Alternatives International

The VI World Social Forum Caracas 2006

Carlos TORRES — 2005-12-05T05:00:00Z

Latin America appears to be walking definitively into a new political age and the year 2005 illustrates that there are several main issues affecting the political compass of this region. One of the main findings of current analyses of the ‘conjuncture' relates to the more aggressive foreign policies of the US that are creating distress in this region of the world. This aggression has been met with intense popular resistance and mobilization against neo-liberal policies and US strategies of intervention in the region.

Sites of popular resistance, as the cases of Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina demonstrate, represent pieces of a much more sizeable struggle developing in the continent. Mobilization against the CAFTA in Central America, renewed efforts of the Zapatistas for gaining a higher profile in Mexico, and the Bolivarian democratic revolution at the epicenter of this process characterize a clear pattern of resistance. The Cuban Revolution, on the other hand, has managed to keep relentless US belligerence at bay only by paying a high economic, social and political toll. The US is responsible for all types of open and underground harassment toward the well-being of Cubans and against Cuba's political and economic sovereignty.

The crisis of the PT in Brazil, however, has added a new dimension to political analysis of the region. Since being elected to office the PT has managed to adopt an independent foreign posture and has also contributed to the vast resurgence of the Latin American left. In that regard a misreading of the crisis and premature political castigation of the PT's course of action would be premature. Without the PT and its influence in the region we might witness renewed efforts by the US to attack Latin America.

Surfing on this dynamic, social mobilization and electoral victories have propelled the left to once again strengthen its presence in several countries. These tactics have also proven that the left in most of the countries of the southern region of the continent can be creative and capable of confronting neoliberals while resisting US aggression.

It must be pointed out that in the US, George W. Bush is quickly losing support for his hostile international policies, which may materialize into another US defeat in war. The Bush anti-terrorist campaign is not paying off and this failure coincides with high oil prices that have been hitting hard vast sectors of the economy, large middle sectors and poor communities in the US. Sooner, rather than later, the US will have to retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan revealing that the age of empire has reached its expiration date.

This international context also creates new challenges for the next polycentric World Social Forum and the II Americas Social Forum, which need to address not only the big themes, but also issues related more to the region itself. Therefore, the WSF must deal with political, democratic, international and ideological concerns at its next gathering.

The last WSF realized two key improvements; one had to do with methodological innovations, which included the self-organized events, and the territorial social building of the Forum. These changes encompassed the idea of polycentrism or a decentralized forum, embedded within a main global agenda tackling the specificity of each region in which the WSF is organized. Although all of these developments represent a step forward, they also raise new challenges related to articulation, networking, convergence and outcomes for the Forum.

However, the most important question is related to the need for enhancing and deepening the political debate of the events taking place during the 2006 WSF. In that sense, one important concern is the appropriate use of the political capital of past Forums. In other words, the newly created Hemispheric Council has fully endorsed the history and the charter of the WSF, but it must also develop the goals of the WSF. The Polycentric WSF must preserve its international character, blending self-organization and co-managed practices and events, which represent the diversity of the “Political Culture of the Forum”.

The thematic axes for the next Forum illustrate a clear and unequivocal pattern of concern for neoliberalism and US aggression. The debate and discussions will focus on,

Power, politics and social emancipation
Imperial strategies and peoples' resistance
Resources and rights for life
Diversity, identities and cosmo-visions
Work, exploitation and reproduction of life
Communication, culture and education

Gender and diversity were defined as transversal axes and there is concurrence in terms of strongly promoting policies of equality.

This' year forum will be especially important since the event will take place in a country in which a ‘truly existing' alternative is under construction, Venezuela represents today a site of resistance and struggle which is also influencing the political dynamic in the region. Attending the WSF in Caracas provides the participant in an event a double attraction; the Bolivarian Revolution and its developments and the world wide event with special emphasis on the process of building alternatives in the Americas.

