuals from 23 different organizations responded to the survey. The majority (20 groups) were nonprofit nongovernmental organizations of varying sizes. Two were labor unions, and one was a student group (for a list of organizations responding, see Appendix A on p. 21).

Clearly, a majority of respondents indicated that overall, the forum was a positive experience. Many pointed to a deepened understanding that their local struggles form part of a larger global struggle—a realization that brought them a renewed sense of solidarity, and renewed optimism. “We are part of a much larger, global movement in which everyone is working for a better world,” noted one activist. “The biggest overall benefit was renewed hope, and getting re-energized.”

Many activists we spoke with also discussed the tangible benefits of networking globally—of meeting new allies, learning about new strategies, and identifying opportunities to coordinate efforts.

After networking, the benefit most frequently mentioned was the space for strategic thinking and planning that the forum provided, especially as regards articulating concrete alternatives to current models of globalization.

Another recurring theme was that U.S.-based activists were struck by the diversity and energy of the global justice movement outside the United States—which was described as more creative and advanced in some ways than the movement here at home.

The question sparking the greatest diversity of responses was: “In your own work, do you and your constituents believe that there are clear links between their own local problems and concerns and globalization issues? What is the main global/local link in your own work?” On the one hand, the responses do suggest that this is an issue that activists still struggle with. However, a fair number certainly had a clear vision of these linkages. Areas where these activists identified the most potential for them to create local-global links included: privatization (of public services as well as of management of natural and energy resources); the impacts of free trade on agriculture, including loss of crop diversity, shift to corporate agribusiness models, and increased reliance on pesticides; and corporate relocations and issues related to the living wage.

At the same time, while many of the activists we spoke with did indicate their belief that the overarching challenge is global in scale and therefore demands a response that is global in scale, many also expressed a worry that incorporating work on globalization into their everyday efforts, or scaling up to also engage in national or international debates on globalization, might negatively impact their local work.

Despite such concerns, enthusiasm for international engagement was certainly strong. More than one grassroots organizer told us that bringing community representatives or members from other countries to talk about their own grassroots issues and efforts back home was tremendously inspiring, and that there are strong indications that U.S. constituencies most easily relate to globalization by hearing local stories and learning about local initiatives in other parts of the world.

Survey Results

Q. What is the greatest benefit you see resulting from the World Social Forum, whether in terms of your own work or in terms of the larger global justice movement?

“It’s important for activists to make a change in things we’re fighting against to things we’re fighting for. We can’t remain in our little boxes. So the WSF was all about making the linkages between issues. If we’re going to move toward the other world that’s possible we need to craft a larger vision that incorporates all the particular visions.”

“The connections we made and the information we obtained.”

“The very existence of the World Social Forum signals that the movement to oppose corporate globalization is maturing and is moving from simply protesting economic integration to formulating alternative proposals to the existing model. This movement is focused on the globalization of social justice. The WSF provided us with an opportunity to replenish our energies and our spirit. It was refreshing and rewarding to see so many people from all corners of the world committed to and fighting for justice and dignity.”

“To have the opportunity to exchange the struggles of our people not only in our communities but global wide, and to know that we are not alone fighting for a better world.”

“Its focus on articulating alternatives.”

“Renewed hope. It was important for us to experience the hopefulness, energy, and breadth of the movement evident in Porto Alegre.”

“It’s a place for activists to come together to explore and create concrete alternatives to the current system of corporate globalization. “This has inspired a more concerted effort on the part of our organization to find the local-global connections that are out there and to start to strategize around how this can be incorporated into our work.”

“Being able to meet, see, and spend time comparing notes with key potential allies and groups from other countries was invaluable. It’s impossible to deal with these big transnationals from one country. So creating mechanisms in which we can find other community- and labor-based groups and work together researching and amassing enough strategic information to impact these corporations so that they are forced to operate in ways that at least acknowledge basic humanity.”

“At forums like this you get a tactile sense that what you think and do locally is pertinent internationally.”

“NGOs, social movements, and activists meeting on their own terms, in their own space, to deal with their own issues—rather than in the shadow of a UN or other intergovernmental meeting.”

“It provided an opportunity to network with other activists around the world and to strengthen the movement.”

“Global corporations all work together in relation to the global economy, therefore the grassroots movements should be connected and work in the same kind of way. That’s the only way we will make a dent, by connecting by countries. If we have to play by their rules and they are defining the rules, then we have to work strategically together on those rules. We have to determine our acceptance of those rules.”

“The sort of sharing the WSF facilitates is absolutely crucial for the entire global justice movement.”

