|
1)
Reply from Alan Benjamin to the Letter by CITU (India) Secretary W.R.
Varada Rajan Regarding the Statement by N. Vasudevan titled,
"Questions About the World Social Forum in India (January
2004)"
2)
Letter by CITU (India) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan Regarding the
Statement by N. Vasudevan titled, "Questions About the World Social
Forum in India (January 2004)"
3)
Initial Document by N. Vasudevan titled, "Questions About the World
Social Forum in India (January 2004)"
********************
1) Reply from Alan Benjamin to the Letter by Centre of Indian Trade
Unions (CITU) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan Regarding the World Social
Forum in India (January 2004)
October 9, 2003
Attention:
W.R.Varada Rajan
Secretary, CITU &
Member, IOC, WSF India
Dear Comrade Varada Rajan,
We thank you for sending us your remarks on Comrade N. Vasudevan's
letter regarding the World Social Forum (WSF) in Mumbai, India, in
January 2004. We are a bit surprised that you learned of the existence
of this letter only when it was posted to our ILC email list. Comrade
Vasudevan's letter was sent to the Organizing Committee of the World
Focial Forum in India on June 24th. As you are members of that
Organizing Committee, it is surprising that the letter was not
communicated to you at that time.
[Note: The original letter by N. Vasudevan titled "Questions
About the World Social Forum in India (January 2004)" is reprinted
below, following the Remarks by CITU Secretary W.R.Varada Rajan.--A.B.]
We understand that your letter expresses your point of view and not
necessarily that of the WSF Organizing Committee. We think this
discussion is useful. First and foremost, we wish to insist that we
fully agree with Comrade Vasudevan's conclusion, when he writes, "[W]e
would like to reiterate that we are always ready to join hands in
concrete struggles against the imperialist globalization -- which is
exploiting our country and people."
We in the International Liaison Committee for a Workers' International (ILC)
are convinced that this principle applies internationally: Political and
ideological differences among working class and anti-imperialist
organizations should in no way prevent us from engaging in common
actions around those points where there is agreement.
But precisely, as you explain in your letter, the WSF is not about
promoting concrete actions. Rather, it presents itself as a framework
for discussing the issue of globalization.
And for us, the entire framework of that discussion -- as formulated in
the main documents of the WSF -- is questionable because these documents
imply there should be a consensual agreement on points which are
contradictory, in our opinion, with the class independence of workers'
organizations and the requirements of an effective struggle against
capitalist exploitation.
You, of course, state explicitly that you did not deliver in this letter
a comprehensive answer to all the questions raised by Comrade
Vasudevan's letter. Therefore please regard our answer as a first
contribution to what we hope will be a continued discussion.
After your introductory remarks, you mainly return to the Charter of
Principles of the WSF. You underline the fact that the WSF "has
confined itself to seeking to increase the capacity for non-violent
social resistance." And you add, "[O]ne is free to debate
whether this seeks to exclude militant action or not."
Of course, the working class and oppressed peoples do not seek violence
for the sake of violence. They rely on their numbers, their organization
and their consciousness to defend their interests in the battle for
democracy.
But we are all aware that the ruling classes resort to violence. For
instance, as you know, the Brazilian landless peasants are occupying the
lands left fallow by the big landowners. Theirs is not a violent action,
nor is it an anti-democratic action. But the landowners are reacting
mercilessly by sending their armed goons to evict the landless peasants
from lands that should be theirs and by requiring that the State take
action against the landless peasants.
It so happens that the Brazilian government minister in charge of
Agrarian Reform was one of the main organizers of the previous World
Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil. This very same government official
is now telling the landless peasants they must "respect the
law," thereby condoning the violence on the part of the landowners
and the police against the landless peasants. Is this simply a
"matter of debate"?
You say that the WSF Charter clearly states its opposition to
"domination by capitalism and any form of imperialism." On
that point, it is worth quoting how the Charter of Principles formulates
the problem. The text reads as follows:
"The World Social Forum is an open meeting place for reflective
thinking, democratic debate of ideas, formulation of proposals, free
exchange of experiences and interlinking for effective action, by groups
and movements of civil society that are opposed to neoliberalism and to
domination of the world by capital and any form of imperialism, and are
committed to building a planetary society directed towards fruitful
relationships among humankind and between it and the Earth."