The upcoming VI World Social Forum and the II Americas Social Forum already represent a step forward in terms of organization, content, expansion and politization. Its connection with the issues of the hemisphere and with the danger and challenges we are facing represents, beyond any illusion, an unmistakable development of the idea of the WSF that another world is possible and that it can be constructed in the real world!

Caracas December 5, 2005

Elections in Venezuela:

Carlos TORRES — 2005-12-04T05:00:00Z

After several attempts at deposing the government of President Hugo Chávez various right wing political groups decided to withdraw from the parliamentary elections that took place Sunday, December 4. Approximately five hundred contenders, of a total of more than five thousand parliamentary candidates, representing a little more than 8% of candidates, decided to abandon the electoral contest.

In addition to the withdrawals from the elections, six opposition parties out of a total of four hundred or so received no more than 2% of the partisan vote. Some of these parties, such as the AD (Social Democrats) and COPEI (Social Christians), represent the most traditional sectors of Venezuelan politics and this time experienced a reduction in voter preference. Likewise, the desertion of Primero Justicia from the liberal right will leave the ensemble of right win sectors involved in previous attempts at overthrowing Chávez' government almost entirely extra parliamentary.

Without doubt, the leadership of right wing sectors, that threaten to create a serious crisis of legitimacy for the government of President Chávez, represents a serious risk to the prevailing democratic system in Venezuela, which could even attract scrutiny and questioning from the international community. Nevertheless, the government counts on an indefinite amount of socio-political capital, which proponents of a coup with their violent strategies dare not challenge. Indeed, the Venezuelan people have not yet spent all of the energy and power with which they could react should they see their rights and victories achieved in the last ten years threatened. Thus far, the Venezuelan people have demonstrated their fortitude and capacity to mobilize when they put their lives on the line during the coup and the managers' strike. The opposition knows that time is not on its side because while it lacks a plan and strikes blindly into the air popular organizations grow, develop and multiply.

The right's electoral abandonment also seeks to strengthen its confrontational strategies to radicalize the next presidential electoral contest in 2006. This is occurring because oppositional sectors have ended up without viable strategies that could ensure an effective questioning of the government or even the possibility of reverting turning to conspiracy and coup. In an exhausting array of democratic and daring paths, the right has found itself without options while the democratic sectors of the centre have left as a manifesto their incapacity to proclaim themselves serious and valid spokespeople before the Bolivarian government.

On the one hand, these sectors, trapped between the dynamic forces of the revolution and the stigma of right wing conspirators, have seen themselves overcome by a rhythm that does not leave space for their ambivalent positions. On the other hand they have demonstrated their inability to even pretend to represent the interests of the popular sectors.

The elections yielded a result similar to previous parliamentary elections in terms of the popular vote, such as the 2000 elections in which there was an abstention rate of 67%. In those elections all of Venezuela's political parties participated leaving the precarious position of right wing parties exposed, a situation that has not improved today. For the right that governed almost half a century it was preferable to abandon a contest it knew was lost than to face an electoral tragedy.

The mayor of Caracas, Barrueto, affirmed that, “in spite of the levels of abstention, in this election the percentage of participation exceeds historical voter tendencies and in Caracas participation doubled, to almost 33%.”

According to the minister of Sports and Culture, Aristóbulo Izúris, for the right and the United Status that have already tried different scenarios, like the coup d'etat and the managers' strike, all that remains is to try to create a situation similar to Haiti.

Now more than ever the government of President Chávez can rely on the people mobilized in the context of the electoral contest. However, and this the president knows beyond a doubt, it would be naive not to contribute to more organization and development of social movements and political formations that rest on support for the process. The people's organizations have a historic opportunity to grow, strengthen democracy and expand their role in their own social and political development and in the strengthening of their conscience as actors and builders of the revolution that they support on their shoulders and have defended with their lives.