“It is very useful to be exposed to and meet with others who are grappling with the same problems.”

“The greatest benefit I see from the WSF is our organization’s renewed and growing dedication to connecting with folks at an international level to work on common issues and to support each other in the work we are doing. In particular, the U.S. Students Association, after talking with students from OCLAE and others organizing for the November 17th hemispheric-wide day of action against the FTAA and similar trade agreements, have decided to adopt this day of action into our own agenda and to help organize it throughout the United States. In addition, I work with the SouthWest Organizing Project, who sent representatives to the WSF. At SWOP, we are using many ideas and lessons learned while at the WSF. We are now beginning an economic justice campaign with the goal of increasing citizen participation in decisionmaking around how Albuquerque, New Mexico’s budget is distributed. This idea was inspired by the model presented to us of Porto Alegre’s own participatory budgeting process.”

“It was a chance to introduce our own work to activists from around the world.”

“The forum created a place where the unheard can be heard.”

“Seeing how political action can help to change the participatory process.”

As Marc Cooper wrote in the Nation: “‘A general recognition that the time has come to reposition the movement in positive, affirmative terms—a need to move from purely exposing and protesting to proposing and solving. The crisis of legitimacy generated by the Battle of Seattle was only temporarily mitigated by 9/11. It’s time to resume the offensive against the WTO.’”

“The WSF offered recognition and analysis of the pivotal role of cultural democracy in political, social, and economic affairs.”

“Meeting with social activists from around the world.”

“It was encouraging to see a successful alternative model of government in the city of Porto Alegre and in the State of Rio Grande do Sul where through a process of participatory budget-making the people decide how the city and state funds are to be used, and in what priority. This model has been in existence for 12 years under the leadership of the Worker’s Party, and it has been economically and politically very successful.”

“To be able to meet both formally and informally, with trade union and trade union federations from many different countries and continents.”

“Seeing how workers actions/party can change the way decisions are made with their tax dollars.”

Q. What is the main lesson or conclusion you brought home with you from Porto Alegre?

“That the world of activists is deep and wide and there are great opportunities for working together.”

“The main lesson that we brought home from Porto Alegre was that struggles the world over are not that different from struggles we are fighting in our own communities. In the same way that injustices are duplicated internationally, we need to begin to consolidate movements for justice.”

“That this is global capitalism we’re dealing with, and nothing short of a global social movement can deal with it.”

“Folks in the United States need to catch up with the depth of thinking and analysis that’s happening in other parts of the world.”

“That internationalism is not just about your relationships with activists in other countries, it is also about how you approach the problems of economic restructuring, racism, immigration, etc., in your own country.”

“My main impression was the seriousness of people there. I expected more rhetoric. The WSF demonstrated that the movement is not the caricature offered by the media.”

“That nation-state governance systems are generally in crisis in relationship to the expectations and needs of the majority of citizens, and that civil society movements across the globe are the main factor for defense of historic democratic gains.”

“That problems that we are having in the United States around public education, economics, and racism are no different in other countries.”

“That linking with the international community is essential.”

“The cutting edge stuff is happening outside the States. People [outside the U.S.] are making the linkages and doing exciting things.”

“That themes and issues of concern are common and fundamental across the world. Simple, basic rights have been eroded everywhere.”

“That the movement is strong, that no one is alone, that we all (north, south, east, west) share a vision that a different world is not only needed, but also that it is possible.”

“That we are part of a much larger, global movement in which everyone is working for a better world.”

“It is time for all of us to gather our resources and merge as one for the common good.”

“That ‘Another World is Possible.’”

“There are thousands of people all over the world fighting common issues of colonization, industrialization, and exploitation by multinational corporations, and we have got to form solid networks and coalitions to create another world.”

“No matter where you are, there are struggles.”

Q. In your own work, do you and your constituents believe that there are clear links between your own local problems and concerns and globalization issues? What is the main global/local link in your own work?

“Corporate-led globalization concepts and the involved institutions are very complicated to understand and very difficult to explain to people not familiar with them. The biggest challenge we face as a movement is to make these links and connections visible and evident to start building those local to global connections. One of the objectives of our organization is to do a study of the impacts of globalization in our region. The study will help us in our goal to build public awareness...and in our campaign to defeat FTAA with an informed public.”

“The issue of privatization is one that we are facing locally in terms of welfare services. We are working to link localized privatization struggles and the negative impact this has on services with the similar process that happens internationally when “free trade” is promoted. Some of our local corporate targets are the same ones that are pushing for free trade legislatively. These same targets can be used to introduce the globalization dilemma.”