It goes on to state in its conclusion that "[T]he World Social
Forum is a process that encourages its participant organizations and
movements to situate their action from the local level to the national
level and seeking active participation in international context. Š"
In what type of institutions and "context" are the
organizations of the working class invited to participate? In the
general document, the WTO for instance, is not mentioned once -- and
therefore is not characterized. Could participation mean participation
in the WTO?
It is therefore not made explicit at all, as you claim, that "the
slogan 'another world is possible' visualizes a different world only
outside the framework of imperialist globalization and not within
that."
The ambiguity is reinforced by the permanent use of the formula
"civil society." But isn't that civil society divided into
social classes? Isn't society divided between exploiters and exploited,
oppressors and oppressed?
You say that NGOs are included in the WSF process. But the NGOs
explicitly present themselves as organizations that are not class
organizations.
In this sense, the framework established by the WSF is, on the one hand,
so broad that it does not allow working class organizations to express
within that framework the needs of the working class, and, on the other
hand, it is so restricted that it eliminates all the concrete problems
faced by the workers and oppressed peoples. For example such questions
as representative democracy, national sovereignty and unity, diminishing
costs of labor, labor laws, wages, pensions, etc., are not even on the
agenda.
You refer to the February 15th demonstrations against the war in Iraq.
Of course, many organizations that were part of the WSF took part in
those demonstrations. But they were not the only ones. In fact, the
first call for an International Day of Action was issued by U.S. trade
unionists not involved in the WSF process.
You should also know that those who around the world are the backbone of
the WSF -- for example, some of the large NGOs like ATTAC -- tried to
place that antiwar movement in a straitjacket by insisting that it get
behind and support the role of United Nations in Iraq.
You say further that the "WSF Charter only deprecates
"military organizations" or the "use of violence' ... as
a means of social control by the State."
That is not exact. What is said in point 9 of the WSF Charter is that
"Neither party representations nor military organizations shall
participate in the Forum." You will admit that at the very least
this is unclear. "Military organizations" could be national
liberation movements which have had to resort to military action against
imperialism and colonialism. This label could very well have applied in
the past to the Vietnamese National Liberation Front, or to the Algerian
National Liberation Front, and could apply today, for instance, to the
PLO.
The question of "the use of violence as a means of social control
by the states" only comes up in paragraph 10, and is introduced by
a sentence which says: "The WSF is opposed to all totalitarian and
reductionist views of the economy." Many people -- as we are sure
you will agree -- argue that Marxism is "reductionist."
The way in which the World Social Forum is funded is a legitimate
concern. For instance, as one of the preparatory stages of the World
Social Rorum, a European Social Forum is being held in Paris in the
coming weeks. The organizers boast about the fact that 87% of the
expenses are being paid with "public funds." But from where do
those public funds come? Mainly from the French government and from the
European Union institutions.
The present French government is engaged in a full-fledged attack
against workers' rights and gains, especially their pensions and
health-protection system. The assault on the working class by the French
government provoked this spring momentous strikes and huge
demonstrations. But this is the very same government that is funding the
European Social Forum.
Let us remember that previous World Social Forums were funded by various
sources, including, for instance, the Ford Foundation, the UN
Development Program and the departments of foreign affairs of various
governments (such as the Italian government, the Danish government, the
German government, and others).
This is, of course, only a first reply to your remarks. The discussion
must go on. We will, of course, share this exchange with all the
recipients of comrade Vasudevan's letter.
In solidarity,
Alan Benjamin,
for the ILC Support Committee
United States
********************
2) Letter by CITU (India) Secretary W.R. Varada Rajan Regarding the
Statement by N. Vasudevan titled, "Questions About the World Social
Forum in India (January 2004)"
Dear Friends,
We thank you for posting on the e-mail list serve a copy of a document
dated June 24, 2003, raising certain questions on the WSF 2004 being
organized in Mumbai in January next. We have received this on 8th Sept.
2003. We are sorry if we had missed out the same, had it been posted
earlier.
Your document is addressed to the India Organising Committee/Working
Committee of WSF India. A collective considered response must naturally
wait for some time. But, we deem it necessary to respond to some of your
questions, at least from the point of view of a trade union organisation
associated with the process. Hence this communication. We send in the
attachment two documents - one, the WSF Charter of Principles and two, a
write up (translated into English) by Francisco Whitekar on `WSF:Origin
and aims'. Surely, you must have had occasion to access the same
earlier. But, it is worth revisiting by you and your colleagues.
[Note: These texts can be accessed on the website of the World
Social Forum--A.B.]