The Venezuelan right, as the right of America prepared it, has turned over conduct of politics to the United States. This has produced a political break from which the right will not be able to recover unless it reactivates its conspirator tendencies, which will spur public rejection. The Venezuelan people want peace and tranquility and whoever gambles on confrontation will be crushed by a force that seems to rest but does not sleep.

At the international level, the Bolivarian revolution counts on the backing and sympathy of vast sectors of public, democratic and progressive opinion. The role that the international community can play is tied to the efforts of the Venezuelan people. This context can and should motivate these broad sectors to reinforce the vastness of the initiatives to which one day state governments and institutions will provide political and moral support through a process that requires and deserves more than beautiful words and greetings of solidarity. The Bolivarian Revolution cannot abandon to indifference a humanity that survives on few hopes of liberation and “truly existing” reduced alternatives.

It is time to free ourselves of presupposed and twisted visions. The Bolivarian Revolution has demonstrated its shrewdness, vision and courage in continuing its process and confronting its detractors. The revolution has been capable of constructing itself against the dominant tendencies of the historical time that witnessed its birth. This new challenge can only strengthen the chosen path, be it the path of elections or the path of building its power, or better still through a combination of both. Its unexpected incursion only validates the maxim that history has surprises in store for us that not even the most lucid analyses can anticipate in advance.

Caracas diciembre 4, 2005

Report from the People's Summit of the Americas

Carlos TORRES — 2005-11-24T14:32:59Z

To accurately assess the People's Summit that took place November 1-5 in Mar del Plata (MDP) we need to look at the IV Summit of the Presidents of the Countries of the Americas as well. From there it will be possible to determine which group was more successful and why.

The FTAA Slow down

The aim of the Presidents' Summit was to reach an agreement on the terms of enacting the FTAA, or at least to establish a new protocol for continuing the negotiation process. For the US government this process represents a mere formality since they are signing an array of bi-lateral Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with specific countries or regions, such as the last FTA signed with the Central American countries, the CAFTA. Although the US government is trying to “lock” bi-lateral FTAs in order to create rings of pressure against the biggest and strongest economies of South America, which was the goal of the MDP, it has not been successful. President Kirchner, on behalf of the Mercosur countries and as host of the IV Summit, stated that “the US has a huge responsibility for what has been going on in the region since the Washington Consensus promoted a set of policies to be implemented in the Americas that contributed to the economic crisis and further instability in the region.” Moreover, he insisted that, “over the past several years the US has played a hegemonic role in the region, which has been economically and politically negative. Now they should help to solve these problems.” He added that, “the FTAA as conceived does not represent a step forward in an integration that can benefit everybody.”

Bush's Setback

Mar del Plata is a resort city and yet in the days immediately preceding the Summit, the city became a militarized zone. More than three thousand security personnel, CIA and FBI undercover agents, Apache helicopters, warships and warplanes equipped with missiles, tanks and military and police officers in the range of twelve thousand blocked highways and bridges and placed snipers in all major high rise buildings. All of this was done under the name of the so-called antiterrorist campaign and to protect Bush, but also to create a tense and threatening atmosphere, a sort of terror campaign which forced thousands of people out of the city and made many others afraid to attend the People's Summit. However, the anti-US slogans were clear and sound, from Chavez to the Madres of Plaza de Mayo and from Diego Maradona, a star former soccer player, to Blanca Chancoso, an Indigenous leader. Graffiti, placards, and statements from Argentine teachers and state worker unions who stopped working for twenty-four hours, demonstrated opposition to George Bush's visit.

There was a visibly uncomfortable context for George W. Bush's visit, in the Presidents' Summit, in the streets of Mar del Plata, and across Argentina. People completely rejected Bush's presence in that country. The mass media presented and extended coverage of the environment, the militarization of MDP and the organizing process of the People's Summit, as well as the issues related to the FTAA setback, which also embodied a setback for Bush's policies in Latin America.