“Free trade—it is global in scale, but affects us locally.”

“Yes. The FTAA, as currently written, will hurt people and the environment, in the United States and all over the hemisphere. United, it can be defeated. Also, privatization is hurting people in communities in the United States and all over the hemisphere. The privatizing firms, e.g. Bechtel, are often the same.”

“In terms of our manufacturing membership, the link is pretty clear when jobs are moved from Bennington, Vermont to China or Ireland. Our public- and service-sector memberships are somewhat less clear on the issues, but we’re working on developing consciousness about the privatization, deregulation, and budget-cutting aspects of globalization.”

“The link is that work and employment issues are changing the same way, all over the world.”

“The formal and informal institutions, power structures, frameworks and dynamics of globalization clearly impact the local, everywhere. Doing away with the IFIs or the WTO and replacing them with yet other schemes devised by liberal internationalists isn’t likely in the end to change or help very much, for the majority. Within our network, we have organized a local/global working group to help members, locally and internationally focused alike, grapple with and develop a deeper understanding of these issues.”

“Yes. In St. Louis there is the phenomenon of driving down working conditions by international corporations. Workers displaced from jeans plants and steel plants end up working at Wal-Mart. Workers from the global south end up working in our community as hotel workers and landscapers.”

“That when it comes to repression of labor in developing countries, the enemies of those workers are not workers in industrialized countries (e.g. U.S.), but the corporations, and repressive regimes.”

“I work in an industry that in particular is trying to find and exploit the country with the weakest environmental standards and which is least aware of the issues—that is exploiting the race to the bottom of globalization. As long as it exists anywhere in the world it’s hard to reform the production systems in the world that give rise to so much waste. If people had to deal with it locally it would create more pressure to make less waste.”

“The main link is impact of actions by the IMF, World Bank, and UN on policies related to economic and social justice.”

“Globalization issues we’re most interested in: privatization of water and energy, decline of diverse agriculture, export crops, and converting to an industrialized agriculture system.”

“As a labor union, we represent many workers employed by transnational corporations. Although the bulk of our membership is in the private sector, we also represent an increasing number of public sector workers. For those workers, privatization is a threat that is directly tied to neoliberal economic policy. Moreover, our public sector members understand that as companies move in search of cheaper labor they stop paying the taxes that support public services as well as public sector jobs. Finally, we are all members of communities that have suffered cuts in public services such as public transportation, health care, education, etc., and oftentimes the increased costs of privatized services. We have also experienced the loss of jobs, the myriad of problems connected with deregulation.”

“We are a global network of national think tanks. Our partners study the impact of global and national policies on workers and the poor.”

“There are two mains global issues that are impacting agricultural workers here at home: chemical use in agriculture and free trade agreements.”

Q. How can social forums like that held in Brazil advance the movement of global economy activists, either at the international or local level? “By providing opportunities for global activists to strategize.”

“Changes have to happen on a large scale. It doesn’t help for Brazil to reject FTAA if every other country accepts it. It takes movements across borders to make change on a broader scale. The forums give groups a chance to strategize together.”

“They provide a global assembly to meet, share and strengthen ties among local organizations. The limitation is that these kinds of forums can become a substitute for building movements, and they should not.”

“These forums are vital to build the human relation of trust on which any successful social movement depends.”

“One of the most effective ways of increasing the solidarity between communities internationally is to create a space in which to strategize and make concrete connections with regard to how our work is connected and how we can support each other on a local, national, and international level.”

“By helping those organizations which have worked at a local level to understand the bigger picture and begin to incorporate that understanding into their work. By providing those who work primarily at a national or international level with the opportunity to learn what is happening at a local level in a variety of places around the world. By providing an occasion where organizations and individuals can meet for discussions about ongoing work, or the initiation of new relationships, alliances or projects.”

“[They] create great opportunities for building relationships, learning from others’ practical experiences, for getting a broad perspective on economic and social issues, and inspiration.”

“Sharing of information and shaping the discourse. Finding possibilities of common action.”

“They are fertile ground for ideas. You come up with people who are working on similar issues and taking different approaches, or you make linkages between groups that are working locally and you can see there is a larger pattern. They help in readjusting the way we locate our work.”

“They help us to maintain contacts and be energized.”

“To see that [globalization] is happening to all of us, also to bring more people—especially young people—into things so that they can understand how world trade takes place and who are the stakeholders.”