The WSF is neither a movement nor an organisation with a top-down
hierarchy. It is at best a forum, free space, platform and a movement of
ideas. It seeks to provide space just for debate, formulating of
proposals, exchange of experience and visions of another world. It
interrelates organisations and movements and encourages the participant
organisations to situate their actions at local, national and
international contexts. In that sense it is a continuation of the
struggle against imperialist globalisation, which is gaining further
momentum with every protest against the forces and institutions, which
advocate and spearhead globalisation. But, it has confined itself to
seeking to increase the capacity for non-violent social resistance. (One
is free to debate whether this seeks to exclude `militant' actions or
not).
As far as our information goes, heads of governments or their
representatives are not allowed participation in the events organised by
the WSF Organising Committees. Even, when Lula addressed the WSF
gathering in January 2003, after he became the President of Brazil, it
was explained that as a customary courtesy, the head of the government
of the state, where the event is organised, was invited. Such
invitations were extended to his processor as well, but they were not
honoured. President Chavez of Venezuela, who was present in Porto Algre
during WSF 2003, did not address a WSF gathering; he was accorded a
reception at some other venue by some political groups in Porto Alegre.
Again, the WSF process is firmly opposed to imperialism. It is not
selective. Not does it confine itself to opposing US imperialism only.
The Charter clearly states its opposition to "domination by
capitalism and any form of imperialism".
You must have noticed that there is an upcoming trend, nationally as
well as internationally, where NGOs claiming to represent the 'civil
society', have been critical of political parties and traditional mass
movements/organisations. Even in India, while the mass organisations
have come together for united actions under the National Platform of
Mass Organisation (NPMO) , another outfit called National Alliance of
`People's Movement (NAPM) has also been active on various issues, in
different parts of the country. The WSF, which is inclusive, diverse and
open to pluralism, is participated by such NGOs as well. The terms
`civil society' `social movements' etc. have to be viewed in this
background.
As regards President Lula's participation in the WEF, it is his decision
as a head of the government and the idea of `building bridges' is
entirely his. Voices critical of Lula's participation in the WEF and his
idea of `building bridges' were loudly articulated during WSF 2003 in
Porto Alegre itself. The WSF - and the WSF 2004 at Mumbai - does not
have as its goal to 'build bridge' between WEF and WSF.
Your understanding that WSF does not go beyond debate and discussion and
no calls for action emanate from the WSF event is correct. The WSF does
not come out with any declaration even. But, utilising the platform of
WSF, mass organisations and social movements can and have come out with
action programmes. The February 15th protest against US war on Iraq was
one such occassion, in the immediate aftermath of WSF 2003.
Your assertion that coordinated global action against imperialism is
urgent and necessary is unexceptionable. But under the WSF process, only
the participant groups and organisations can collectively plan such
actions and WSF itself will not attempt to do that. It is a fact that on
issues like linking social clause to international trade, even the trade
unions in the North and South are divided. It is also true that even in
opposition to globalisation, there are class and non-class approaches.
The WSF Charter unequivocally states its "opposition to a process
of globalisation commanded by the large multinational corporations and
by the governments and international institutions at the service of
those corporations' interests, with the complicity of national
governments". The `mutual recognition' you have referred to is not
to compromise on this opposition but only to develop solidarity in
resisting it.
The slogan `Another World is Possible' visualises a different world only
outside the framework of imperialist globalisation and not within
that. Please also note that the foci issues for the WSF 2004 include
opposition to imperialist globalisation, militarism, communalism,
religions fanaticism and sectarianism violence, casteism, racism and
work/descent based exclusions and discriminations and patriarchy and for
world peace.
We are unable to locate where exactly the language 'organisations that
seek to take people's lives as a method of political action' figures in
any WSF literature. We shall thank you if you can give the specific
reference. But, the WSF Charter only deprecates 'military organisations',
'use of violence as a means of social control by the state' and 'all
domination and all subjugation of one person by another'. We agree with
your view that senseless sectarian violence has to be opposed. Nor do we
have any problem with the characteristics of the anti-imperialist
struggle of the present times noted by you.
The trade union sector consultations, so far held as part of the WSF
process, seek to broaden the global unity in action against
globalisation. Your suggestion that we should aim carrying further
forward the resistance struggle benchmarked by May 21 strike is very
much pervasive in the thinking of all of us, associating with the WSF
process in India, representing the working class.
The WSF process precludes party representations in the forum. But this
should not be constued to view WSF as an `apolitical' forum.