The Counter Summit

In the meantime, just prior to the opening of the Presidents' Summit, President Chavez delivered a strong speech at the gathering at the Mundialito Stadium against the FTAA asserting that, “we should put our shovels together to bury the FTAA because it is dead.” More than fifty thousand people met to march for more than thirty blocks to listen to Chavez, Maradona and Evo Morales, who accompanied the Venezuelan President in the Soccer Stadium. This massive event marked the end of the People's Summit convened by Argentinean organizations and the Hemispheric Social Alliance. This Summit brought together more that twelve thousand people to participate in panels, workshops, and cultural and art events. As Nobel prize winner Pérez Esquivel stated, “we gather to promote self determination, independence and resistance to any form of domination and to advance structural and social changes by taking into account our cultural diversity and peoples' unity”.

Blanca Chancoso, the Indigenous leader representing the Hemispheric Alliance, gave the concluons of the III People's Summit to the President of Venezuela after reading it to the crowd. This statement asserts that, “the debt (foreign) must be cancelled; the Latin American countries are the true creditors and not the debtors; the FTAA is defeated and the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternatives for the Americas) represents an interesting integration proposal that should be seriously analyzed.” Furthermore, the document also asserts that a true integration can only happen if people's organizations are involved.

Step Forward

The People's Summit also gave space to a number of important events. The most central were perhaps the first Labour Forum of the Americas, as well as the Indigenous People's and the Women's Tribunals. For the first time in history the labour movements gathered to debate differences and agreements, leaving behind political and ideological prejudices to focus on the issues that affect workers. All majors trade unions of the region attended: the CLC of Canada, the Chilean CUT, the CTC of Cuba, and the Brazilian CUT. Also an array of labour coordinating bodies from the Andean, Central American and Caribbean regions, were there to take part in the event hosted by the two main unions of Argentina, the CTA and the CGT, which put their discrepancies aside to sit at the same table with the Orit and the AFL-CIO from the US. Union organizations discussed themes such as a Labour Platform of the Americas, Labour Movement and Free Trade, and Labour Movement vis-à-vis Alternatives of Integration. In Rafael Freire's wording, “The Labor Forum that for the first time met in this event can become a very useful instrument for workers from across the Americas to talk and exchange ideas and to further promote an integration process that will include every social sector affected by the integration. In the same token, Hassan Yussuff from the CLC pointed that, “we don't want an integration process led by a superpower because in Canada we are already aware of the impacts of this kind of integration in which the biggest ally imposes its own rules over the integration agreements violating its own signed agreements.” “Furthermore,” he insisted, “since September 11, 2001, Canadian security laws have been harmonized with US security laws, imposing another violation on our sovereignty.” He also cited cases in which Canadian citizens were arrested and sent to third countries where they suffered detention and torture. “We don't want that kind of integration, especially now that progressive governments elected in Latin America provide new opportunities for debates that can help us to move forward by truly working around the Labour Platform, which represents our agenda, but we can't do it by ourselves. We need to act in solidarity with women, Indigenous, landless and peasant movements across the hemisphere”.

Building a larger and stronger movement

In all, the Summit, which saw thousands of people gather in meetings and panels, and then march through the streets of MDP, demonstrated that there is a strong movement evolving both at the national and at the regional levels. This movement is also creating alliances with elected officials and governments through the municipal and state apparatus, gathering support and assistance, which is not always an easy process. Yet, the outcome of Mar del Plata would have been much different without this dynamic combination at work

Many hope that some of the peoples' leader can be elected to office following the path that Lula opened few years ago. And although people expect different outcomes from every specific process, hope is now focused on Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. The FTAA talks had to be postponed and for the time being we can celebrate a victory, even though the empire is restless and we should be conscious of it. The Hemispheric Social Alliance played a key role in the process; however, we would be fooling ourselves if we dismiss the role that progressive governments can play in expanding and consolidating the struggle we all embrace.

Carlos Torres
November 8-05