“By creating more of an international discussion. Globalization critics in the U.S. have this parochial focus on the impacts of globalization on the U.S., and less on the effects on people abroad. The WSF process helps break that down. For example, in the case of Enron, much of the policy debate has been focused on the impacts in the U.S., yet Enron bulldozed communities elsewhere and that aspect does not play as big as it should in NGO campaigns.”

“As far as advancing the movement of global activists, I believe the recognition of commonalties is very powerful and the ultimate movement toward collective events to change the status quo can be quite effective.”

Q. Would you recommend anything that globalization activists or organizations like the IRC can do to forge better local/global links—either in terms of policy advocacy, citizen action, or popular education?

“Much of the material written is from the standpoint of policy activists working to change the government without emphasis on local issues. New tools and language needs to be developed to reverse the framework.”

“A report needs to be produced in layman terms that the everyday person can understand about world globalization issues.”

“What’s missing for local people in grassroots organizations are real stories about real people and what they are doing in other parts of the world. Analysis is fine, but grassroots organizers need to bring stories of other working folks from around the world to their people.”

“Very few Americans are paying attention to what is happening outside U.S. borders. It’s bad for the United States and it’s bad for the rest of the world. Whatever happens here affects everyone on the planet, therefore needs to be informed by everyone on the planet. We need to get much more—particularly grassroots participation in the U.S.—in these kinds of activities without turning them into another U.S.-dominated event. For their own sake as much as anything else we need to get more grassroots in the U.S. involved—to become knowledgeable internationally.”

“Popular education is critical, but needs to be followed up with a ‘what you can do for immediate action.’ The education should focus on the actions of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations in countries abroad through trade and finance as well as militarization.”

“Compilation of a list of educational resource materials, which are available for free or cost and how they can be obtained.”

“The intent of the July 2002 meeting in Chicago organized by Jobs with Justice was to get more grassroots organizations that are mass-based to the [WSF]. It’s time to figure out how to do education around these issues. They are looking at ‘what would it be that would bring the FTAA to be an important issue for your group, and what kind of education would work?’ Most of the info available is not geared to low-literacy groups.”

“People have to meet one-on-one—there are no shortcuts. Relationships with people are key. People need to talk and get together internationally otherwise we stay locked in our local issues.”

“A newsletter.”

“Prioritize (1) affirmative recognition and ongoing collaboration with people of color whose orientation and/or activists links are organically tied to grassroots communities most in need from the ravages of “pre-globalization” and globalization; (2) ongoing collaboration with other civil society groups to leverage liberal media and open alternative mass media outlets to contend with the generally supportive relationship between mainstream media and the neoliberal status quo (Republicans and Democrats).”

“Folks should attend the WSF, and other conferences. Specifically, however, global activists’ main work should be in their own communities.”

“More public education efforts—talks, reading groups, and education through action. Working on outlining and strategizing what a global bargain would look like and moving away from nationalism as a tactical response to globalization.”

“We need to work to identify activists in Latin America to work on common issues and to highlight the shared threats to livelihoods posed by the FTAA.”

“By providing research help regarding economic globalization impacts and help to translate this information into popular education materials. By providing lobbying materials using impacts of globalization data for local groups to use with their congressional representatives. By providing a private website with membership required, a listserv, or similar mechanism for local groups to share their local/global work. By providing experts who can analyze and demystify the complexities of international trade agreements such as the WTO, the FTAA, etc. By developing a group of legal experts on international trade issues who could help formulate the links between local legislation and international treaties. These experts can formulate alternatives using legal basis.”

“To better link organizations, an exchange program that would involve exchanging people from one community to another that may share the same issue with the purpose of exploring different ways to address the stated issue and taking their experience back to their community and having that translate into policy advocacy, citizen action, or popular education.”

“Writing on real structural changes that can happen, for instance, with the IMF. Make it relevant to local problems. But how do you move it to policy?”

“Help put things in a global perspective. Global warming is a problem, but we don’t know how it fits into the international energy markets. Ties of specific coal companies to other international players. When Kentucky coal gets played off against Chinese coal, how that all fits together.”

“We work with organizations and individuals in many countries who are committed, experienced, and dynamic. The problem we often face is the lack of resources they have to drive the work forward. It may help [for northern NGOs] to work more closely with Southern partners; they often live a different reality and bring a much-needed perspective to the movement.”

“Create a global coalition which brings together top organizations from each country to forward policies and citizen actions.”

“I think that local groups need some down-to-earth popular education materials about things like the World Bank, IMF, FTAA, fast track, etc.”

Q. Was there a non-U.S. group(s) or organization(s) present at the Porto Alegre summit that you would you like to continue networking and dialoguing with?