Globalisation is the political agenda of imperialism and resistance
thereto also has per force to be political. But, there is one
contentious issues over which debate lingers on, viz, interrelation
between social movements and political parties. We are aware that even
amongst us - trade unions opposed to the political agenda of imperialist
globalisation - there are divergence of views. Yet we have come together
to stage united actions. The WSF, we beleive, seeks to create a climate
of dialogue that will facilitate such a process.
The practical utility of WSF in the arena of people's action against
globalisation is itself a subject-matter of debate inside the WSF. There
are many, even among those associating with the WSF process, who raise
the issue of the WSF transcending beyond debate and discussions. But, it
is left to the wisdom of individuals and organisations either to raise
this issue by associating with the process or take a view from outside.
The six days of WSF 2004 at Mumbai, will at best serve to explode two
myths - one that 'There Is No Alternative' (TINA) to imperialist
globalisation and two people everywhere have accepted this globalisation
without reservation and none can choose to stay away from it. The
struggle against globalisation will march on - with political parties,
mass organisations and movements spearheading it is their own ways and
according to their own perceptions and priorities.
It is from this point of view that those associating with the WSF
process in India feel committing time and resources for the purpose is
worth something and may not be an exercise in futility.
We explicitly state that this is not a comprehensive response to the
points raised by you. Other friends from the trade unions and members of
the IOC and IWC may enrich this dialogue with their enlightened
contributions and interventions.
We trust you will come forward with a positive response on associating
with the WSF process in India.
We also request you to share this communication with all the recipients
of your document circulated through the list serve.
Greetings.
W.R.Varada Rajan
Secretary, CITU &
Member, IOC, WSF India
********************
3) Initial Document by N. Vasudevan
"Some Questions Raised by the Preparation of theWorld Social Forum
of 2004 (Mumbai, India)"
[Note: In January 2004, the World Social Forum will be held
in Mumbai (India) - not in Porto Alegre, Brazil, as in past years. The
document below was published by Indian trade union leaders. We consider
it a useful tool for international struggle. -- Editors, ILC
International Newsletter]
-----
From:
N. Vasudevan
Joint Convenor
Trade Union Solidarity Committee
India
June 24, 2003
To:
India Organising Committee/
India Working Committee
World Social Forum
India.
Friends,
For quite some time, we have been getting news about the upcoming World
Social Forum. In fact some comrades from our constituent unions had
attended the Asia Social Forum at Hyderabad and a preliminary meeting in
Mumbai, which was called to discuss the process of organising the World
Social Forum in India. Some friends have been suggesting that everyone
should associate with the WSF process in view of WSF's decision to hold
the next gathering in Mumbai in January 2004.
We have been discussing with friends and collecting information about
the WSF and feel there are some points requiring clarification from the
India Organising Committee and/or the India Working Committee, which we
believe, is the highest decision-making committee in India for WSF 2004.
We have gone through the WSF India document and guidelines and find that
there are several questions left unanswered. We are seeking the
following information in the hope that your reply would help us to make
up our mind regarding the process.
Firstly, we would like to be clear whether WSF sees itself as a movement
against the global imperialist system. Does it see itself as a
continuation of the struggle against imperialist globalisation that
gained a new momentum worldwide following the militant protests during
the WTO ministerial meeting at Seattle in 1999 and in other American,
European and Australian cities during gatherings of imperialist
governments and major policy-making bodies after that? If so, we wonder
why the WSF has been unable to organise any significant protests in the
last few years, but is placing all its resources into these large
worldwide gatherings without proposing any programme of direct
opposition to the imperialist agencies?
We are also disturbed by some reports that while the WSF has been
critical of US imperialism, it enjoys support from some other
imperialist governments and agencies in different ways, with some
representatives of such governments even participating in the WSF
process.
We would like to get a clarification, therefore, whether the WSF is in
any way linked by any source, force or financial agency directly or
indirectly to such bodies and governments who are supporters of
globalisation themselves and have their own imperialist interests to
further, even though they may oppose particular actions of other
imperialist powers on occasions.
Incidentally, as most of the trade unions in India have opposed the
"social clause" agenda of the WTO, believing that there are
imperialist interests behind this demand, and as one of the criteria for
participants is that they should oppose the imperialist globalisation,
we would like to know the WSF's position on the matter of the social
clause.
We would also like to know the approach of the WSF to the World Economic
Forum and its Davos meeting, especially in the light of some suggestions
that there be an attempt to "build bridges" between the two
bodies. This assumes importance in the light of reports that the leader
of the Workers Party (PT) of Brazil, Lula, one of the founding members
of the WSF, and an important speaker at WSF 2003 at Porto Alegre,
participated in the WEF meeting earlier this year. Is it true that a
goal is to "build bridges" between the WEF and WSF?
Further we would like to know what is meant in WSF papers by the term
"social movement". By claiming to be a social movement, the
WSF seems to want to provide space for all contradictory forces in
society. While doing so, the WSF says it is not a coalition, a platform,
an umbrella organisation, so on and so forth. Then what it is? And for
what objective is it being organised?
We understand that the WSF is a body for discussion and debate, and that
it does not propose to move towards evolving common action, though it is
not opposed to individual organisations or groups of organisations
taking up such a programme. The fact is that globalisation has caused
massive harm to the world's people and resources. Thus, we believe, co-ordinated
global action against imperialism is urgent and necessary. It is our
fear that if discussion and debates do not conclude in some commonly
accepted minimum programme of action, they can become a fruitless (even
if well meaning) effort and divert valuable time, energy and resources
of the people's movements and organisations from concrete action, which
is the need of the hour.
We would also like to get a clear definition as to what is meant by
"Civil Society". Is it the objective of the WSF to create
"another world" where workers, businessmen (whether small or
big) and even the representatives of Imperialist Governments (who will
be attending WSF in their "personal capacity") would remain
together without divided and contradictory interests? Since the charter
of principles of the WSF advocates "mutual" recognition among
its participant organisations and movements, as well as among the
participants and movements, and given that the WSF guidelines include
workers, on the one hand, and businessmen and industrialist, on the
other, isn't such "mutual" recognition tantamount to workers
accepting the system of exploitation as it exists? Is this not true?
So far the fight against globalisation has been waged by the victims of
globalisation. But the WSF policy guideline has advocated making space
for local businessmen and industrialists along with workers, peasants
and so on. We do not think that local businessmen and industrialists in
India are a section of society that is marginalised, unrecognised and
oppressed -- and for whom workers must "create space". They
are the only ones who have benefited from globalisation (except for some
of the genuinely small businessmen who have been affected by some of the
pro-imperialist policies of the government). Is it the suggestion of the
WSF that workers and peasants must collaborate with businessmen and
industrialists?
The WSF's slogan says, "Another World Is Possible". What is
not clear, however, is whether it is meant to say that "Another
world is possible" within the imperialist globalisation framework
or outside it.
The WSF's charter claims it is a social movement and gives an impression
that it is far removed from politics. But the document speaks at some
stage about creating "a political climate of dialogue across
differences". What differences the WSF would like to smoothen and
iron out is not clear.
We are unable to understand the import of the clause that bars "organisations
that seek to take people's lives as a method of political action".
Is this a reference to armed struggle in self-defence? As trade
unionists, we do not use or propagate such methods ourselves, and are
also opposed to acts of senseless violence in the name of peoples'
issues or for narrow, often sectarian goals. But taking a broader view
of history, we learn that movements based on such philosophies have
played important roles at various times, and some continue to do so
today. We fail to understand how any anti-imperialist struggle can
completely rule out this form of political action considering the
day-by-day increase in pro-imperialist state violence and fascist
attacks on the peoples' movements.
Since all of us are called upon to spend considerable resources and time
in organising this WSF, as trade unionists we would be interested in
knowing as to how the WSF's process will lift the trade union movement
in India in its struggle for emancipation of labour, especially in the
context of the massive attack on workers' rights and benefits in recent
years, and how it will enhance the class struggle toward the creation of
a classless society. For instance, we would be happy to know, in what
way the WSF as a whole (we are not asking about individual organisations
within the committee, many of which played an important role in this
struggle) have contributed or would be contributing to achieve our
demands for which we have observed the successful May 21, 2003, general
strike in India?
Clarifications on the above points would help us in taking a decision,
since participating in the WSF organising process means allotting
resources, activists and time at the cost of other pressing
organisational activities. However, whatever may be our decision, we
would like to reiterate that we are always ready to join hands in
concrete struggles against the imperialist globalisation -- which is
exploiting our country and people.
N. Vasudevan
Joint Convenor
Trade Union Solidarity Committee
India
Back to
ILC Newsletter Index Back to
ILC Debate over WSF Index
|
Open World Conference of Workers