“The coalition around a treaty initiative to ban the patenting of lifeforms. Some members include Council of Canadians, Via Campesina, Vandana Shiva, Foundation on Economic Trends, Green Party of Italy.”

“CUT (Brazil) and Canadian autoworkers. We have a long-standing relationship with the FAT.”

“European Parliament leaders linked up with us later, and then the European Green Party.”

“We helped to form a NYC social forum.”

“We strengthened ties with groups in South Africa, India, Mexico, Bolivia, and some European countries.”

“The Hemispheric Social Alliance. Bolivia water activists. Convening groups of the WSF in Brazil.”

“We are working more with ILO. Also, Brazilian trade unionists.”

“We are working with Alliance for Responsible Trade about grassroots organizing and FTAA. Also agreed to work with MST (Brazil’s landless movement) and are trying to figure out how to work on the Sara Lee campaign with SEDEPAC more.”

“We already had a network, the Global Policy Network, that existed prior to the WSF. We’d also like to expand working with Brazilian and Argentinean groups.”

“Hemisphere Social Alliance. Convergence of Movements of the Peoples of the Americas. Red Mexicana de Acción contra el Libre Comercio. Encuentro Hemisférico de Lucha contra el ALCA.”

“We’re sponsoring a worker from Brazil and Ecuador this month and encouraging our members to participate.”

“Polaris Institute.”

“Intergalactica, which was a national student organization working on labor issues. Also the Argentine and Brazilian student associations.”

“We’re now involved in the Asian Social Forum.”

Q. Is there anything else you would like to share about local/global links or the World Social Forum?

“We are a bit concerned that in some places energy is going into organizing local WSFs rather than doing the direct, on-the-ground organizing that builds a base for true internationalism.”

“I greatly appreciated the diversity of opinion on strategies, tactics, and expression.”

“The real challenge is making the work being done on global issues and policy not take away from local campaigns.”

“In terms of event logistics: the good thing is to have so many people; but the bad thing is to have so many people. With the larger panels you can feel that a government can be helped to move forward, but there’s no way to make a space big enough for everyone.”

“Organizing between forums is critical for the WSF to become a better strategic tool. Also, there need to be more opportunities for people with common interests to come together at the event, as opposed to large panels.”

“There were a lot of disconnects. The forums were so huge and there was a power imbalance in the forums—world-renowned speakers, but participants were from small organizations, representing several countries and constituencies. Old timers vs. young timers—there was a youth camp but they didn’t feel ‘in’ at ‘adult’ gatherings. There were more small group opportunities at the youth camp.”

“It was kind of random and a little chaotic.”

“Regional forums would provide more specific time to focus on campaign issues and build stronger, more durable ties.”

“Were there any nonwhite representatives at the New York WSF?”

“A North American social forum would be a good initiative. We need to start talking in North America terms because NAFTA is here and the elite-level integration it promotes has strengthened capital as a class, and as a supranational class. The process of integration has abandoned and suppressed democracy. We need to identify a progressive vision for North America. After NAFTA, many activists went on to go after the FTAA, but again, what is the positive, alternative vision for the hemisphere? A focus on North America wold be more do-able (only 3 countries), represent a microcosm, and enable us to engage the issue of how people have used nationalism and sovereignty as their framework for resistance (which is understandable in tactical terms, if unsatisfactory in strategic terms).”

“WSF is pretty narrowly conceived through a Latin American lens, anti-capitalist critique. Other events are more international in scope. Usually the critiques and analysis are broader, not stuck in a Marxist-capitalist critique, and with a bigger world view.”

“Any decisions that are made regardless of local or global will have consequences. That’s why everyone should be informed and participate in the decisionmaking process.”

“We need to start talking about a global bargain—what do workers in developing countries need, what do workers in advanced industrial countries need, and how can we devise a bargain that enables us to work together to achieve those goals. An obstacle to effective collaborative work is that issues are often seen as between countries as opposed to class issues (e.g., under NAFTA working people in all three countries lost). Nationalism is an obstacle in both North and South.”

Join our network to receive email announcements that tell you when new items like this article are posted to the Americas Program website. Information on our privacy policy is available on our network sign-up page.

See Appendices for further information.

Published by the Americas Program of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC). ©2002. All rights reserved.

Recommended citation:
“Porto Alegre & Beyond: Following up on the World Social Forum 2002,” Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC). Silver City, NM: November 2002.

Web location:
http://www.americaspolicy.org/reports/2002/0211wsf.html